Transgressive literature is dead

I used to be a huge fan of Chuck Palahniuk. Well, that’s not exactly fair; I still consider myself a fan of his writing, but for different reasons. Palahniuk is good at two things: creating really memorable plots, and making fun of current popular culture. For that, I can respect him. But the truth of the matter is, no matter how you look at it, Palahniuk is not a truly transgressive writer.

Palahniuk describes some disgusting things in his book Haunted, most memorably, the story “guts.” This was a pretty disgusting story, yes; it was very vivid and explicit, true. But people - supposedly even Palahniuk himself - circulated rumors about people supposedly passing out during readings of it, which simply never happened, to try to make it more controversial. OK, this worked, and “Guts” is always going to be a notorious story. But I can’t consider it transgressive fiction. Why? Because the taboos are all still there in the characters’ own minds. Everyone in Palahniuk’s work is self-loathing, disgusted with their own behavior, and this is still setting up an implicit boundary between the narrator and the reader.

Furthermore, his last effort, Snuff, was simply an awful book. It was about a woman who gets gang-banged to death. You would think that a story about a woman who gets gang-banged to death would actually be somewhat shocking, but the book manages to make it SO booooorrrriiiiing that I frequently found myself thinking, “this is what passes for edgy these days?” Putting aside that the narrative is poorly pieced together, and that the multiple characters in the story are woven into the plot in the most clunky way possible, THE PREMISE OF THE BOOK IS NOT INTERESTING. And it is not transgressive. I can’t stand seeing Palahniuk described as a transgressive writer.

First of all, true transgressive fiction, to me, is marked by characters who LOVE what they are doing, who actively participate in the sickest shit imaginable and never once have even a passing thought that what they are doing is wrong in any way. This is the thread that drives books like Crash and Hogg. The behavior of the narrators, though it seems utterly revolting to the reader, just comes naturally to the narrator and there’s never any internal monolog about whether or not it’s the “right thing” to do. And secondly, though people will write about sex and gore, they still refuse to touch the one last true taboo in our society, which is race. I have yet to see a current novel with a bigoted narrator - a genuinely bigoted one, for whom everything involving race, religion or even gender is crude, vile and completely against the values of polite society. That is something that has the potential to create a true transgressive novel and yet I’m not seeing it, unless there’s some really obscure writer out there who I don’t know about.

Where is our next Ballard, our next Delany, our next Keshner? Are people nowadays afraid to write what they really want to? I’m starting to wonder if maybe the internet - despite the anonymity that it can confer on someone - is also a deterrent to a genuinely talented writer putting a truly transgressive work out there, because he’s afraid that somehow, through the wonders of information technology, every potential employer is going to find out about it and it might ruin his chances of success forever?

What do you think?

There will never be another Ballard.

But.

Read some Kathy Acker.

Also, see *Antichrist *when it comes out.

If you prefer someone still alive, Carlton Mellick III might be your cup of tea. Baby Jesus Buttplug is my favorite.

I think you haven’t read Poppy Z. Brite’s LOST SOULS- gay parent/child vampire incest.

And as for race, ever hear of THE TURNER DIARIES?

First of all, Poppy Z. Brite is not transgressive literature. Stuff like homosexuality, incest and vampires does not in itself constitute transgressive fiction. I don’t mean any offense here at all, but I don’t think you really understand what “transgressive fiction” means. It doesn’t just mean fiction that happens to contain some shocking or iconoclastic stuff; it’s literature in which the protagonists are typically devoid of any kind of moral grounding or sense of right and wrong, and live only for their next orgasm or visceral thrill - usually at the expense of someone else’s well-being, and often their very life. People who view the other people in their lives as completely useless except to provide them with gratification (usually of the type that would be revolting to any normal person, but is completely normal and almost instinctive to them.) A true work of transgressive fiction won’t merely smash and debase the commonly-held values of decency for the sake of making a point; rather, it will completely disregard those values. The characters won’t even think - they will just act, and do whatever it takes to get their satisfaction, without a second thought as to whether or not it’s “right” or “wrong.” They don’t have a “right” and a “wrong.”

J.G. Ballard’s Crash and Samuel Delany’s Hogg are probably the two most definitive works of transgressive literature.

As to “The Turner Diaries,” it’s a shitty novel written by a crackpot with a white-supremacist agenda. That’s not really literature, it’s propaganda, and I don’t think it qualifies here.

What, so ‘transgressive literature’ is a genre populated exclusively by cardboard protagonists who don’t ‘think’? Sounds awful. It also sounds like it has some sort of social or moral purpose, could you confirm my fears?

Did you read Palahniuk’s latest bird cage liner, Pygmy? Barely readable tripe. Palahniuk is so desperately, and so transparently, trying to be shocking just for the notoriety of being shocking.

I liked Pygmy. The gay rape scene made me laugh my ass off.

I don’t think Palahniuk is trying to be particularly shocking. If that’s all you think he’s going for then you’re missing the point.

By the way, if you want to talk transgressive literature, don’t leave out Bret Easton Ellis. He’s one of my favorite writers (I have an autographed copy of Lunar Park). I think American Psycho is a brilliant work of social satire.

This might not be a genre that is particularly open to deconstruction from outside. For one thing, it might be positioning itself as post-everything - pre-deconstructed for your convenience.

Oh, I got the point; *“biting social satire, a skewed view of a stereotypical America from an outsider, the tragic and contagious sickness of capitalist society, yada, yada, yada…” *. I just think it’s been done before by much better writers who didn’t fixate on things engineered to make the Average Joe/Jane swoon with genteel disgust or make rapt readers whisper, "…oooooohhh, this author is edgy, "in hushed tones of admiration.

As noted by your last comment, Bret Easton Ellis pulled off the whole “twisted vision of American pop culture” bit years ago and did a much, much better job of it. American Psycho was brilliant; Pygmy was just fucking silly.

I don’t think Pygmy is a masterpiece or anything, and the broken English affect of the narrative got old, but I did think it was funny in parts. I think Palahniuk is a good technical writer and has some nice social insights (for instance, I liked the commentary on the craving for celebrity in Haunted). I appreciate that he doesn’t care about following formulas or adhering to moral conventions or expectations in storytelling, but I do find that I almost always start to get tired of his books before I finish them. There isn’t much warmth or heart in them.

Serious question. Would Donald Westlake’s Richard Stark’s Parker novels qualify as transgressive fiction by this definition?

And don’t worry. There’s always new taboos to break.

That’s not quite the definition of transgressive fiction that I understand. The protagonist does, indeed, disregard societal rules and morals. But they may well have some deep thoughts about their own rules, morals, and path through life. They’re trying to get ahead in their own way, a lot of the time. It’s not just debased refusal to play society’s games, it’s debased celebration of playing their own games.

tried any Dennis Cooper?

I read Hogg, or at least I tried to. Halfway through I got so *bored *I had to give up. Every scene was the exact same thing over and over. How many times must I read about a guy pissing in someone’s mouth?

Well, I suppose there’s always the Marquis de Sade.

The OP might find this recent and very controversial novel intriguing, as it’s told from the POV of an unrepentant Nazi: The Kindly Ones by Jonathan Littell.

Transgressive fiction is dead because there’s very little left to transgress. Furthermore, how can one piss on artistic standards when there are essentially none left?

I think you mean “a good writer from a technical standpoint.” Technical writer is a job description: if Palahniuk had written a crisply usable and well-organized software manual, you could call him a good technical writer.

I mean that he has good technique. He can turn a phrase. He flows. He has a distinct voice. He’s very precise. That sort of thing.

I guess I should have said he’s a “technically good writer,” instead of a “good technical writer.”