Understanding the words

Rating: 9/10 (15 May 2004)

I feel somewhat compelled to throw a few thoughts to the remarks popping up in Fight Club that have stirred so many minds.
"The things you own end up owning you." This could be true in a materialized environment where everyone is selling something for a living and at the same time doing some purchase and being a consumer himself, where the desire to have more would easily grow out of control and deluge a soul from inside. However, it ought not to be understood that it has to be the case for all who have obtained some kind of property within the easy reach of their pockets, and that one would be better off without having anything in his possession. A few nice pieces of furniture from IKEA would not make one feel being possessed (or enslaved), but a craving for everything clever probably would. So the issue may not be a simple matter of to have or not to have, but rather a delicate business of finding a balance between what one can comfortably earn and what one really needs for survival. The dividing line might get so fine that one more step could make difference.
"It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything." A very inspiring theory for those who know what they are up to when freed(or,to be on the safe side, BEFORE taking the plunge). Indeed, men can give up things they own and endure a much-reduced living condition if only they know there are better things for them to fight for. Burning a condo full of nice stuff might sound exciting. But if you don't belong to that clever bunch, don't do it.
"How much can you know about yourself if you've never been in a fight?" This is perhaps the most interesting saying in the whole Fight Club thing. Yet different interpretation of it could result in very different scenarios. Taking it literally means you've got to exchange blows with someone and see if you can conquer him (or, if not, what will be left of you after that), so as to give yourself an assessment. However, this concept can be as glorious as it is perilous. It would be fine for you, if you happened to be a powerfully built man apt at one-two stuff. But what if you were not the type, but the smirking guy paired up with you was, and you knew, by a mere glance of his mean face, that, three minutes into it, you would surely be punched into a nasty squash of pulp? How are you going to make a fair evaluation of your precious self in a situation like that, eh? However, taking the saying beyond its surface and assuming it implying the meaning that one could fight with whatever one is strong on, the whole theory would be of great significance to many. Indeed, with that idea in place, nearly every sort of being can fight. For instance, if you had a head much more decent than the trunk beneath, you could go fight with your brainpower¡ª outwitting a mind could be as thrill (if not thriller) as thumping a body into submission. And even if you were a God-forgotten child, having a head and a form with qualities way below the average, and a down-and-out life with no one there to care for you but an old lame dog, you could still fight the world with all the defiance and burden-free calmness that only you could possibly have, walking on the street with your head held high and your dog at your heels, daring anyone who has everything to take anything with them when the time comes. In the end we are all equal, aren't we?