Fight Club discussion

I've seen Fight Club several times and of course, I love it. Never knew it was a book until recently and just discovered Chuck Palahniuk. Is it worth it to read after seeing the movie and why?

I think so. The book is pretty different than the movie instead of focusing on the terrorism like the movie tends to because visually it's more appealing, the book has a deeper focus on community and philosophy.

I personally think you get more out of the book if you read interviews about palahniuk's intentions when he wrote the book though.

I enjoyed the movie a lot more, but the book is still good, although I think Palahniuk has written better books since Fight Club.

The direction the movie took compared to the book are kinda different but still good since Palahniuk wrote the script for the movie too.

I liked the book more because of the ability of describing events in a way a movie cannot. Jasmine is correct about the the book having more emphasis on community and philosophy while the movie was an eyegasm all around.

Will wrote: "I enjoyed the movie a lot more, but the book is still good, although I think Palahniuk has written better books since Fight Club."

agreed, also before, I think invisible monsters is better at getting across a lot of the messages that fight club is trying to send.

Fight Club is one of the few books that I have read that I thought was worse than the movie. Definitely not Palahniuk's best effort. Try Invisible Monsters, Diary or Choke instead. I'd stay away from any of his books from the past couple of years, they got very gimmicky and not in a good way.

ya

Call me twisted, but I love this book. Strangely enough, it's the best post-post-modern romance I've ever read (if there even is such a genre) combining the crisis of identity with the crucible of desire in startingly fresh ways. Primal. Passionate. Funny as hell. Enough said.

I say read the book, I loved it. I tried to read Choke on two separate occasions and couldn't get through it, but I loved Fight Club. So you may love it, you may not. But it's worth a shot. I liked it because of as someone else pointed out, it focuses more on the philosophy side of it than the movie does. And it's actually pretty funny in some parts.

One of the few movies that was significantly better than the book. The book rambles, is overly simplistic, and features some very elementary 'philosophy' that'll have your eyes rolling.

X wrote: "One of the few movies that was significantly better than the book. The book rambles, is overly simplistic, and features some very elementary 'philosophy' that'll have your eyes rolling."

Couldn't have said it better. There's some erroneous medical facts included to boot.

It's one of the few times I have found the movie to be better than the book. The dialogue for the movie is just so good. That said, the book is well worth the read.

I definitely recommend you read the book. I also loved by the same author.

He is a very post-modernist author, so as long as you understand that the plot is not always linear and that the themes are greater than the plot and characters you might enjoy Chuck.

Steer clear of his recent work such as which are quite weak in comparison to his earlier works.

I thought the film was fantastic. I thought the book was even better.

Everything was so much more haunting and intense.
Definitely worth a read.

I read the book before seeing the film and I really enjoyed both on entirely different levels. Personally, I don't think you can compare the mediums because they take such different routes to telling the same story. I think, if you take the book as the same story but told differently, you can gain a great deal of enjoyment out of it. It's definitely not for everyone, but the imagery is superb, in my opinion.

I have to agree with others as far as staying away from Palahniuk's more recent work. Very disappointing when you've read his earlier material, though I'm sure it has it's market.

Lucy wrote: "I read the book before seeing the film and I really enjoyed both on entirely different levels. Personally, I don't think you can compare the mediums because they take such different routes to telli..."

Of course you can compare the different media. They're both telling stories.

macgregor wrote: "Lucy wrote: "I read the book before seeing the film and I really enjoyed both on entirely different levels. Personally, I don't think you can compare the mediums because they take such different ro..."

Oh, I didn't mean it in the way I think it came across. Sorry about that. What I meant was that in this particular case, I think, it's best not to compare the two mediums of telling the story because they are so different and should be considered on their individual merits. As opposed to pulling apart what's different, I believe they should be considered both as individually brilliant but in completely different ways.

READ IT.
READ IT NOW.

I read it in a week. It's perfect. It's amazing.
It teaches you how to make napalm and nitroglycerin.
READ IT.

I recommend reading it for the simple fact that you have one of the most macho books ever, and it was written by a gay man.

Just because some guy is gay doesn't mean he can't be macho and masculine.

Jeez, you're a dick.

