Talk:Fight Club (novel)/Archive 1

message: Apologies if the redirection I've implemented confuses people. We now have four articles describing Fight Club and its spin-offs (with a potential fifth for the ballet), so I felt that the traditional disambiguation approach on wikipedia was appropriate. In addition, the existing method favoured the book article over the others - this is arguable, as the film is more popular. The current approach does not favour any of the four articles. -- Jon Dowland 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirection

message: I just recently updated the article on Chuck Palahniuk with info on how Fight Club came to be. This is in the first paragraph of the Biography section. I was wondering if anyone thought we should include that info in this article, since it gives the backstory of how it was written. -- LGagnon 12:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Backstory of the novel

message: This this for real? I've never heard such a thing, can anyone offer proof? -- User:KneeLess 4:59, 05 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.playbill.com/news/article/86917.html for more details. Also a recent Guardian interview. -- The Anome 11:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Also http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A2799633 . I think that there's almost enough for a stub article... -- Jon Dowland 15:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical

message: In response to the question of "anarchist" and "nihilist", I have this to say.  Contrary to popular belief, nihilism is not PURELY "nothing" but is similar in nature to anarchism.  One of the major differences is that nihilists have this idea of destroying the past before you can build the future, Project Mayhem could possibly fit into this category.  The anarchist philosophy is also much less violent than that of Tyler Durden, and it would be highly unlikely that a real anarchist would enjoy feeling pain and making others around them hurt for fun, enjoying life to the fullest is more anarchist, I would say overall that the concept of Fight Club itself is more nihilist than anarchist.  There's a Dorothy Day quote that compares nihilism to anarchism actually if anyone can find it.  Fact of the matter is, Fight Club is too bloody violent to be anarchist (even though this is a perception different from mainstream culture), although it can't be pushed aside as such completely because there is definitely anarchist themes in the story.  Some might argue that Tyler Durden was a primitivist (look up primitivism), though I don't feel that is accurate either because Project Mayhem did use technology gotten from the narrator's job.  Any kind of state socialism can be ruled out since it seems quite obvious that Tyler has no intention of living under a state.  I'm going to switch it back to "nihilist" but if someone has another argument, it is certainly up for discussion.
:There's a few problems with your argument. First of all, the FC members don't hurt each other for fun; they do it for therapy (both for themselves and the other person in the fight). You may interpret it as harming others, but that is not what the author meant for it to be. And, might I add, they get in these fights so that they can enjoy life (once again, this goes for both fighters). Second of all, you say that they used tech from the narrator's job; this is true for the movie, but not the book. The differences between the book and film have to be taken into consideration when writing this article. I believe Tyler comes off as more of an anarchist than a nilihist in the novel. -- LGagnon 20:00, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
:Fight Club may not have received "corporate sponsorship" in the book, but Jack does say that two of Project Mayhem's divisions (I believe Mischief and Misinformation) were developing a virus that would make automatic teller machines "vomit" money into the street.  A fairly sophisticated technological job, I'd say. —Anville 20:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I didn't mean to say that they hurt each other for fun, I get that it's part of enjoying life and therapy for the instincts of man that is missing in their lives.  However, I don't think this can counter the simple fact that this is not something anarchists would do.  Anarchism is more pro-pleasure than pro-pain.  Nihilism however has many members of this philosophy that you could imagine getting a kick out of fighting with someone for the sheer joy of it.  Not to say nihilists are demonic or to cast any stereotypes, but nihilists since their conception in the Russian Revolution, have a history of violence as a means of getting their goals met.  Anarchists traditionally have been more non-violent, aside from the brief "propaganda of the deed" movement.  The basic ideas of nihilism, that everything is without value, and the destruction of the past, are things promoted by Tyler Durden. --Fatal 23:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing...or something?

