Talk:Diary (novel)

Plot summary...

First of all, the book doesn't take the form of a "coma diary". At least, that's not the impression that I got. Am I way off? Second of all, part of the every-four-generations-plot involved forcing corporations to scrub their names from the island, leaving the inhabitants in peace for a while. Also, "lured by old jewelry"? Really? I know it's tough to explain it in a brief summary, but that's just poorly written. --Chacharu (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A Bad Book

This book blows. The plot is boring, and the writing is pretentious. Read it as if you were watching an episode of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, and remember to laugh often. Or do something else entirely instead.

I really enjoyed the book. It's boring for the first few chapters because you don't really get what's going on, but it gets increasingly better throughout the remainder of the novel. It's one of those stories that provides more questions even as it answers old ones. Jeff Silvers 01:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I also enjoyed the book very much. The entire book is summed up to make complete sense by the letter to the author on the very last page. I would recommend Diary to anybody who enjoyed good literature, which obviously does not include the first anonymous poster. 35.11.242.130 21:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And even so, this is not place for opinion, more a place to discuss the edition of the article in question. If you didn't like the book, become famous, write a review, and we will probably include it in the article. If you did liked the book, same thing goes. 205.211.221.52 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I just finished it. While I had a hard time hanging on at first, the payoff at the end -- as with all of Palahniuk's pieces -- was worth it. I enjoyed it. --Chacharu (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like an ad

Needs to be neutralized. Satchfan 07:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, especially the huge "Acclaim" section. That either needs to be removed or tempered with a "Criticisms" section. Jeff Silvers 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it.-- ¢² Connor K.   22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Some of his best work is here...It could be Palahniuk's most ambitious novel to date, certainly the most ambitious since Fight Club." --The Washington Post Book World
• "Madly inventive...It simply, exuberantly, escapes literary categorization." --Los Angeles Times
• "Diary is far more inspired and philosophical than one would expect even from a top-drawer horror novel." --The Seattle Times/Post-Intelligencer
• "Palahniuk has never sounded more like a latter-day Kurt Vonnegut than he does here...Palahniuk is hitting his stride." --The New York Times
• "The closest thing to a plain old mystery Palahniuk has ever written...Stunning, funky stuff." --Entertainment Weekly
• "Daring...Palahniuk's inspiration comes from love of the vernacular of subculters, a black but cynical sense of humor, and a fondness for unusual plot twists...Ominous, shocking." --Chicago Sun-Times
• "Intriguing...Must read for art lovers and those who love a good puzzle." --The Baltimore Sun
• "Palahniuk continues to redefine 'scary' for his readers. Recalling such classic horror tales as Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, Diary 's dark side reveals itself slowly, quietly...Unravelling the mystery that Misty's life has become is as eye-opening for us as it is for her." --Chicago Tribune
• "In his inimitable style, Palahniuk has forged another chilling tale out of our deepest fears and given readers a Rosemary's Baby for the new millennium...Diary is Palahniuk at his harrowing best." --Bookpage
• "This is a book you won't soon forget." --The Hartford Courant
• "Palahniuk's pacing is impeccable...A compelling portrait of the artist as an unwitting conduit of evil." --The Boston Globe
• "Palahniuk is a bracingly toxic purveyor of dread and mounting horror. He makes nihilism fun." --Vanity Fair
• "Palahniuk delightfully pushes Diary into the ludicrous, but his restless intelligence coheres plotwise, and as always he makes his ideas move." --The Village Voice
• "To read a Chuck Palahniuk novel means being shocked, enlightened, disturbed, buoyed, horrified, delighted and perplexed---sometimes on a single page." --Pittsburg Tribune Review

Plot Summary

Could someone fix up the plot summary? It explains nothing about the conspiracy of the Islanders to become rich as well as drive away the summer people, and rather gives an extremely inaccurate one-sentence explanation of the ending. It's already marked for spoilers, so why not sum up what really happened? - 69.253.55.143 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have revised it to better explain the conspiracy, please review it.--OpBanana 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I really saw a different thing going on here. I always interpreted it not as "magical jewelry," but as past-life memories. It seemed to me like Chuck was hinting severly that she can draw these things because she was there in her last life. And the life before that. And the life before that. I didn't see the older citizens of the island staying in the motel because they were mesmerized, but because they were deliberately giving their lives to create insurance money for the next few generations. I dunno, maybe I read it wrong. 129.237.90.54 01:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mesmerization explains why the daughter, who set everyone on fire, had her eyes covered while she did so. It prevented her from being mesmerized herself so she could escape. Also, the book mentions mesmerization caused by artwork in a few places. You're right that most of the native islanders knew their fate when they went into the hotel however I recall some non-natives were also caught in the blaze, and if you will recall people were climbing INTO the building despite it being on fire because they were entranced by the artwork which had finally all been assembled into one piece. You could be right about the jewelery, I'm not very good at abstract analysis.--OpBanana 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do it, and I guess I could go look it up, but it's late and I'm lazy, but can someone please put the "SPOILERS WARNING" up? The summary pretty much gives away the entire book, and after sitting through the boring first 70% of the book, the end is really all you got left. Thanks Randy 09:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not likely that anyone will add a spoiler warning—and if one editor does, another editor will come along and remove it. The concensus seems to be that plot summary = spoilers, and that people are intelligent enough that adding an additional spoiler tag is unnecessary. Which makes sense to me: If you don't want to know what happens, you shouldn't be reading a plot summary in the first place. --ShelfSkewed Talk 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this article is copied directly off of the description on the back of the book. This may be a copyright infringement. I would recommend someone fix that. To 129.237.90.54, by even allowing themselves to look at the art, knowing well in advance that they'd be mesmerized by it, they were knowingly causing their own deaths. As for your analysis that the jewelry was not magical, that is correct. Allixpeeke 04:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I altered the first paragraph. I may add a section on characters as well. Allixpeeke 04:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)