Discussion of Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club (and film adaptation): February 19-March 4, 2008.

I have seen the film version multiple times, so as I was reading the book, images from the film were automatically conjured in my mind. It was a little frustrating at times, because I really wanted the novel to work by itself, on my own, in my imagination. I thought about how many have said "the book is better than the movie" for many adaptations, but in this case I found myself appreciating the film more than the book. When I wondered why this was, I couldn't find an answer other than the "power of the image" discussed in class before. I feel like those who read a novel first and see the adaptation second, favor the novel, and vice versa (sp?). Did anyone else who saw the film first experience this? Is a given (cinematic) image better or worse than an image evoked through literature (in our minds)? What are the differences in how a viewer/reader relates to these kinds of images?

Personally, I think many relate to a novel (over a film version) strongly because a) it is the "first" incarnation of the story, therefore considered more original or authentic and b) images received through a novel are in part generated by the reader and much more personal in that way.

I found it interesting how the novel cloaked the schizophrenia, with Tyler "disappearing" whenever Marla appeared. This could be interpreted figuratively, especially next to the narrator speaking about his parents. But, it also could not be interpreted figuratively. In the film, Tyler actively walks out of rooms when Marla is there. This makes the twist much more "extreme," shall we say, in the film than in the novel.

Did anyone figure out that Tyler was the narrator's alter ego early on in the novel? I didn't know if I could due to clues in the narrative or my own previous knowledge. I often wished I could have wiped out my memory of the film so I could read the book objectively.

So many of the questions Astrid brings up entered my mind while reading the novel. Having seen the film, my reading was tainted: the film image completely usurped the images generated (or not) by the novel. "Frustrating" is a great word for how I felt while reading. Like Astrid, I felt my imagination could not work purely or "on its own" with the text. The film was always part of the conversation. Even in scenes present in the novel that were not found in the film I could not help but picture Helena Bonham Carter and Edward Norton. So in a sense, my first reading of the novel was watching the film.

Just look at the cover (if you purchased a copy from the URI bookstore): it is a translation of the movie poster. What's more, the actors' names (and images) appear larger (and before) the name of the author. Gee, I didn't know Brad Pitt collaborrated with Chuck Palahniuk! And what are the first words that appear on the cover? "Now a major motion picture from Twentieth Century Fox." Before the book is even cracked open, the film is seeping in. If I were to judge the book by its cover I would conclude, "I can just watch the film."

Granted, the film adaptation is excellent. Along with a sense of frustration while reading, I also felt a sense of deja vu. Much of the dialogue/voiceovers in the film are lifted from the original text. I also believe the spirit of the novel was well preserved. But the ending of the novel threw me for a loop. After reading the opening chapter, I kept thinking "Well, I've seen the movie. I'm pretty sure there's an explosion. How is he telling this story if he's inside the explosion?" But in the book, the Parker-Morris building stays up. In the film, Tyler is killed once and for all. There is closure. In the novel, the ending is more unsettling. In a sense, Tyler is still alive because what he created - fight club, project mayhem - still lives, as evidenced by the ubiquitous busted-up men at the novel's end. There is a sense that Tyler could come back, or that he hasn't really been stopped. But this ambiguous ending would not translate into a Hollywood adaptation. For the film version, the audience requires happy closure. So the bad man dies, boy gets girl, and we even get an explosion!

Pardon my tone if it seems I am mocking the film or its audience: far from it. The movie works. The book works. But there are necessary disparities between the two. They speak in different languages. In light of this, my questions would be: to what extent does one text intrude on another? Which text has authority? How does knowledge of one affect knowledge of the other; in other words, how do the texts interact?

As far as intrusion, I feel a strong aversion to the cover of my copy. To my mind, it is marketing intruding on art. This is work done by the movie against the work done by Palahniuk. The book is art. The movie is art. But the halo of marketing surrounding the movie is not art. It is a profit tool. Does anyone else find this context ironic, given the content of Fight Club?

But the more copies of Fight Club are sold, the more money in Chuck's pocket (one would hope). There is nothing morally wrong with that. In fact, it gives me hope that writers can earn a living on their craft.