message: There's no info on whether or not the film pictures added are fair use or not. They are also poorly added in (they should appear aligned vertically, not horizontally). And to be fair, we should have some pictures of the books themselves as well (specifically, the original hardcover and the new paperback; the film tie-in would just continue the imbalance of this article). With so many for the film and none for the book the article just continues to be unbalanced. -- LGagnon 22:43, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
:Well you can't really show screenshots from a book.  I second, however, putting some of the different covers in the article along with the current film shots. --Fatal 02:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Film pictures

message: As far as I remember, Bob wasn't called "Big Bob" throughout the whole novel. I only remember one or two occurances of that name. -- LGagnon 14:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
If no one is going to respond to this, I'm changing it back. -- LGagnon 01:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Bob

message: It was eventually adapted in 1865
Not sure what year this should actually be but it should be fixed 66.183.66.28 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  um 

message: It's been a while since I read the novel, but I remember a scene involving Tyler, the narrator, and a car driver. The three of them are arguing or fighting or something, and I remember thinking that they car driver was also a dissociative identity created by the narrator. Does anyone else (a) remember this, (b) agree with me and (c) consider this as worthy of inclusion? -- 167.206.156.241
:Tyler was not in that scene. The narrator was just riding in a car driven by a mechanic. And they were not arguing; the mechanic was simply giving the speech that Tyler gives in the movie (men raised on TV thinking they'll be rock stars, etc). The mechanic was not an identity of the narrator (at least not from a literal standpoint), but simply one of the space monkeys who had gained this knowledge from being around Tyler. As for including it, I think it would work best to talk about it in the subtext section, as its most significant contribution to the novel is thematic. -- LGagnon 18:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  more personalities? 

message: I reverted the edit about this game because it was too poorly written to keep in the article. There was no clear connection made between the game and FC (the writing made it look like a coincidence to me), and unless someone can rewrite it in a way that makes sense, it should stay out of the article. -- LGagnon 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Hawk Underground

message: Fight club is also a name of a K1 fighting program that shows on Eurosport. This is not mentioned here. It should be mentioned on the chapter Fight Club in pop culture.
:Was it named after the novel and/or film? If not, it should be mentioned on the disambiguation page, not in this article. -- LGagnon 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  K1 Fight Club Eurosport 

message: Does the Simpsons episode directly reference Fight Club? The term "All singing all dancing" predates the book, see the 1930s cartoons , 1971 documentary , and a 1983 Usenet message . -- Jeandré, 2006-01-09t20:49z
:I'm going to remove it. Unless someone can prove it has to do with FC, it shouldn't be here. -- LGagnon 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All singing all dancing.

message: Wasn't Farnsworth leaving a party at some other building? -- LGagnon 13:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Futurama

message: "Tyler works night jobs just to cause problems for the companies"
This isn't true, it says in the novel that: "Because of his nature. Tyler could only work night jobs." (chapter 3).
Not to make mischief, that he has other motivations for; "You're a projectionist and you're tired and angry, but mostly you're bored so you start by taking a single frame of pornography collected by some other projectionist that you find stashed away in the booth, and you splice this frame of lunging red penis or a yawning wet vagina closeup into another feature movie." (chapter 3) Masken 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyler's nights jobs

message: I'm deleting this paragraph. It's confusing (his thoughts are not his opinions?), poorly worded, and it doesn't really express anything useful. Reword it into something usable if you want (and please explain it here first so we know if it even is useful), but as it is it doesn't belong. -- LGagnon 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. Also, it's a bit close to original research. -- Jon Dowland 11:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd criticism paragraph

message: The main plotline in the Figth Club and the twist at the end is pretty much the same as it is in the novel "Moravagine" (1926) by the Swiss novelist and poet Blaise Cendrars. It is a short novel but much more surreal, perverse and violent. The story is set in and around Europe at beginning of the 20th century. Instead of the Figth Club, the alter-ego Moravagine is forming a communist party.
I was wondering if Chuck Palahniuk has ever gave a credit to Cendrars.
DS
:I've never heard this. You'll have to find a source that mentions this or it won't be usable for the article. -- LGagnon 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moravagine [Blaise Cendrars] rip off? 

