Before venturing into the ever-perplexing conundrum that is time travel, a quick disclaimer: as much effort and time that was put into this “review,” Rant’s storyline and character relationships are about as clear as the tar he chews that stains his teeth black. There may be moments of utter confusion or thoughts of “these ideas are about one sandwich short of a picnic,” but stay on, at a minimum it’ll be an interesting ride.
You only live once.
But do you really only live once?
Contemporary transgressional author, Chuck Palahniuk, argues that people live their lives the way that they do because they’ve already lived that way. It’s similar to the ideology in Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five concerning a man pushing a button that ends the entire universe:
“’He has always pressed it, and he always will. We always let him and we always will let him. The moment is structured that way (149).’”
In both Palahniuk’s novels Rant (2007) and Diary (2001), the characters experience reincarnation in different ways. In Rant, the protagonist, Rant, is also his father Chester and friend Green Taylor Simms. They all coexist at the same time and interact with one another. At one point, Rant decides to leave home to join the counter-culture as a nighttimer—essentially being nocturnal, that is. Upon leaving, Chester tells his son Rant (or rather, himself), “’First thing, [soon] as you meet Echo Lawrence for the first time, you give her a big kiss for me (Rant 111).’” However, telling Rant he’s meeting Echo for the first time is a bit of a paradox since they have already met. Considering it’s coming from his father, a.k.a. himself…well, it’s easy to see how confusing things become.
It is unclear exactly how Rant/Chester/Simms jumps through time. It is also unclear as to how and to whom characters are related. The best conclusion that can be reached is that Simms was Rant in his first form. At some point in that first life, Simms discovers he could tinker with lineal time and “reverse pioneers” into “Liminal Time,” a warped kind of timeline where “nothing is born and nothing dies (Rant 265)." He seizes this opportunity to seek out his great-grandmother, Hattie, and rape her. Hattie gives birth to Esther, who he also rapes. Esther gives birth to Irene who gives birth to Rant—a super-version of Simms whose abilities include an extremely heightened sense of smell and taste. Simms “claims he felt stronger [with] every sperm that met an egg (Rant 259).” Each time, he tried to better his future self who didn’t want improvement.
 |
| The author, basking in his own glory, no doubt (I would be if I was him). |
In Diary, artist-turned-pawn Misty Marie Wilmot is drugged, restrained, and coerced to paint. Paint a mural. Paint a house she’s never seen. Paint things in strokes of perfect arcs, exact angles, each pass as flawless as the last. What she realizes too late is that she paints so beautifully because she’s painted it all before. The inhabitants of Waytansea Island know who she is. From her diary in a previous life, they know every move she’ll make without her being aware of it.
Palahniuk argues here that mistakes happen because they always have. Misty lived the same life as two women, Constance and Maura. Throughout Diary, Misty finds engravings, painted-over writings, penciled-in words of warning in library books.
“’Do not paint them their pictures (Diary 70).’”
“’They would have you kill all of God’s children to save theirs (Diary 71).’”
“’You’ll die when they’re done with you (Diary 89).’”
While warnings outside of a fictitious island are not as direct or as personal as those in Diary, Palahniuk’s argument is that they still exist. But like Misty Marie, these caveats (albeit much subtler) go unnoticed by eyes preoccupied with hurl-inducing, sweater vested homophobes and pregnant, unnaturally Dorito-colored* reality stars.
What is desirable to be seen is seen and what isn’t is simply ignored. Just look at the recent, tragic school shooting at Chardon. Were there warning signs? Yes. Aggravators? Yes. A post on a social media site that flat-out stated the plan would be carried out? Three for three.
It’s not only this event, it’s also every other one that is composed of the same silenced sirens. Palahniuk encourages stepping out of what is comfortable and really think actions through. Irene Casey made sure of that after seeing her family “inhaling [her] food, [talking] plans about something next, [always] living months into the future (Rant 91).” She began placing sharp slivers of nutshells, balls of tin foil, toothpick splinters, in the food she prepared. She forces people to stop rushing through things and take time to consider—a theme prevalent throughout Palahniuk’s other works (Fight Club, Snuff, Survivor).
The next time a significant decision comes up, take a moment to think—it’s probably a decision that’s already been made. That phantom voice, intuition, encourages a choice, right or wrong. Following Palahniuk’s logic, choice is about as real as the chance of Heroes making a comeback on NBC. So as the French say (or maybe don’t), allez-y doucement. Instead of stressing over something that nobody has real control over, read a book, write a song, mug a stranger. Just don’t overthink—it is what it is. I'd give Rant a C (for confusing, creepy, and cwhat in the world did I just read?), but I probably already have.
*as opposed to naturally Dorito-colored which only applies to Oompa Loompas and Doritos
*as opposed to naturally Dorito-colored which only applies to Oompa Loompas and Doritos
