The One Trailer TO RULE THEM ALL

(A Rather Belated) When Rant Met Jacob

I've been putting off this blog post. Partly because I was hospitalized for a week. Mostly because I couldn't come up with a comparison to Buster Casey, aka Rant, aka the protagonist in Palahniuk's novel Rant: An Oral Biography of Buster Casey (2007).

The closest character to whom I could equate Rant's traits is the island deity, Jacob, from every self-respecting person's favorite TV show (or at least top ten), LOST.

Rant enjoys seeking venomous creatures to bite him, as well as engaging in other reckless behaviors.
See also: infecting citizens with rabies
See also: a variation of demolition derby aka "Party Crashing"

I just stole the "see also" thing from Palahniuk's Choke (2001). I now understand why he used it, it rolls off the tongue--or rather, fingers--nicely. But I digress.

Aside from Rant's other abundant, psychotic  special qualities, he is, at heart, a mama's boy. He is known to only have a sparse handful of shirts and jeans to wear, despite his closetful of other clothing. Rant's mother wasted half of her life in embroidery-ing (106) Rant's shirts, vests, pants.

                  "Wouldn't hurt Rant's pride to wear rainbow glitter and embroidery to high school, but he couldn't tolerate what kids said about his ma's work. Kids saying she was a terrible artist. Saying she had no kind of talent. He wasn't wearing his heart on his sleeve. It's more like she'd sewn her own heart on Rant's sleeve (100)."

Basically, Rant is a guy of many quirks, some dangerous, some cruel, but bottom line, he still cares for his mother an awful lot. 

Now all-holy, all-knowing Jacob had a bit of a rough past too. Like the mother he identifies with murdered his birth mother and his twin became an evil smoke monster known as The Man in Black (ticka ticka). But let's get back to the point.
Jacob lives in obliviousness to the murder and accepts his new mother as his one and only. While his evil twin runs off (er rather...how does smoke move?) to join wreck survivors and attempt to bring Jacob with him , Jacob remains faithful to his mother. Even after learning the truth of his origins, Jacob still stays by his mother's side for thirty years.

Basically, Jacob has his share of issues, being a god and all, but bottom line, he cares for and knows who raised him--the only mother he ever knew.

For extra fun, Rant and Jacob share certain supernatural qualities.
Rant is also his father Chester and his friend Green Taylor Simms. The three of them coexist at the same time and interact with one another, but they are all one person who no longer possess a beginning or end. It's kind of a long story (319 pages long to be exact).

Jacob has been enchanted by his mother so that he and his smoky brotha cannot kill each other. He also defies age after he reaches adulthood. He protected the island for at least 2,000 years and also seems to be able to be in multiple places/times at once. "It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress (5x16)."

Jimmy Fallon said it best during his "Good Riddance" spoof at the 2010 Emmys:
 "The island, it was mythical, but in the end they died. I didn't understand it but I tried."

That's LOST for ya.

On an added note (I'm aware this post is getting dreadfully long and possibly hard to follow), I find it somewhat important to state that every time I tried to pick a certain aspect out of Rant to compare to another literary, theatrical, political, or other figure, I wound up relating back to Palahniuk's other works.

The mother complex thing is also apparent in Choke (2001).
See also: Diary (2003)


The reckless, thrill-seeking behavior: Fight Club (1996)
See also: Survivor (1999)
See also: Choke 
See also: Snuff (2008)


The idea of one person being reincarnated in a vicious cycle: Diary


Secretive counter-culture groups: Fight Club 

Fictionary

Fiction: fictitious, fabricated, made-up material
---------------------------------------------------
Nonfiction: not fiction

It's a pretty clear line to me.
For a story to be considered nonfiction, I think it should be 100% real. If an author takes liberties with a nonfiction story in order to increase sales, the genre should also change. It's like when you read advertisements that sound
REALLY PROMISING AND EXCITING*
                                                              and then you see this guy right here            ^
and your expectations are lowered considerably.
Darn you, formatting.

I do think there is something to be said for putting creative twists into what would otherwise be plainer. In that case, such as Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, giving a different genre such as the ever-paradoxical "nonfiction novel" would be appropriate.

But taking Mortensen and Frey's works into consideration, too much has been changed to even bother using up the space to type "non." If the author has to add and change details to make a story more marketable, maybe they shouldn't write it in the first place.

While fiction and nonfiction might seem like just genres, if a person is really trying to research something and is being intelligent and using nonfiction sources, it's important that it is nonfiction. Fluff might get you money, but it'll also bring you shame.