message: I felt like the fact that Palahniuk is gay was hidden in the end of the article and awkwardly introduced. It may not be relevant to the rest of the article, but saying:
"It is worth noting that all these claims were made before Palahniuk publically announced that he is a homosexual."
sounds like it is assumming that the reader of the article already knew he was gay. 70.93.249.46
:This is already mentioned in his article. Also, there is no place earlier in the article where it is relevant to mention this (that is, his sexuality has nothing to do with anything about Fight Club other than the accusations of homoeroticism). Thus, it is perfectly fine to mention it that late into the article. -- LGagnon 15:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this whole section is a bit odd.  It says that Fight Club was "accused" of being homoerotic.  Can something be criticised this way?  What's wrong with being homoerotic?  I can only think that it's been described as homoerotic (which seems fair enough to me), and that this text should be moved elsewhere as it's not criticism then.  Otherwise it sounds like the critics are just being homophobic (which they might be for all I know, but it seems unlikely).  Does that make sense?  Cheers, --Plumbago 16:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Is the novel being described as "homoerotic"?  Some of the references suggest the film instead (and that'd be my view as well; the book doesn't seem homoerotic at all to me).  In which case, remove this paragraph to the film's page?   --Plumbago 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it homophobic of the critics if you want to, but technically it is a criticism. The claims were made by anti-Palahniuk critics, anyways. Also, don't be quick to remove it all unless you've checked to make sure it was not book critics; I know at least one of them was talking about the book. -- LGagnon 21:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I'll track down the sources, but it sounds like the homoerotic charge is made of the novel as well as the film.  As for the critics being homophobic, sadly it sounds like that's exactly what they're being.  More reason for me to scope them out.  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palahniuk's homosexuality 

message: :The plot is based around an unnamed protagonist who struggles with his growing discomfort with consumerism and changes in the state of masculinity in American culture.
A one line sililoquey in the bus scene is a really weak argument to add in the masculinity point. 211.30.80.121 11:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, this is not about the film. Second of all, there's plenty in the book about it. -- LGagnon 13:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masculinity? 

message: Please stop making a section for the rules. This splits up the Plot section in an ackward way by detaching the lower half of it from the section. There is no actual need for such a section, so please do not make it again. -- LGagnon 01:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules section

message: I was reading Transmetropolitan the other night and noticed that in volume 7 page 85, there is some graffiti that says, "Tyler Durden lives". I don't know if this is worth mentioning or not, under "Fight Club in Pop Culture" or not.
:I don't know Transmetropolitan, but does the reference make sense in a Fight Club context?  I mean, similar themes, situations, etc.?  If so, it sounds at least as worthy a reference as the others on the list.  Anyway, care to expand?  Cheers, --Plumbago 16:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another reference to Fight Club in issue 42 of the same comic (42 is also in Volume 7, if you have the collection; the graffiti is in issue 40) ; this one's a little more obvious to people who've seen the movie. On page 16 of said issue, there's a whole block of high-rises being blown up in the distance, with a sign for a demolition company saying "Durden Demolitions: If it says Durden, it's going down." The comic is excellent, by the way, highly recommended.--216.68.209.189 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking comic for context: Transmetropolitan. --208.41.98.142 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm new at this 

message: As a reminder to those who never bothered to read the book and are editing this article based on the film: The rules here are exact quotes from the book. It's not "do not" or the ridiculous "DO NOT", but "don't", and in both cases. Film fans can edit the film's article or at the very least do some research before editing this one. -- LGagnon 00:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source? That would be needed to add such info. -- LGagnon 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop changing the rules

message: What did he do at Freightliner? --Gbleem 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he once said that he fixed trucks. -- LGagnon 04:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freightliner 

message: I'm not sure that this sentence makes sense : "In its popularity, the novel has become a target of criticism, mainly for its explicit depictions of violence" (italics added).  It immediately follows a sentence about the film and its popularity.  Does this sentence supposed to mean something like ...
* "In the wake of the film's popularity ..."
* "In spite of its popularity, ..."
... or something similar?  It doesn't make sense (to me) at the moment.  Cheers, --Plumbago 12:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the first choice. -- LGagnon 21:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Wumpscut — In the middle of the song "Christfuck", Brad Pitt's quote can be found; "As always. I'll carry you - kicking and screaming - and in the end you'll thank me."
Firstly I added the title of the song, I assume it was left out by accident but if it was intentionally excluded feel free to edit.
Also should Brad Pitt be changed to Tyler Durden? -- 203.23.219.158
:This should be in the film's article, not the book's. I'm removing it, and you can add it over there. -- LGagnon 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Reference 

