- Gebundene Ausgabe: 179 Seiten
- Verlag: Doubleday; Auflage: New. (4. Mai 2010)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 0385526350
- ISBN-13: 978-0385526357
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 14,5 x 2 x 22 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 2 Kundenrezensionen
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 755.366 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)
Tell-All (Englisch) Gebundene Ausgabe – 4. Mai 2010
|Neu ab||Gebraucht ab|
Kunden, die diesen Artikel angesehen haben, haben auch angesehen
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
Wenn Sie dieses Produkt verkaufen, möchten Sie über Seller Support Updates vorschlagen?
Every word he’s written about me is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’”
—An Unnamed Source
Chuck Palahniuk tackles Hollywood, in an hilarious assault on celebrity, and the Golden Age of Hollywood, when grand dames ruled the roost -- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine andere Ausgabe: Taschenbuch.Alle Produktbeschreibungen
Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Zur Geschichte: Ich-Erzählerin Hazie Coogan arbeitet seit Jahren als eine Art persönliche Bedienstete der Schauspielikone Katherine Kenton und berichtet zuvörderst über ihre großen Rollen sowie Männergeschichten. Auffallend dabei ist die Masse an Markennamen sowie Namen von berühmten Schauspielern, die auf jeder Seite des Romans fettgedruckt zu finden sind, teilweise begleitet von Tiergeräuschen verschiedenster Art: "Boar cluck, whinny...Perrier-Jouet. Tweet, quack, growl...Veuve Cliquot" (79). Was die Erzählerin damit zu bezwecken gedenkt, offenbart sie im Verlauf des Romans: "Even the mist illustrious names, once they're dead long enough, are reduced to silly animal sounds. Grant, bark, bray...Ford Madox Ford...Miriam Hopkins...Randle Ayrton" (178). Was sind schon Namen, selbst berühmte Namen, im Vergleich zum Lauf der Zeit, der alles einstmals Bekannte auf dümmliche Grunzgeräusche reduziert. Zwischen der Namedroppingorgie entfaltet sich eine Geschichte rund um ein Mordkomplott gegen Mrs Kenton.
Fazit: Eine Steigerung gegenüber den Vorgängerromanen ist zwar erkennbar und dennoch erreicht "Tell-All" zu keinem Zeitpunkt die Klasse und Genialität von Palahniuks Frühwerken. Zu selten kommt der Wortwitz alter Tage zum Vorschein, zu vorhersehbar entwickelt sich die Geschichte. Mal schauen, ob Palahniuk in Zukunft noch einmal das Niveau alter Tage erreichen kann.
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com
I could not relate with any of the characters or there situations or feelings. Therefore I felt no empathy for any of them. So I pretty much hung in hoping they'd all just die.
I like and sometimes love the writing of Chuck Palahniuk. This is not one of those times.
This is not in anyway the fault of Hillary Huber. No matter how you read an uninteresting story, it's still going to be uninteresting.
Execution: frustratingly bad. Seems phoned in, or like previous Palahniuk books but with the names changed. Trivia (in the form of name-dropping this time) used as filler, repetition used badly, and then overused. Ideas are repeated endlessly: something happens, or something is said, and then the same thing happens, or the same thing is said, just in a slightly different form to fill out a chapter, or "act," as Palahniuk calls them in this book. Again and again, one idea, just juggled around a bit in an attempt to make it seem new.
For example, much of the text centers around death plots involving Katherine, Palahniuk's lead (after the narrator). But if you read one, then you've pretty much read them all. Whether she is to die by falling from a building or getting hit by a bus, we get it. And don't want to read about it over and over again until the end of the book.
The author also appears to have bought a copy of Who's Who of the times and thrown every name he could in -- and what's creative about that?
I was sick and tired of reading animal sounds after the first couple pages, yet Palahniuk kept throwing them in there. Yep, cows say moo, dogs bark, pigs oink, people speak without meaning anything, just sounds. We got it the first ten times around. Stop saying it.
Some ideas here are just plain silly, like Katherine having a mirror on which changes to her face (like worry lines) are etched by Hazie. I get the concept behind it, but it doesn't work. A painting or an etching perhaps, but scratches on a mirror? Dumb. Maybe if he'd introduced some supernatural element, maybe if Katherine didn't age at all? Or wasn't real? Or was Hazie made up? I don't know, but this isn't a good story.
Slightly better than Pygmy, which was almost unreadably bad, but still far from the Palahniuk we really know and love. He's relying on the formula of his previous books, but they do not fit these new ideas; why does he not understand? They were good for the stories they told. New stories, new ideas, require new forms, new narrative techniques. Stop using all this filler garbage. Write harder.
Come on, Chuck. We know you can do better. I know you can. Otherwise, why do I keep buying your books?
First, lets start with the negative. The bold-facing name dropping does get old really fast. The point that he is trying to make is very quickly made and could have been a lot less forced. There were just too many names, and 90% of the time had absolutely zero effect on the story itself. It just took up space and felt like it was just convoluting the story. Also the book was really really short. Only about 180 pages. And it even took a bit longer than normal for the story to pick up and get into gear, and given the fact that this was only about 180 pages, meant that there was not all that much story to speak of.
Lets move on to the good stuff now. The story, while it was exciting, was good. Even though very predictable from early on, it was still exciting watching it unfold. In addition, the normal Chuck story elements are present, like the outrageous sex/murder scenes, the really morbid and a times extremely crude humor (like Webster's jokes about his manhood), and just his overall way of describing things. And that I always enjoy in his novel. I also really like the method of narrative he used. I thought it was effective to have a lot of the scenes told as if they were acted out with elements of hollywood in them. It was effective and had a very interesting (good) effect on the story.
Overall, I think this novel had some good potential derived from the elements that I listed above that I liked. Even the dropping of the darn bold faced names and a little less of it would have really made this a much more enjoyable story. But, all of this extraneous stuff just gets inbetween the story and the ability of the reader to enjoy it.