Chuck Palahniuk is detested by his critics and adored by his fans. The author’s writing dictates no half measures – it’s love OR hate. And of course, there is always the third party which just doesn’t get it. Okay and a fourth party that appreciate from a distance but don’t get involved. Palahniuk is the Marilyn Manson of literature. He has been labelled a “shock writer” – similar to Manson‘s “shock rocker” title. I despise the use of the term shock in this context. Both novelist and singer certainly pack a punch but the reductive properties of the term overwhelm its impact: a) The group of people that these artists appeal to are shocked by very little b) How about about looking past the ‘shock’ value to consider what the point of the so-called ‘shock’ tactic is – what are these artists trying to say? Attaching prefix/adjective shock to the name of an artist applies the principle of ‘shock for shock’s sake’ to the artist’s creation, and this is in turn suggestive of the laziness and ignorance of the word’s user. It is a word usually coined by the we don’t get it group – the group that, as a general rule, avoids the Why? question. (more…)