message: In the article it says:
"There, the narrator is held captive at gunpoint by Tyler, forced to watch the destruction of Project Mayhem. Then, Marla comes to the roof with one of the support groups which the Narrator went to before fight club. This causes the hallucination of Tyler to stop, because “Tyler was [his] hallucination, not hers.” [17]
With Tyler gone, the narrator waits for the bomb to explode and kill him. However, the bomb turns out to be a dud due to the fact that Tyler used the paraffin recipe, which never worked for the narrator, and thus Tyler as well. Still alive and holding the gun that Tyler used to carry on him, the narrator decides to make the first decision that is truly his own: he puts the gun in his mouth and shoots himself."
Since when does Tyler "die" before the Narrator shoots himself?
This is wrong, someone should change it.
--Vashsunglasses 07:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in last two paragraphs of plot summary: 

message: In the DVD commentary for the film, Palahniuk says that he knew somebody named Bob who did steroids in the 80s who served as part of the basis for the character Bob.  Coincidentally, the real-life Bob developed testicular cancer after the book was published.  I feel that this needs to be mentioned (especially that there was a real-life basis for the Bob character), but I can't figure out in which section to place it.  Perhaps there should be a new section that covers real-life inspirations for aspects of the novel (Palahniuk is famous for using urban legends and anecdotes from friends to craft his stories, and Fight Club is no exception). Jeff Silvers 01:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real-life Bob 

message: The Rules of Fight Club
    The first rule of fight club is you don’t talk about fight club.
    The second rule of fight club is you don’t talk about fight club. (Fight club exists only in the hours between when fight club starts and when fight club ends. You don’t talk about fight club because except for five hours from two until seven in the morning, fight club doesn’t exist.)
    The third rule of fight club is two men per fight.
    The fourth rule of fight club is one fight at a time.
    The fifth rule of fight club is no shoes, no shirts in the fight.
    The sixth rule of fight club is the fights go on as long as they have to.
    The seventh rule of fight club is if this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight.
    The eight rule of fight club is when someone says stop, or goes limp, even if he’s just faking it, the fight is over.
    The ninth rule of fight club is only fifty guys to a fight club.
    (New) The tenth rule of fight club is nobody should be the center of fight club. Nobody’s the center of fight club except the two men fighting. The leader’s voice will yell, walking slowly around the crowd, out in the darkness. The men in the crowd will stare at other men across the empty center of the room. This is how it will be in all the fight clubs.
    The eleventh rule of fight club is fight club will always be free. It will never cost to get in. We want you, not your money.
    The twelfth rule of fight club is if anyone ever tries to shut down the club, even me, then you have to get him by the nuts. In another words, don’t f--- with fight club.
Note:  For your eyes only. Make ten copies.
---
The Rules of Project Mayhem
    The first rule about Project Mayhem is you don’t ask questions.
    The second rule about Project Mayhem is you don’t ask questions.
    The third rule about Project Mayhem is no excuses.
    The fourth rule about Project Mayhem is no lies.
    The fifth rule about Project Mayhem is you have to trust me.
    The sixth rule about Project Mayhem is don’t do homework assignments while you’re drunk.
    The fifth rule about Project Mayhem is only in death will we have our own names since only in death are we no longer part of the effort. In death we become heroes.
    The last rule about Project Mayhem is you don’t ask questions.
:This is a bunch of misinformation and original research, which does not belong in Wikipedia. -- LGagnon 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the rules of fight club / the rules of project mayhem (to edit or not to edit) 

message: I seem to remember that the film caused "real" fight clubs to spring up in the US and possibly in other countries. I have done basic web searches but have turned up nothing. Has anyone got specific info on this? It would be very interesting as a social phenomenon, given that the film's portrayal of violence was rather realistic - I mean, if it was glamorised violence then a "real" fight club would last about as long as it took for the club members to experience the real thing. But since the violence was not glamorised (relatively speaking), I wonder how the "real" fight clubs fared? Sociologically this would be fascinating... I seem to remember reading about it in a newspaper around 6 months after the film was released. If anyone can include a source or info I'd be grateful. Thanks. Ryancolm 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "real" Fight Clubs?

