Critque Analysis Of "Haunted"

The first review I found was from the Guardian Unlimited, this review is a positive one praising the authors work as an original masterpiece. In the review they state how the unique structure of this book adds to the originality and intricacy of the novel. The critique continues with stating how this is what Palahniuk's writing is, by referencing it to "Fight Club" and other famous works of the author it says there are distinct aspects that allow the reader to know they are reading true Palahniuk content. The book will begin to give a sense of satire (a natural to Palahniuk) and then it will throw you into a whirlwind and leave you shocked. The critique is clearly 100% for the book stating little to nil bad things about this novel. Also just like every single other review on this book it mentions one short story in particular "Guts" saying like the others it is the most horrific and nasty piece of literature that is guaranteed to make you sick. Personally I will agree with this review about 80-85%, I will agree this is an amazing piece of literature that will bring true shock to you, but this review is written as if "Haunted" is the world's greatest book it is a bit overconfident if you will.

The second review was from The Boston Globe a popular name in novel critiques. Their outlook on the novel was completely opposite from that of the Guardian. It did not say that it was a horrible book and should not be read. They simply explained it as a bunch of one off stories that could not be book but only short stories complied together and strung together using some weak plot. Their major upset was how that even though their were many different authors in the novel itself they all had the same identical style of writing that mirrors Palahniuks. Which to them was a bit of a bore. This review however did have some identical points such as, they both agreed that it was original and that Palahniuk has an amazing story telling ability. Also the mention of the grotesque story "Guts" was mentioned with the same warning. Again personally not a complete supporter of this review, but I can see where their coming from on this. It does lack the overall sense of wholeness that proper novels develop easily, but no matter the case it is by no means a worthless piece of literature. In fact this review stated that some of these stories alone have enough power in them to be satisfying enough. The truth is it quite difficult to find an unbiased review that looks deep only into the "meat" of the literature itself.

In my opinion this is a totally different aspect of literature and should be observed regardless of the content. The great part about this novel is that even though it has many different characters and viewpoints