Talk:Invisible Monsters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


What is the name of the illusion on the cover? 68.230.27.168 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an optical illusion. That isn't needed for the article, though; that's only one of several covers the book has had. -- LGagnon 11:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can the narrator's nonsense-speech be decoded, or is it gibberish? Examples: "Sejgfn di ofo utnbg," "Nei wucj iswisn sdnsud," "Evsf uyyb iuh," "Fgjrn iufnv si vuv," and "Xidi cniwuw sis sacnc!" 63.215.28.84 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary revision[edit]

I'm thinking about revising the summary for this. Granted it has a spoiler disclaimer, the revision starts out with a pretty big spoiler that is the name of the main character. (Which isn't revealed until the end of the book.) It should be simple enough to have a quick non spoiler summary, and then a spoiler summary. TotalTommyTerror 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Ok, I changed the plot summary. Here's why: The previous summary was way too spoiler heavy in my opinion. To me it would be akin to starting a summary to Fight Club by saying "The main character, Tyler Durden, has extreme emotional problems that cause him to manifest an illusion of himself that engages in raucous antics."

The summary for this book should not be the way it was. Much of the summary are secrets that are not revealed until very far into the book. TotalTommyTerror 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Quit Spoiling it[edit]

Someone with an agenda keeps reverting the character and non spoilered plot summary to a spoilered one. If you want to spoil it, then write a synopsis/summary with spoilers that follow in logical flow with the events in the book. Stop starting it with spoilers. If this persists I'll seek a motion to lock the page. TotalTommyTerror 16:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The character section is still laden with spoilers, including that Brady Alexander isn't a woman and that Manus and the male character from the beginning are the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.212.70 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The summary that is currently posted is completely wrong on so many parts. Brandy(Shane) doesn't have AIDS. It was gonorrhea, and no where in the book does it talk about Shane living with Manus. Manus was just the one who gave Shane gonorrhea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.221.246 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Feist's "Brandy Alexander"[edit]

The lyrics of Feist's song "Brandy Alexander"—"Goes down easy / It goes down easy"—strongly suggest that it's about the drink, not the character in Invisible Monsters. Unless you have a quote from Feist saying "I based this song on the character from Chuck Palahniuk's novel," please stop adding it to the article. --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Panic! At The Disco's "Time to Dance"[edit]

After just finishing Invisible Monsters, a friend of mine told me that the P!ATD song "Time To Dance" was about the book. I listened to it about 6 times. It sure it. It talks about Aubergine Dreams, hiding Estrogen, boys will be boys, and it quotes the book "Give me malice, give me your attention, give me a break", etc. Ginnyyyweasleyyy (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

→There's no citation. And even if it is, isn't that just trivia? (a5y (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Removal of "Influences in media" section[edit]

I've removed this entire section because A) WP discourages trivia sections, and that's what this was; and B) all of it was unreferenced—and unreferenced material may be removed at any time, per WP:V. If this material is returned to the article it should be properly sourced, and, rather than just given as a list of trivia, it should be rendered in prose and integrated with the article as a whole.--ShelfSkewed Talk 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers[edit]

One of the biggest draws of this novel is the mystery. Everything is revealed at the end. "Summary" does not mean "spoilers." It needs to be edited so that it doesn't spoil the ending for those who want to read it. It reveals all the identities of the characters. As a summary, it reveals far too much.

The Summary should be complete and reveal all, it would be a poor article that didn't include the full details somewhere in the article. WP:SPOILERS, completeness is important.
There are better and worse ways of doing it though. A better editor will write the summary so that the ending comes at the end, so that a reader can read a few paragraphs of the summary without spoiling the entire story, in this case unraveling the non-linear plot for a clearer summary makes that a bit more challenging.
A bad editor would include plot points in the character excessive descriptions instead of keeping plot for just the summary, or include too much plot when referencing reviews. -- 93.107.149.122 (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Brandon/Shane?[edit]

For some reason in the summary Shane McFarland is called Brandon? His name is Shane.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.8.125 (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Current summary[edit]

The summary that is currently posted is completely wrong on so many parts. Brandy(Shane) doesn't have AIDS. It was gonorrhea, and no where in the book does it talk about Shane living with Manus. Manus was just the one who gave Shane gonorrhea. This is just one example of at least 8 things wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunerk (talkcontribs) 01:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Brandy Alexander as a transsexual[edit]

I'm surprised this seemingly has been brought up yet but I believe it may be erroneous to call Brandy Alexander a "transsexual". Transsexualism is defined as identification "with a physical sex that is different from their biological one". On page 258:

She says, "Not that it's bad being a woman. This might be wonderful, if I wanted to be a woman. The point is," Brandy says, "being a woman is the last thing I want. It's just the biggest mistake I could think to make."

In fact, the whole purpose of transitioning for Brandy is because she considers it the "ultimate form of self-multilation" (258). Therefore, she has no real discomfort with being male. She only goes through it to make a point. Furthermore, on page 261, Brandy also goes to affirm that she's not homosexual either:

"I'm not straight, and I'm not gay," she says. "I'm not bisexual. I want out of the labels."

I believe this is worth addressing in the article because what we have now is a misrepresentation. I personally think what we should do is mention that although Brandy is labeled "transsexual" for most of the novel, she may actually be closer to being genderqueer. The subject of Brandy's sexuality, however, may be more difficult; there is little evidence of her sexuality outside of her confusion about the encounter with Manus and her attraction to her sister, which may not even be sexual. Finally, I'd like to say that, in the context of the novel itself, all of these issues I've brought up may be frivolous and actually contrary to its themes but nevertheless worth noting for an encyclopedia article. — Iggy Koopa (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Film[edit]

While I'd love to have the film produced and released in fall 2011, I think it's a little overconfident as it stands. Given the timeline for Choke (it took over eight years for the final production to be released), it's worth erring on the side of caution for now. Even changing the odd phrase here and there (i.e. changing "will be released in" to "has a projected release date of") would be great. I don't have the confidence to do it myself, but if anyone else agrees then please - go ahead. Pianoabuser (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)