Great! Palahniuk wouldn't be as he is without Vonnegut.
As for Survivor, I don't see what the deal is. The fact that 9/11 occurred really serves no relevance, because they're two very different insights on plane crashes that really have nothing in common other than the fact that they are crashes. In one, several people died, and the plane was hijacked in the name of political and religious differences. The other depicts a crash in which all potential-victims were evacuated, and the pilots bailed... No one was hurt, nothing--other than the plane--was destroyed.
It's quite stupid. It's just as stupid as mandatory censorship of the image of the towers in many post-9/11 films and television shows. It's just completely illogical. I'd personally LOVE to see Survivor adapted into a film. Besides, after 9/11, I think 1999's Fight Club adaptation leaves us with a much more haunting ending, one which isn't really all that frightening to begin with.
I just don't see why it should be a problem, before or after 9/11.
Last edited by long_lost_corleone; 07/27/07 02:14 AM. Reason: Typo, dur.
"Somebody told me when the bomb hits, everybody in a two mile radius will be instantly sublimated, but if you lay face down on the ground for some time, avoiding the residual ripples of heat, you might survive, permanently fucked up and twisted like you're always underwater refracted. But if you do go gas, there's nothing you can do if the air that was once you is mingled and mashed with the kicked up molecules of the enemy's former body. Big-kid-tested, motherf--ker approved."
| 