This was my first time reading Fight Club and watching the movie. My first reaction is that the novel seems to have a more serious and dark tone than the movie. There were several funny parts of the movie where we were all laughing out loud because Tyler provides insight as well as comic relief. When reading the novel, I got the feeling that everything was a lot more sporadic. The main character has less of a grip on reality. My reaction may just be as a result of the different forms of art--book and movie. Because I made up to setting of the book as I read, it was a lot more serious. Watching a movie is more concrete, although there are parts where it seems the director tries to get across the feeling of losing control.

First off, I agree with Astrid - I would also like to know how people who haven’t seen the movie and didn’t know the twist reacted to it. Was it something you saw coming? Did you think it explained the action in the novel, or did it not fit in well?

I was thinking about the general lack of a female presence - Marla is the only female character, and she doesn’t have very many “female” traits, that is that she is not tender and motherly and demure or anything like that. Bob comes closer to this, and he is even described as having “bitch tits”. Bob is the character that is weepy and caring and is the person that the narrator feels comfortable letting himself go in front of.

In my edition, there is a short afterward by Palahniuk. In it, he writes:

Instead of walking a character from scene to scene in a story, there had to be some way to just--cut, cut, cut. To jump. From scene to scene. Without losing the reader. To show every aspect of a story, but only the kernel of each aspect. The core moment. Then another core moment. Then, another…. So for that chorus--that “transitional device”--I wrote eight rules. The whole idea of a fight club wasn’t important. It was arbitrary. But the eight rules had to apply to something so why not a club where you could ask someone to fight?.... The fighting wasn’t the important part of the story. What I needed were the rules (213).

This sort of made me think about the characters and their relationship to rules; They obviously disregard many (murder…. cough cough), but at the same time, they adhere to others, compulsively driving just under the speed limit. Similarly, they break their own rules - “you do not talk about Fight Club” is obviously broken. They seem to flirt with the rules, but in the end, the rules don’t seem to apply to any of these men. The vast majority get away with it, too. Is it because of where they are in society? They are middle management types who know too much to get rid of, or the people that do the simple tasks that others depend on. Everyone seems to be too useful to get rid of (the mechanic), or too much beneath notice (most of the space monkeys).

I also had viewed the film prior to reading the novel and, as Astrid has already stated, I found it difficult to read without any predispositions as well. I feel I may have picked up on different aspects of the story had I read it without knowing the ending beforehand. I found myself appreciating the film version more than the text, mainly because throughout my reading, the scenes from the film were conjured up in my head as opposed to scenes from my own imagination. Trying to combat this was futile, however, being an omniscient reader allowed me to truly appreciate exactly what the text could offer that a film simply could not. From the beginning and throughout the entire novel, I found the distance between the writer and his words curious. The writing truly had an ‘out-of-body’ feel, and I found myself writing side notes about the lack of emotion, surprise, or attachment of the main character to the events happening around him, as if he were almost a spectator to all of it. He even states, “This is how it is with insomnia. Everything is so far away, a copy of a copy of copy. The insomnia distance of everything, you can’t touch anything and nothing can touch you.” I found this quote interesting, as I know this manipulation of reality is something we have previously discussed in class. I wondered if anyone found this style of narration added to or detracted from the novel? Or, as with previous novels discussed in class, if anyone had also questioned the reality of the events going on?

Fight Club certainly does not lack in interpretations, however, I felt that keeping the narrator unnamed managed to imply that he represents the average middle-class American, and the events within the novel allude to the results of lack of direction, stimulation, or motivation of this generation of people. The novel states, “What you see at fight club is a generation of men raised by women,” and I found that statement interesting as well. I also found the ‘Afterword’ remarkable because Palahniuk discusses all the contemporary interpretations and spin-offs of his original work. He says he wrote the updated version of ‘The Great Gatsby’ (which I have never read). I was wondering if anyone had insight on the parallels between Fight Club and The Great Gatsby?

Anyways, loved the book, loved the movie, hope everyone enjoyed it.

Wow! As I was reading the previous four messages I wanted to respond out loud because I had comments on almost everything said above. So, I want to try my best to remember to respond to everything that struck me too.

