The problem with saving seen the movie first, before reading the book (which was the case for me), was the right from the get-go, I knew it was “Jack” who was holding the gun in his own mouth. And I’d imagining the actors faces while reading the characters. These were the two most negative points for me.

One thing I found very interesting was that I was trying to tell someone the above and I tried to say, “But it’s not Tyler, it’s- it’s… What’s his name?” I went to IMDb and Ed Norton’s character is only listed as “Narrator.” I went out, bought the movie and watched it with the director’s/actor’s commentaries. Norton’s character is referred to by them as Jack, presumably from the I am Jack’s repressed rage moments. I thought that that was really interesting. And the movie made it VERY clear that Jack is not named Tyler Durden, but I think the book was a bit more ambiguous about this, wasn’t it?

amy | October 26, 2004 9:06 AM

Where the movie really succeeds is in translating the book's "voice" into cinematic language. Surely part of the credit for that lies with Palahniuk; his writing style is extremely focused on concrete physical objects.

I wonder, what is the significance of this obsession with things? Is it a comment on how our everyday living environment is mostly manufactured?

Of course the objects described are often used as metaphors -- a very good example is the pieces of model buildings which the narrator in LULLABY keeps picking out of his feet. Or the shoddy jewelry used to bribe the narrator in DIARY.

In FIGHT CLUB but also in Palahniuk's other novels, the protagonists use consumer goods to fill an inner void -- another function of objects, but not the only one.

So what is this inner void exactly?

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com
(I have read: SURVIVOR, LULLABY, DIARY and NON-FICTION.)

A.R.Yngve | October 26, 2004 11:47 AM

Amy, I agree that seeing the movie first did take something away from the novel. Knowing the twist (and Palahniuk is always full of twists) ruins the surprise, but I was still drawn in by the language. Palahniuk is very no nonsense and doesn't fill his novels up with beautiful prose for the sake of filling up pages. I really enjoy the way he says what he wants to say and moves on.

In watching both the movie and reading the book, I always realized that "Jack" didn't actually have a name. Yet, he was much easier to identify in the movie as the "Ed Norton" character than the no name in the book. Ed Norton gave "Jack" a face and a personality, while I think he's pretty devoid of one in the book. In that sense, the book made me realize better why he had to create an alter-ego.

marydell | October 26, 2004 11:13 PM

A.R., I'm not sure exactly what the void is other than disassociation from our materialistic existences. We fill our lives up with stuff, but in the end that stuff is just filler. As Tyler says, to paraphrase, you'll only become enlightened when you hit rock bottom. Maybe when you unload all that stuff and the void collapses in on itself is the point that you truly become free.

I've read Fight Club, Survivor, Choke, and Invisible Monsters, and listened to the audiobook of Lullaby during a very long car trip. I think that the characters in each of those novels are looking for something, but at least the guy in Lullaby tries to do some good. The rest of them are totally twisted.

marydell | October 26, 2004 11:22 PM

One thing that I want to being up was something the Palahniuk wrote in the introduction (to the edition I have, at least). At the time when he was formulaing Fight Club there were books like The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood and How to Make an American Quilt; books about women getting together and bonding/sharing. There really wasn't anything like that for men who grow up without father figures. So Fight Club was kind of about men being father figures to other men; the rules to follow and the decipline that they taught each other.

I'm probably butchering what he wrote but I thought it was interesting.

Also, Fight Club was originally a 7 page story, which is now Chapter 6 in the book! Interesting!

amy | October 28, 2004 8:38 AM

Speaking of male bonding, it would be really interesting to hear what Robert Bly has to say about FIGHT CLUB.

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

A.R.Yngve | October 29, 2004 2:18 PM

A.R. - that's funny, that same thought occurred to me too while I was reading it.

Fight Club is one of my favorite books/movies. I remember when it first came out I hadn't yet heard of the book, and I immediately dismissed it as another pseudo-counterculture glorification movie, or a celebration of masculinity in a culture gone too "feminine." It is both these things in a way, but it succeeds in being a much more comprehensive exploration of modern society. I love this book/movie for the sme reasons I love "American Psycho." It's unexpectedly profound and disturbingly hilarious.

When I finally got around to seeing the movie, I was really surprised. That said, I wish I had read the book first. Even though they are so similar (another shock!), I think the book is much more ambiguous about the whole Tyler/Jack thing. The first time I saw the movie, I knew Tyler wasn't real because of the split-second flashes of Tyler in the very beginning scenes. Reading the book, I couldn't tell if I would have figured this out as quickly.

One last comment: I love the language Pahlaniuk uses. It's no wonder the movie is so similar; I don't see how they could have maintained the tone without using the exact same text. I wish I could express better why the languge is appealing.

maya | November 8, 2004 2:00 PM

Maya, the language is also exactly what has me hooked on Palahniuk. It's very matter-of-fact and doesn't make any excuses for its bluntness. I also find Palahniuk's writing to be very past-paced, which helps make his books entertaining yet quick reads.

(I now realize that I'm the worst moderator ever considering I let this thread die and then came back to it nearly a month later when everyone else has moved on.)

marydell | December 4, 2004 6:51 AM