Talk:Rant (novel)

Date?
Sources for the release date?

Summary?
Rabies, car crashes, time travel, immortality, a possible explanation of all mythical figures and the reason for the power structure of society told in the form of oral biography that will keep you guessing even after you have finished in a very satisfying way.. A true Palahniuk novel.

Fill me In please?
Why is Echo Lawrence the only person not to have an Epilogue? Even characters who had one or two lines had their own Epilogue, but not Echo. Did Chuck intend for this? Did she go back, prevent the accident thus never becoming stunted and Never joinning Party Crashing? The Chracters who did go back where listed as being in an accident, their bodies never being found. KoalaMeatPie 10:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Green Simms? If he is Rant, where does he fit in on the Rant Timeline? It can't be Chet/Rant Seeing as he went on to live in the city. KoalaMeatPie 10:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rant is the new, improved Green Taylor. Originally (this is speculation somewhat supported by the book), he was born to Irene, but raised by her alone.  He went to the city, but ended up transported through time and ended up fathering future generations, thus changing Irene's child into Buster, since each generation had been changed.  Because of the Grandmother paradox, he ended up still existing, and I guess killing Irene would have had the same effect as had he not fiddled with history (or killing his father, but he doesn't know who that is.) Darquis 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I had just finished the book tonight, and although I have to admit that I wanted wikipedia to fill me in on why Echo didn't have an epilogue (I did have the same thoughts as the unnamed post above), and I also figured that Green and Rant/Chet were two completely different people working towards the same end. Who knows, though. Like the flow of time, somebody else could just waltz up and prove me wrong right now. 69.220.0.55 04:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * `The Two Posts above are both mine :-/ Sorry for the confusion. KoalaMeatPie 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Karl Waxman ever have a piece like Echo or Shot? If so, that would be an indication of what happened to Echo, as Karl also is not listed. Darquis 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Echo went back with Chet and she herself messed around and ceased to exist or became immortal. Most characters seem to have doneso, so maybe she's to the extent of not having records anymore, yet the text based on her still existing. Sort of like time is in midway between erasing her. Who knows, maybe we'll see more of the gang in the other books?75.128.195.223 05:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Echo no longer exists- if you check the website that Chuck P has for Rant she is listed as dead. You got to figure that if Chet/Rant leaves Irene, after all that time raising Rant and only after Rant jumps to the past, that Chet/Rant may want to give Echo some answers. I think Echo's omitted from the Epilogue for the same reason Waxman is. Any other thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.201.9 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Echo ran off with Chet and nobody else knows what happened to her.--24.131.79.200 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Turner
It might be worth noting that one of the novel's "contributors," Victor Turner, (pp. 289, 293) was a real person. Then again, maybe not. 209.247.5.49 12:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as the liminality reference is an obvious indication. --Fragerella 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Victor Turner, one of British Anthropology last heroic figures, is dead since 1983. He is quoted as in a quote by the fictional anthropologist, not as being an oral contributor... The fictional anthropologist created by Palahniuk speaks of ritual and liminality just as summing up Turner's theses, nothing original. He then quotes directly Turner, but Turner is not "interviewed". In the end of the book, at the list of contributors, the references to Dr. Turner wanting to create a Samba School in Brazil, unless I am mistaken, are just a joke by Palahniuk. --201.210.219.76 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with Snuff
Quote: During his "Rant 2007" tour, Palahniuk has indicated that he will continue to write two more books based on Rant, to be released tentatively in 2011 and 2013 but also stated that he will be writing other books in between, with his next to be titled Snuff.

this is implying that Snuff is not part of the Rant trilogy where as on the Snuff article it does say it is (i would post this on the snuff article talk page, but this page seems more active) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachpatato49 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What year do you think it took place?
Victor Turner died in 1983. I cant figure it out. Not that it really matters.

--

The article states that it takes place in a "dystopian future", but I disagree. Read page 313.

Echo Lawrence: "If rant ever gets it right [...] chances are you'll never have heard the name Rant Casey." Shot Dunyan: "How weird is that? Instead of a biography, this story will become fiction. A historical artifact documenting a past that never happened."

Oh, and sign your post dude. Rusknight 23:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking it is supposed to be a dystopian now in an alternate timeline, the only thing that gave any indication to time that I noticed was Rant used a carphone/cell phone when he called the radio station from the about to be blown up car. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible it takes place in the present? I think it's possible the end is meant to imply someone went back and changed the past so the world is how it is today, and that's why modern society isn't ported and divided into night and day, etc. ie: the book world is our world before one of the characters went back and changed something. I had this idea when in one of the final chapters someone comments something to the effect of "you could change the past and this story will be fiction instead of a biography." --NEMT (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Simms ask about Microsoft after his first jump? It would seem to me that the book takes place maybe fifty years in the future, if he went back sixty years. 70.95.74.37 (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The line involving Microsoft From the chapter 35- Flashback: "Has Microsoft gone public yet?" These people would reply "What's a Micro". Microsoft's public offering was in 1986, so before that (at least).

Another quote from Ch. 35 -Chester Casey: "Seventy Years back, Hattie was thirteen years old..." so this flashback is -70 from the book's main timeline. The only other indication of the timeline in this chapter is People Reading: Books, Magazines, Newspapers. Through windows, he can see people watching television, From the radios and stereos-- music.

The use of the word "stereos" is what caught my eye. According to another wikipedia article on Stereophonic Sound: The first stereophonic discs available to the buying public came out in the summer of 1958. By 1968 the major record labels stopped making monaural discs". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound

My guess is this Flashback took place after 1958 but before 1986. With the known "-70 years" of the Flashback, that means the book possibly took place between 2028 and 2056. Hopefully Palahniuk wasn't being loose or accidental with his use of the term stereo in regards to his vision. I like the idea that it is an alternative timeline changed by Shot Dunyan: (paraphrased: Remove boosting all together) and Neddy: "If Neddy manages to go back, there'll be no I-SEE-U Act. People will live the way the cavemen did, everyone indoors or out, anytime they choose..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.237.47 (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind everyone
The contributors in the novel are made to be conflicting and are not necessarily reliable narrators. Everyone in the book, Echo Lawrence, Shot, ect.. They were infected with rabies and naturally can be assumed that they went a bit delusional. The time travel idea may have no actual basis other than unreliability on the part of those contributors. Another backing part of this would be that it's disputed by Rant's non-biological father, who also proposed a rather different story in the beginning of the novel. So just keep in mind everyone, this is written as an oral history from the viewpoint of many possibly unreliable characters, and one of the major themes is that nothing they say can be called fact.

Oh, and also. Lets remember that any date we add for when the story takes place is speculation without it being confirmed by Chuck himself. For all we know it could be in the present but just its own Fictional universe

ExplodingTeeth (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

did anyone also consider that since the details of ECHO's parents car crash state that her mom never let off the gas and hit another car head on....then maybe they were the ones who hit GREEN TAYLOR SIMMS when he came to the city and therefore they are the cause of the whole time travel mess. That being said, if Echo went back to save her parents would it not cause the entire thing to NOT happen in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.69.66 (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rant (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pinemagazine.com/site/article/746

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Another Author?
Originally posted by (just fixing format): In the front cover of Rant, it says "Simon Robson has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work"  This means this guy Simon Robson is Palahniuk's ghostwriter?