First off, I am the person many of you have been directing your questions to. I have not seen the movie. I remember seeing about a five minute clip in high school, so that was all I had to start from. As well as the fact that someone, unfortunately, had told me the ending/twist. So I did go into reading knowing the narrator was schizophrenic, which I wish I could have wiped from my memory as well. Otherwise, I had no images from the movie to compare my reading to (except the Hollywood movie poster cover, which as many of you said, imposed a bit on my interpretation of the character's appearances). I tried to distance myself from picturing Tyler as Brad Pitt and Edward Norton as the narrator, though I do think they fit the roles well. This did let my imagination go a bit and see things in my own way. I also picked up on the clues about the narrator's schizophrenia- the first one when he tells his boss, regarding the piece of paper found by the copy machine, "...it sounds like some dangerous psychotic killer wrote this, and this buttoned-down schizophrenic could probably go over the edge at any moment..." (p. 88). Palahniuk inserted other clues throughout the book, which would cause an unknowing reader surprise and understanding at the end! I wish I could have experienced that!

Regarding reality, I was confused a lot of the time. It was helpful, though disappointing, to me that I did know Tyler was the narrator's alter ego. It helped me separate the actions and thoughts a bit. Even though Palahniuk wanted to provide "a chorus" to jump from scene to scene, I was lost at times. I was confused about what reality was- what was actually happening. I know a lot was happening in the narrator's mind, between him and Tyler. But what about the scene in the car with the mechanic, when the mechanic kept swerving in front of oncoming traffic, and the birthday cake? Did that actually happen or was that a dream/imagination? And the end- I'm still a little confused- does the narrator or Tyler die? I thought maybe the narrator was in a mental institution and receiving letters from Marla ("Marla's still on Earth, and she writes to me. Someday, she says, they'll bring me back" p. 198) How those scenes were (or were not) portrayed in the movie may aid in (visual) understanding.

Other themes discussed in class that came up in the book include reality as a "copy of a copy of a copy" (as stated above), the culture which has "made us all the same...individually, we are nothing" (p. 126,) and material ownership ("Advertising has these people chasing cars and clothes they don't need" p 141).

The beneficial part of the novel and its continued jumping was I really felt I was experiencing what the narrator was experiencing. I was confused, out of body, jumping from one moment to another, not knowing who knew who or how, etc. I imagine the narrator felt this way because of the times Tyler would take over, and it was Palahniuk's intent to cause the reader to fully experience what his characters experienced. That may be a difference between novel and movie- those who have seen the movie, tell me- does one experience the narrator's confused and unrested state in the movie as with the novel?

One more theme I picked up on continually throughout the novel was that of religion and God. Palahniuk included many beliefs about God and religion that interested me- I wonder what Palahniuk's religious beliefs or interests are. To name a few scenes, statements or repetitions: resurrection; salvation; enlightenment; sacrifice; dying then finding life (self-destruction leading to salvation- "And if I don't fall all the way, I can't be saved. Jesus did it with his crucifixion thing." p 61); "...the first step to eternal life is you have to die" (p 1); "If you're male and you're Christian and living in America, your father is your model for God. And if you never know your father, if your father bails out or dies or is never at home, what do you believe about God?...the possibility that God doesn't like you...getting God's attention for being bad was better than getting no attention at all" (p 133)- interesting because of my studies with children and their desire for some attention, even negative, better than none at all.

Also, what is the kiss Tyler gives people- really a burn? Another question about reality or symbolism...

I am writing this in Brewed Awakenings right now and a Psychotherapist just sat down across from me. She asked about my classes and I told her I just read this book. We started talking and she had some interesting things to say on mental illnesses. I'm not going to write all of it now, but one question, does the narrator have schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder, and what is the difference between the two? Something to look up before class tomorrow...

I, like Stephanie, had not been introduced to this novel or this film, other than having viewed bits and pieces of the film a couple of years ago, until this class. I did have Edward Norton's voice in my head as I read the novel because I knew he was the narrator of the film. As a first time reader, it took me a very long time to realize that the narrator was schizophrenic. I felt that the film made this important aspect of the novel easier to understand. There were many more visual clues to support that the narrator and Tyler Durden were the same person. Although some of these clues were in the novel, I found that the visuals helped me to understand better. For example, when the narrator (Edward Norton) meets Marla and she is standing in the middle of the street and asks him for his real name, he doesn't say anything. This was a clue from the beginning that the narrator was Tyler Durden because we are never told the narrator's name. He only uses fake names.