Shana wrote: "Just because some guy is gay doesn't mean he can't be macho and masculine.

Jeez, you're a dick."

I don't even know you man. How about having a conversation with me on why this is fascinating to me? A lot of homophobe guys lean on this movie and book and they don't know chuck is gay. Thats all i was saying. Did I say anything about hating gay people? Check your sword before you log in. I'm just trying to join the discussion.

Carlos, I'm sorry, but Shana has a point. It's completely irrelevant that the author is gay to the discussion. Not only that, but to imply that being gay is not related to masculinity is egregiously ignorant.

Now, if you're interested in discussing why homophobic males are interested in Fight Club's overly heteronormative sexuality, than that's a different subject.

You might be interested in reading some Judith Butler and her theories on gender performativity.

Listen, Carlos. I know a gay guy, and he is the butchest, most masculine dude you will ever meet.

His sexuality is as irrelevant to his favourite book as Chuck's is to his own novel.
As macgregor said, you made an extremely ignorant statement and I, as a 'butch' lesbian, am offended. Because I take that to mean that I could write the girliest, fluffiest heterosexual love story ever and you would make a note that I'm butch gay.

Also, what the hell does "Check your sword before you log in" mean?
I mean, I have a sword, it's quite fine, and I never need to log in because I don't log out.
Like... what?

Irrevelant or not that the man is gay....he sure described eating pussy like he's experienced it. Well done Chuck, well done.
Thanks for all the feedback, I will defentially be reading fight club.

How is that irrelevant? And how is that ignorant? It has nothing to do with IF this type of person can write this or write that. MY comment HAS everything to do with the YouTube, frat boy phenomenon of men trying to start Fight Clubs, who also happen to be very homophobic. You don't think that's a worthwhile talking point? That's what I was talking about. I have nothing against no one; I was simply making a comment on how Chuck was not only able to break down stereotypes but also able to create this movement among young males who watch UFC. Would you rather I say something boring like, "This book is good."

This book is probably the next Catcher in the Rye, and if it ever gets to that point, do you realize what that will do in terms of these kids understanding gay/lesbian/or bi people?

Ask me to clarify my comment. Ask me to explain myself. Let's discuss. I thought that's what this website was about? I didn't realize that when someone has a thought that it's okay to throw insults.

Macgregor, why do you think homophobic males are interested in heteronormative sexuality? And yes, I've been looking for a new book to read. Thank you.

Oh my god are you kidding me. First off, Catcher in the Rye was a terrible, boring book in my opinion.

Second, the ignorant thing that you seem to be completely blanking is that you seem to have made this automatic assumption in your first post that gay guys have to be feminine. And if you didn't mean that, you sure came off that way.

Carlos, I'm glad that you're back to defend your statement. I meant "ignorant" in the non-pejorative sense, as in, you are missing vital information. Without that info, your opinion on the relevancy of Palahniuk's sexuality to his novel is underdeveloped. Let's expand on this for a moment. The reason why Shana jumped on your comment is perfectly expressed by her in that you made a large assumption that's totally not based on real life.

To put it another way
masculinity != heterosexuality
feminity != homosexuality

Why do I think homophobic males are interested in heteronormative sexuality? The question begs the answer. Homosexuality challenges the "normality" of heteronormativity.

Butler's book "Gender Troubles" is the one you're looking for, though, she has an essay that sort of easier to digest that sums up a lot of her theory. Be warned: Butler is renowned for her impenetrable jargon-thick prose.

Also, in most literary criticism, the author's biography is merely context for reading the text, rather than informing a reading of the text. That is to say that the author is not privileged over the text. Honestly, it's in bad form to bring up the biography in criticism.

I think that this is the only case that I thought that the movie was better than the book.

Also, I'm pretty certain that chuck being gay doesn't creat a platform for the characters, meaning that because he is gay they so must be. For example, the main character in his book is a heterosexual sex addict. Where the hell did that come from, huh?

Again, I hate to keep defending myself on this. I'm not saying anything bad about gay people. If my statement was underdeveloped, it's because it's almost impossible to convey tone in these things. But to your point about bringing up the biography of a writer when critiquing the book, Macgregor, I'll have to agree to disagree, with respect of course.