"I've never let my school interfere with my education." -Mark Twain

Now that that overused but still lovely quote is out of the way...

Genre fiction isn't less "worthy," it's simply different. It also depends on what qualifies as "worthy" I suppose. The worthiness of books required for a school's curriculum really depends on what the reader gets out of it, which might not be much depending on how it's taught. It depends. While genre fiction contains different information that literary fiction, that is not to say the same morals can't be obtained from both.

Is there a difference between literary and pop/comm/gen fiction? Mosdef. Literary fiction probably holds more morals, themes, and is written more eloquently. Genre fiction can be less tasteful and definitely less developed. I'm not sure there's a clean boundary between the two fiction types, though. I'm still trying to come up with an example, but I'm sure there are works out there that toe the lit/gen fiction line.

As for what constitutes "good," who knows. There's a panel of people out there who deem books "worthy" of lists (Best Books of 2011, etc), but again, it's subjective.

What I am sure of is that I don't agree with the theory of "Readicide." Firstly, the wordplay doesn't work at all. Secondly, just because someone doesn't like books that are taught in school does not mean that will make him or her hate reading outside of it. I'm not speaking for everyone, but that's true for me at least. Just because I could barely get through Grendel doesn't mean I'm never going to pick up a book again. There are so many out there that are different. It's like if the first time you tried an apple it was rotten. Yeah, maybe you'll have a slight resentment against them, but to think that every apple in the world will be like that when you go to eat it is ri-dic-u-lous.



Q: Are you good with swapping out Of Mice and Men for Twilight, for example?

A: I am not good with swapping anything out for Twilight, for example.

As for "real world" preparation, to sound redundant, it depends. It depends on your job whether or not genre fiction will be helpful in any way. I agree with Melissa Thomas that fantasy should be greater valued. Fantasy lets us escape (I know, I know, we've all heard that before) but seriously. Reading historical nonfiction will give you an escape but unless you're reading a creatively written work or really love nonfiction, you'll probably be bored to death.

Laura Miller says "There's that unwritten schism that literary writers get all the awards and commericals writers get all the success." I find this true, especially among recent bestsellers like, forgive me for mentioning it again, Twilight (sorry, Twi-hards). If it's popular and accessible, authors will churn books out like butter and readers will devour it like hungry, tasteless savages. Then proceed to build a franchise based on fluff and easy, simply-written reads.

Applewapples and Oranges

Several challenges would appear to a filmmaker trying to recreate Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange. Of course, that hasn't stopped Stanley Kubrick from doing so in 1971 nonetheless.
While I haven't seen the film itself, I imagine trying to incorporate the mix of Russian and Cockney used in the novel would prove a bit of a problem on the screen since it would lack context clues. Some elements in the  novel are also a bit violent and extremely disturbing, so content may also have to be edited out or reagrranged. I've seen only a short clip of the film and it was actually funny. It seems like it might
be one of those movies that are easier understood than the book. Humor just doesn't always
translate the same, and comparing books and movies is difficult.
There are several scenes that are key to the soul of the novel that need to remain in any
adaptation of it. I haven't gotten very far, but from what I've seen, an adaptation wouldn't
be too "horrorshow" without these scenes:

The first fightWhen we are first introduced to Alex and his "droogs," Pete, Georgie, and Dim, they are 15 years
young and wreaking havoc in the town. They are stripping down a full grown-man and threatening
him, beating him up. They get away from the police by stealing his money and buying drinks
for old ladies who praise them for it and tell the police they were good and there all night.
If this scene was left out, the viewer would miss the manipulative, disturbingly violent
aspect of these boys.

The HOMEAlex and the boys manipulate a couple living in a home and beat and knife the husband and
bind and rape the wife. If that's not messed up, I don't know what is. If that was left out,
it could be assumed that they are simply delinquents looking for a bit of fun. They're not.
The record store
Alex goes to pick up a new record and picks up two girls, no older than ten. He brings them
back to his house where his always absent "rabbitting" parents are still absent. He takes
them into his room and rapes them. I'm only on chapter four.

Three parts to cut?No specific insignificant parts come to mind. There are little details that I think could
be done without though.

-Cut back on the language
It's distracting to read and I couldn't even imagine watching a whole film like that (then
again, it may be like that and I just don't know)

-Cut out the whimsical crap
Dim is dim. This is reiterated no less than five times in the first few chapters. He's dumb,
I GET IT. And so would the audience.