Another clue that the narrator and Tyler Durden are in fact the same person is when the narrator is beating himself up in front of his boss and he says, "For some reason, I thought of my first fight with Tyler." This was really a revelation for me because I realized that this man/character had the ability to beat himself up so I thought to myself, "He must have had that first fight with himself and that is why he says that this fight reminds him of his first fight with Tyler a.k.a. himself."

Some other little clues from the film are the suitcases and the random appearances from Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) on the airplane. The narrator and Tyler Durden both have the same suitcase and the narrator gives Tyler Durden sort of a funny look and was a little perplexed that they had the same suitcase. Also Tyler Durden just appears out of thin air in the seat next to the narrator on the airplane, which is what happens to people with schizophrenia. People appear and disappear.

Although I decided to touch on these clues about Tyler Durden's schizophrenia, there are many more to be sought out in the film and the book too. I have to say that although I found the clues in the film to be more helpful than those in the book because of the visuals, I am sure that I was able to pick out these clues because I read the book first and I knew that the narrator was Tyler Durden all long while viewing the film.

At first there are 3 people. Then two; The Narrator is Tyler. So maybe there's only one person.

Marla to Tyler: Don't let me fall asleep.
Narrator to Marla: Don't you have enough of my life already?
Tyler to Narrator: Promise you won't tell her about me.
Narrator: Marla shows up. We talk about everything except for Tyler.
Narrator: I've begun to wonder if Marla and Tyler are the same person.

The characters Tyler and Marla are introduced in the same fashion - 1 sentence. 1 Paragraph.
"This is how I met Tyler."
"This is how Marla and Tyler met."

The Narrator and Marla are similar in that they're both dependent on fallacious group therapy, they're both irrationally concerned with cancer, and they both have no structure to their day.

If the Narrator, Tyler, and Marla are equals, then they are to be addressed as such. If the Narrator and Tyler are in one group, and Marla in another (meaning they're two different people), then why is there no firm separation of these two characters?

A passage on page 175 gives equal relation to all three characters:

"So Tyler can't take complete control, I need Marla to keep me awake. All the time. Full Circle. The night Tyler saved her life, Marla asked him to keep her awake all night. The second I fall asleep, Tyler takes over and something terrible will happen. And if I do fall asleep, Marla has to keep track of Tyler."

This leads me to believe that there is only one character.

Wow, I had never even considered the possibility that Marla was not a separate character. This opens up a fascinating new door! It is interesting to think she is just another manifestation of the narrator.

If she is, where does the collagen trust fund come from (the narrator's mother?)? Or when the space monkey opens the door on Paper street and refuses to let her in, is that hallucinated?

Is Marla the representation of the Narrator's feminine side? Is the fact she is not feminine at all (as Laura pointed out) just another indication of how diseased one individual can become in this image driven society?

I don't know if you'll read this by tomorrow's class, but I think the relation between the two books is the number of characters and the similarities of their roles and interactions with each other.

In the Great Gatsby, there is a narrator (Nicholas, I think is his name) who is essentially reporting, watching/observing events between a rich man (whose name I forget) and a woman he loves, but is unattainable to him. I haven't re-read the novel in a long time (it's one my favorites, I highly recommend it to everyone), so some things are fuzzy.

This basic plot ties into the narrator as an insomniac observer, Tyler as the one who apparently "wants" Marla, and Marla of course being that unattainable woman. The relations are not exact, because Tyler doesn't really love Marla at all it seems. Just sex (in that way she is very much attainable). Marla isn't attainable emotionally to Tyler because she is in fact in love with the narrator. This is based on the conversations they have together where the narrator is himself, where in my mind was the proverbial montage of developing closeness between characters often portrayed in films.

Also, the hyper-masculinity throughout the book and more explicitly in the film is a big huge commentary on modern society. The high divorce rate and surge in single mom's comes to mind. Think about the narrator's obsession with his apartment and its furnishings, the "nest" as he called it. Female animals nest. Fight club wasn't only a way to break away from a capitalistic, materialist culture, but also a way of radically asserting masculine force on a complacent, passive (feminine) culture.

That is based on stereotypes maybe, or at least traditional views of male/female attributes, which are not necessarily true.