Overall, I liked that part of the novel, though. Some of the them were pretty simple, recycled ideas that Chuck has used before and done better. So, the text was sprinkled with little mantras and philosophies from Reynold’s book throughout, breaking up some of the interweaving plot points (I liked that there were no chapter breaks, just these nuggets of wisdom here and there). And, with the hardcover at least, when you took the dust jacket off the book, underneath it was the “dark blue book with gold lettering” written by Talbott Reynolds. I also really liked that there was a book within a book here and the whole story was set around this doctrine of some mythic revolutionary named Talbott Reynolds. I respected that he attacked everyone equally (progressive!) and made fun of the flavor of our society today. I don’t actually want to annihilate all of the men in the world, don’t you worry. On board in the sense that I love dark humor, social commentary, and Chuck’s particular brand of existential satire. I thought the book started really well and I was instantly on board with the “youth bulge” concept and the idea that the authorities were going to send all of the young men in America to be sacrificed in a faux war.
It was good, it was okay, and parts of it were very intriguing, but overall, it was a bit of a letdown.įor the most part, this was a solid satire about the modern atmosphere of our America (politics, race, and class) at the moment and has been described as Fight Club, but on a grander scale. So, while this was my first dabble back into Chuck’s work after a few years, I cannot say that it was the best. I enjoyed the book for sure, but compared to his other novels, it wasn’t my favorite. There was everything you would expect here, including biting humor, absurd vulgarity, grand ideas, and controversy. I really liked being back in Chuck’s mind and getting to explore another satirical future of his. Is it bad that I love this cover? It’s a freaking pop art cover with severed ears.
The entertainment value, the ability to titillate or provoke, came to be the litmus test of any new truth.”
This new untruth they propagated as the new truth. As consolation the remaining journalists convinced themselves that no absolute truths existed. “Telling the truth wasn’t sufficient power.
0 kommentar(er)