-Alex cutting class
It's just not that important that here he is, feiging a headache. And there he goes, making
toast. Now maybe he'll get some music. Not essential.

Project the First

Theoretically promoting a book is proving to be quite the challenge. It’s not like a film where you can play the best parts in under 2 minutes. So as for ideas, they aren’t particularly profound or ground-breaking, but hey, no publicity is bad publicity.

Idea the first:

Create captivating posters. Put them by pay phones, in alleyways, on streetlights. Get people to stop and think about what they’re looking at. I don’t mean posters like, “here’s the book cover of the first edition of Survivor. Go read it.” I mean posters with references from the book that will draw readers in. At the beginning of the novel, the protagonist, Tender Branson, puts little stickers advertising himself as a suicide counselor (he’s not), but he’s really just using them to abuse power and tell suicidal people to kill themselves. But say you were walking down the road and saw one of these. Wouldn’t it make you stop and look into its roots further? For example:                                    

The number is the book's ISBN

       

Idea the second:

Creedish Cult member Halloween costumes! Don’t you hate seeing the same costumes year after year? Seriously, how many variations of a sexy nurse or zombie can you do? Not many. The Halloween industry needs a new muse. Search no more, industry! It’s Tender Branson to the rescue! For men, the costumes will consist of one unfitted, long-sleeved white shirt, baggy, pocketless pants, and a hideous brown wool coat. It doesn’t get more attractive than this! For the girls, unflattering maxi skirts and equally atrocious blouses. With costumes like these, you’ll be the model of an obedient Tender or Biddy and stand out! Huzzah!

Idea the third:

Tender Branson candy! We all know candy is more interesting when it pushes boundaries and maybe becomes a little scandalous. A little, mind you. Ever wanted your pills to taste delicious and heal you at the same time? Of course you have! The next time you go to reach for that boring Ibuprofen, opt for a Kohlercaine or Geriamazone instead. If you’re feeling adventurous, take both and mix in some Jodazones! You won’t have to worry about overdosing—it’s only chocolate candy! Each candy comes in its own prescription bottle.  Keep out of reach of kids—they’ll just try to take it from you! Just follow Tender Branson’s path and you’ll be set for life. And while you’re at it, grab a Latin dictionary and help Branson Inc. create and patent new candy names! Yum!

Book is a book is a book is a book...

...But you lose a certain sense of real when you read it on a screen.
A book is a round-trip ticket to an unkown destination. Whether or not you've read a summary, reviews, or seen the movie, you still won't know the whole story until you've read it.
They're like vacations that sell at AAA. Sure, the brochures might have a high-gloss finish of a white sand beach and skies so blue they must be photoshopped (they are), but you won't truly know what you're in for until you go there. They're kind of like that.
When you go on any kind of trip, it'll be memorable. Good or bad. Successful or disastrous. That trip will be sandwiched in that period of time in your life. If you write in the margins, you'll know what you were thinking. Coffee stain? That day you bought overpriced coffee and the new guy overfilled the cup. Remember? Books can be blank, but the ones that are read typically aren't. Unless you're obsessed with book cleanliness or something.
The same can't be said for reading on a Kindle, iPad, uh...Nook or whatever. It's a technologically dominated world. I share Tom Piazza's view of"I mean, you can give somebody a book; it has weight, it’s a gesture of faith in the future." The same can't be said for an eBook. It's like downloading every piece of music online and not looking at a CD. Or better, a record. Yes, I am one of those people.
It's reading things electronically that eradicates the personal value of books. Your iPad's "pages" will never fray. They will never be dog-eared. Or stained. Wrinkled. Torn. Memorable.
But you know what, Joe Meno, vous avez des idées avec lesquelles je suis d'accord. "The fact that books provide us the place to imagine is critically important, as it is there, in the imagination, that all sense of possibility rests." Sorry for the quote bomb. But yeah, I agree that the imagination that comes with reading a book of any kind is attributed to the person, not to the physical form of the book.
But I still want my hard cover and ripped pages and notes in the margins.
Once you read a book, really read it, not like skim-it-and-read-summaries-like-you-probably-did-for-Shakespeare, it sticks with you. You can't un-read it. Whether it meant a lot to you or not, you'll remember it. But mostly if it meant a lot to you.
Books take you places and when you leave it, you leave those places, and you can go back but when you read it the second time it won't be the same as the first time. When you read it the third time it won't be the same as the second. If you never read it again, then you'll never go back to that place. But you were there once, and that's what matters. Even if you read it on your $80 surrogate book.