You're telling me that you've never Wiki'd the biography of an author after or before reading a book? You're telling me when people read Jack Kerouac or Chuck Bukowski, their back story doesn't add anything to the art? How about in other art forms, like David Choe. You're telling me the back story of how he was able to parlay his mural for 200 million dollar stock options from Facebook doesn't add any more value to his future paintings? In my opinion, the biography and experience of an artist matters. That's just my opinion. Chuck being gay adds another layer to me, that I can appreciate. It adds to the irony when I watch my friends watch Fight Club.

I can't even argue this any more, you are just so stupid oh my god and your book sounds terrible by the way.

Shana, I can respect that you hate Catcher. But I never said gay people are feminine.

YES YOU DID oh my god.

I recommend reading it for the simple fact that you have one of the most macho books ever, and it was written by a gay man.

What is implied here is that a macho book cannot be written by a homosexual male, which gives off the impression that all gay men have to be feminine.

Am I supposed to be offended by that? I'm having a discussion with you here. If you want to go there and throw insults go ahead.

I'M TELLING YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG IN WHAT YOU JSUT SAID

dear lord screw this im done

Shana, I explained my tone in message 33. Let it go. I'm sorry, maybe I should've put LOL or :).

I don't think anybody is accusing you of homophobia, Carlos, nor are we accusing you of saying "anything bad" about gay people. The issue at the heart of this discussion is your implicit assumption that since the author is gay, it's not expected that he could write something so masculine. It's been reiterated by both myself and Shana a couple times, and Shana has expressed it perfectly a few times. Simply denying that you made the assumption is not conducive to further discussion, which is why Shana has apparently left in a justified huff.

What I am attempting to do is have you examine your own statement for that assumption and re-examine yourself. It is only through confronting our beliefs that we grow as people.

On a lighter note, I'm amazed nobody has busted out the "But I have tons of gay friends" defense. Which is logically fallacious so nobody even think of bringing it up.

'LOL' Doesn't make it all better it makes it worse.
DO YOU KNOW NOTHING. SERIOUSLY.

I didn't bring up the gay friends bit cause I was a little busy tying to tell him how ignorantly ignorant he really is.

But thank you, Macgregor, yes, you've made a perfect point.

So, Carlos, I say to thee: the f*ck, bruh?

For the last time, I was not making an assumption. I've been trying to clarify myself. I meant my comment to point out the irony that a lot of macho males fail to see. If you think I'm making assumptions, then that's your opinion. I have tons of gay friends :) My dog is gay.

If you think it's "irony" then you have totally missed the point of this conversation. If you keep reiterating your statement of "that's your opinion" then you are not interested in discussion. I've been exceedingly polite in this thread so I hope you'll take that into consideration when I say: you are expressing a rather distressing and distasteful set of assumptions about sexuality and you are playing into the very "irony" that you are happy to point out.

i liked the movie better, but the book is still pretty good.
btw, i know tons of man who says fight club is their favorite movie/book and are homophobic so i think there is a bit of irony in that. and the irony isn't in the fact that a gay man could write a book that appeals to macho man, but in the fact that homophobic people love a book written by a gay man, just because their black and white thinking exclude the possibility of the author being gay.

Carlos' original statement can be read 'this is worth mentioning because gay men can't be masculine', sure. It can also be read 'this is worth mentioning because society thinks gay men can't be masculine'. You could even, very easily, go on to see a place behind the second one where his subtext is 'you should read it because it bucks these stereotypes, and if you consciously or unconsciously follow the stereotypes yourself, this will buck up your ideas'.

I don't know what was going on his head. But neither do you, Shana. If, instead of flying off the handle at him, you'd have tried to clarify what he meant, I think you'd have gotten a lot further. For all you know, he could be gay. For all you know, he could be Chuck Palahniuk.

I do think he could have maybe been a little more careful in the phrasing of his original post; these are issues where it's easy to offend because people who are affected by them are often the victims of harassment and discrimination. If instead of calling him a dick, you'd have told him that his statement came across in a way you didn't like, and would he like to think about it in future, I daresay you might have made some headway, in this issue and, in a tiny way, in educating people about the thorniness of this issue and the need for care.

