I think that if you walk away from Fight Club thinking "I want to be Tyler Durden" you missed the point. He's not the hero. Neither is Alex from A Clockwork Orange or the Joker from The Dark Night.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I trolled a couple of what I think were "Anonymous" boards (not 4 chan though). It looks like there is legitimate "debate" among "members" about how much they want to do important things versus people who just want to "do it for the lulz".
It seems like they might be going toward the former, but who can say. All it takes to make something an "Anonymous" operation is to say, "this is an Anonymous operation", preferably with some ominous music in the background and a computerized voice
He was an ******* who brain-washed idiots and got a man killed in the process. Granted, he's an insane personality disorder, but I can't sympathize with him.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
for as much as the movie is against the methods Durden uses, it certainly hits on a theme of disenfranchisement that many people have. People were all too willing to have their "brains washed" by something that gave them value in this "consumer" society.
Thats what I mean. Durden is wrong because he picked methods that were no less destructive than the thing he fought against, not because he was deluded into thinking people didn't feel they had anything to live for. Its fairly easy to sympathize with someone who is looking for an alternative to consumer based society and culture, and, as the movie shows, people are so willing to buy into any alternative that they willingly give up their freedom.
the "space chimps" who were supposed to represent an average sampling of the public at large? These were average people with average lives, almost defined in that way. I almost have to think Palahniuk made them as archetypal as possible. The jobs they did, their lives in general, were sculpted specifically to make the members of project mayhem as much like you or I as possible. Maybe they are "space chimps", but the intention is clear, we all are those space chimps. These aren't some special group of people who have nothing because of their own faults, they are people who have nothing because society is such that they are taught to feel like they are always searching for something. It is the statement that you or I, as normal people, aren't going to ever be satisfied in a consumer market, because it is set up against us in the first place.
I'm not sure I see what you are getting at. Sure, they could have not bought the jeans, but the point is, Palahniuk, imho, is saying that the way consumer society is built, and the degree to which it is internalized by people who grow up in it, leaves them feeling that they will never belong, because identity isn't a final place in such a society, but is constantly dictated by marketing and the drive for greater profit by others.
It seems like you are saying "these disenfranchised people wouldn't have had a problem if they weren't disenfranchised", which, tbh, seems as nuanced as "they wouldn't have been a terrorist if they just never decided to be a terrorist". The point isn't so much about the fact people have a choice, in some ultimate sense, but in the human perception of choice and what people are willing to give up in order to feel they have that choice.
I suppose, at the very base of it, might be the idea that even though it is possible to find meaning without material things, it takes getting hit in the face in a basement sometimes to realize it.
huh... I'm not sure I would distinguish between the two. There is much more of an Id v ego/superego thing going on imho, than there is a dynamic between 2 characters
Yes, I got the point, the "you are not your khakis" was clear. I'm still not sympathetic to Durden's cause. Granted, if my debt was wiped clear one day I'd be happy, but I doubt there'd be no aftermath of shit-storm proportions for us all.
I don't know, maybe I'm less inclined to blame society than the people making the actions. I've turned into a cheap consumer as I've aged. I don't do fads or trends.
Norton's aspect had to shoot himself in the face to end the madness, though it was too late. He I can sympathize with.
I don't really care to get into a "what Palahnuik meant" type of debate. I've only watched the film and not read the book, so from that point, I'm at a loss.
I also have to imagine you aren't someone who feels that the car they drive says a whole lot about who you are on the inside. I'd suspect computer nerds who voluntarily meet on the internet to discuss geo-politics in countries they have never visited might have a broader perspective on identity than the average citizen.
I don't think it is as simple as choice vs society, but rather, the choices we feel we have available to us because of society. No matter how free you are, if all you have ever learned is X, not only is choosing something other than X hard, so is knowing that this choice even exists. That is why people simply jump from "consumerism" to "project mayhem". in neither case are they free to think for themselves (which is obviously preferable), but they willingly seek out an alternative to a system that is set up to leave them unfulfilled once they realize that the choice is there.
Maybe a more optimistic message would be to have them come to terms with their own identities and feel like they don't need things to define themselves, but I don't feel that would be a more realistic depiction at all.
this is true, but there is also the fact that Norton's character was really the most satisfied when he acted like Durden, who really just represented his repressed feelings.
So like, when he destroys the blond guy's face, this is no different than Durden wanting to destroy debt, or the wearing of black and having no names. In it, we see haves and have nots. Someone who epitomizes wealth (beauty) being forced, through violence, to be equal with the masses, and in fact, penalized for being in possession of something most people can't have. The "I wanted to destroy something beautiful" line could have been from Durden himself. The thing with his boss is similar.
When Norton gives into these ideas, that are really his, characterized by Durden, he feels more at ease, and in fact, "good" things happen for him (in the case of the boss, he is able to game the system itself).
he ends the "madness", but you really can't shoot dead an aspect of your personality. Durden might very well no longer be an aspect of his consciousness, but he wasn't choosing consumerism over disenfranchisement, in fact, it seems Norton is going to be continually disenfranchised by the world, and still harbour those thoughts of belonging to something more important. I really don't see him as feeling there is any greater sense of identity or individuality at the end of the film. The only resolution seems to be that his psychological issue might have run its course.
actually, neither have I, so the book and the movie might be entirely different in that regard, I just figured if I was going to mention the writer, I should get it right
KMC Community Forums
Jun 21st, 2011 04:47 PM
Attachment: 