message: Why has nobody made anything like that yet?  I keep thinking that every time someone says wikiproject or project mayhem.  It could be dedicated to all things Fight Club.  Mooseofshadows 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fight Club is really too narrow a topic to warrant its own Wikiproject.  There's the novel, the film, the video game, and a rumored musical.  That's pretty much it (unless somebody creates character articles, though that would be pretty redundant, as most information that would be relevant to such articles is already present here). Jeff Silvers 06:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject Mayhem

message: This article states that some critics changed their mind of concerning the movie after the movie came out on home video.  However it does not state a source for this or cite examples.  This information should be regarded as heresay and uninformative to the article as a whole.  Agreed? Reaper Man 09:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics changing views?

message: I think we should create a "Major Themes" section for the article, which outlines the themes of the book -- The Dehumanising effect of Consumerism; The Rise of Corporations; The Shattering of the American Dream; The Demasculation of Society; and The Theory of Anarchy. The book may deal with more ideas than this, and some of these headings could probably be merged, but I think these are the issues that are the heart of "Fight Club" and they deserve their own section. Even if each heading just gets a few sentences to sum up the theme, I think it would be a valuable start. You can find a number of essays on "Fight Club" at the site "http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/books/fightclub/". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Wolf101 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Themes? 

message: In the Subtext section the "journal" Stirrings Still is quoted as a source.  Give me a break...  Three "issues" hardly constitutes a "journal" worth citing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.97.122.85 (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stirrings Still as a source 

message: I'm well aware that many consider Tyler Durden to be some kind of anarchist philosopher, but I dont' see this.  Considering that he gains control of the club's members and creates a cult of personality about himself, I find this claim to be highly dubious.  I also don't understand the connection to anarcho-primitivism for this same reason.  Alternatively, I would connect him to primitivist thought in general, but not anarcho-primitivist.  Has the author at any point specifically cited anarchy or anarchism as a specific theme of the story, or that Tyler is intended to be a portrayed as an anarchist?  If not, I think references to anarchism should be weeded out (there is only one at the present,) and avoided in the future.  However, if there is source information on a connection, it would be great for that to be included as a citation for the article. --Cast 07:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've waited long enough for a response, but none has come.  I'll just switch a few adjectives around and remove all references to anarcho-primitivism and anarchism.  When someone can provide a citation, these can be added back on.--Cast 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Primitivism and Anarchy 

message: I remember reading online about how the two main characters have a very close resemblance to the characters in the comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes".  I can't find the website(s) right now but I'm pretty sure if you search "Calvin, Hobbes, 'Fight Club'" you wll get the website.  Wait.  Here it is: http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=29_0_2_0 It is VERY interesting, and after following Calvin and Hobbes for a long time before it ended, the similarities in the MOVIE and comic strip are almost undeniable. Ilikefox34 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calvin and Hobbes

message: Was Tyler Durden a separate person, or a separate personality? Some parts of the article make it sound like Tyler is inarguably a separate person, i.e. "the narrator's condo is destroyed by an explosion and he asks Tyler if he can stay at his house", unless you ask in a round about way, it typically means a face-to-face meeting, and that the narrator realized that he had the same beliefs as Tyler, but he stifled them for society, or didn't realize it. E.g."...increasingly elaborate attacks on corporate America. This was originally the narrator's idea, but Tyler takes control from him."
The first part of the line, "As the narrator endeavors to stop Tyler and his followers, he learns that he is Tyler..." In the spiritual sense he is Tyler, as in they have the same beliefs, or it could just mean that they share the same body. "...Tyler is not a separate person, but a separate personality." Tyler not being a separate person, only has face value. However, a separate personality could mean while Tyler and the narrator are the same person in terms of beliefs and actions, Tyler has a separate personality with accompanying habits, tics, memories, and body.
While others sound like definite proof that Tyler is a separate personality of the narrator, that is to say "The narrator's bouts of insomnia had actually been Tyler's personality surfacing; Tyler would be active whenever the narrator was "sleeping". This allowed Tyler to manipulate the narrator into helping him create fight club; Tyler learned recipes for creating explosives when he was in control, and used this knowledge to blow up his own condo."
Am I being slow on this subject, or is it really convoluted? Kidcorona 07:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyler Durden