To be clear on the issue, there is a normative statement: 'gay men must be feminine', which is just plain wrong, and offensive, and a descriptive statement: 'much of society thinks gay men must be feminine', which is not only more or less true, but seems to me a reasonable thing to point out and discuss. It's also where the irony comes in, as Pallmallandcoke points out, correctly, which I think is what Carlos was trying to say.

The latter is very much where I read Carlos as coming from, and even if you don't read it that way I think there's definitely enough doubt to give him the benefit of it.

Terry, you make some excellent points. However, Carlos has been given ample space to defend and unpack his initial statement. His position has amounted to "I was being facetious and jocular, but there is irony to be found". Instead of expanding on his initial statement, which could have been "descriptive" he maintained his "prescriptive" opinion.

There's no "subtext" to read in Carlos' point. He was uninterested in exploring the possibility that Palahniuk is possibly playing with heteronormative roles or that Palahniuk is playing with what Butler calls gender performativity.

The fact that his position has not changed or been modified lessens the doubt that I could possibly benefit him.

I don't read his responses that way at all. I think he's been forced onto the back foot by an attack and maybe hasn't articulated himself perfectly, but I think it takes a hostile reading (as might have been engendered by having taken offence at his first comment) to summarise his responses that way.

In #24 he clarifies his statement as descriptive rather than normative. I don't think it's overly charitable to infer that the irony he later refers to is the one pallmallandcoke describes, and the reference to jocularity is clearly him trying to defuse the siutuation. The fact that he's not interested in an academic discussion of a side point while he's trying to defend himself against attack doesn't seem too relevant.

Go back and try and read it without the initial assumption of guilt. I think the thing that can be said for sure is that the whole thing would've gone a lot better if Message 23 had been something like: 'Carlos, are you suggesting that gay men can't be macho? I sure hope not.'

On topic, Fight Club is a great book, with an ending that's miles better than the film (I obviously can't say why). I'd recommend it, although Survivor and Invisible Monsters are arguably as good or better.

Terry, I disagree. Regardless of whether Carlos felt attacked or not, he never took the opportunity to clarify not only his aoriginal statement, but his argument.

Terry, I agree that for sure that the initial response to his first post should have been more reasoned. I've maintained my even tone throughout this thread, and even my first reply to Carlos was still polite. I don't think it takes a "hostile reading" to summarize his responses as facetious and misguided attempts at jocularity, considering he admits to trying to lighten the mood. In my reply to message 24, I immediately picked up on his attempt to defuse the situation with a more structured analysis of what makes Fight Club so interesting in a queer theory sort of way. However, that was not explored systematically or fruitfully. Secondly, the fact that he's not interested in an academic side point of the biographical question has been dropped. We agreed to disagree on that particular point. That's not the relevancy that I was pointing at.

Also, I think Survivor is better than Fight Club (the book) but Invisible Monsters is atrocious. It feels like a first draft, the structure is sloppy, the main character sounds exactly like the nameless protagonist of Fight Club, and the use of the chorus (Flash) isn't as clever as the medical one. Of course, this opens up the criticism that Palahniuk compulsively reiterates his own tricks (the chorus, the forcing of "facts" to flavor the narrative, the obvious twist ending).

It is for sure much better when things can be discussed amicably. Often the best result from disagreements online is an agreement to disagree, but that's a whole lot better than the alternatives.

To be honest it's a long time (twelve years?) since I read Invisible Monsters, so I don't feel qualified to go into too much depth about it now; I remember a very favourable impression. I do tend to agree, though, that he could be a more varied author; after the first three, each book made successively less impact on me, and I didn't finish 'Haunted'.

For me, he's a little like Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park; a very worthwhile experience when it's fresh and new, but after that you're content to remember it fondly, know it's there, and introduce people who've never seen it before to it when they come to visit.

I love both, the movie and the book. The movie was AWESOME. I can't even begin to describe how much I enjoyed the movie. I am currently reading the book and so far BAM! its different from the movie in tone but its hilarious! I like how the heavy theme was written in a way that you can find your sick sense of humour deep inside yourself and appreciate the darkness inside each person.

Must read the book. It's completely different from the movie...it's more of a love story. And Palahniuk is a genius when it comes to writing!