Customer Reviews

You Do Not Talk About Fight Club: I Am Jack's Completely Unauthorized Essay Collection (Smart Pop series)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have newfound appreciation for grade-school teachers.

"Weekend spent correcting book reports, most written by people who only saw the film" not only serves as fair analogy to reading this collection, it's every bit as awful as it sounds.

All the essays here come from metaphilm, a Web site. As such, the essays tend to focus on the film version of Fight Club. Most at least acknowledge the differences between the book and the film, but where there are differences, the focus is on the film version.

Unfortunately, the only criterion for inclusion seems to be spurious comparison to some other film or cultural icon. Within 16 essays, comparisons and direct likening are made to Lord of the Rings; Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde; the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip; the Oedipus myth; and in one amazingly ham-fisted entry, The Matrix, American Beauty and Pink Floyd's The Wall, all at once; to name a few.

There is no instantly recognizable film or literary critic in this collection.

There are a few essays from theology Ph.D. students, a pair of professors from colleges you've never heard about before and a particularly self-important, self-absorbed attempt at omnibus insight from a lecturer at Temple University. Otherwise, the academic credentials of these critics are nonexistent.

No one has a social sciences pedigree. No one claims professional expertise in film making, screen writing or any related discipline. Few take the time to follow academic rigor of any sort -- and I don't mean just the essayist who goes on and on about the "Force" of martial-arts kicks and punches, when punches and kicks actually possess momentum.

Consider: Virtually every essay here mentions the 1999 film's depiction of imploding skyscrapers, directly comparing the scene to the 9/11 attacks two years later. Not one, however, notes that "Fight Club" was written in 1995, just two years after the first terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center -- which used a car bomb, just like Project Mayhem did.

We're treated to six pages claiming Tyler Durden, and possibly Chuck Palahniuk, are the products of a government mind-control program, but not one essayist can make obvious comparisons between the anti-consumerist, anti-technology beliefs of Islamic jihadists and those of Tyler Durden, even as he goes for the wrong terrorist attack that equates the two.

Another problem is the total fascination with "homoerotic" undertones that nearly every essayist feels compelled to point out. Yes, Palahniuk is gay. Yes, fist fighting is kind of gay, too; one only need watch mixed martial arts to see that. Yes, the lack of father figure and seeing Marla Singer as spoiler and Bob's "bitch tits" and on and on and on. ... Enough with this, already. It's not new, insightful or particularly useful.

The regrettable part is that some of these essays have genuine merit. For example, the first essay argues that "Fight Club" is really a love story; it does so effectively, largely because the author began with Palahniuk's own statements about his novels, and built upon that foundation.

A few other entries shine, such as one that examines the role of technology to human relationships, and a particularly clever one that dredges up a 1950s book on soap and detergent to effectively summarize Durden's base views.

For the most part, these works are useless. They either fail to prove their premises - often, thanks to the premises being paper-thin - or so stretch your willingness to even indulge the premise, that you want to quit reading after a few paragraphs, almost universally stuffed with adjectives fresh from the thesaurus.

I spent many years writing editorials and columns for newspapers, so I know a thing or two about critical essays. And writing opinions about things you don't actually understand. And hanging your rhetorical hat on any peg, regardless of its ability to hold the load.

I know bad essays when I see them. And I saw a lot inside the covers of this book.

What I did enjoy, immensely, was Palahniuk's foreword -- a brilliantly veiled insult of metaphilm. Noting his time as a campus radical was really a series of silly outbursts that changed nothing, Palahniuk writes that all that really mattered is he found like souls; a family.

There could be no fairer assessment of the largely nonsensical rants collected here; the foreword's proud inclusion in the collection tells you everything you need to know about the intellectual capacities of these critics.

It's nice they have metaphilm, a place to gather in like company. But don't waste your money on what they have to say.

I agree that the majority of the work is film related. I was a little disappointed by this, but the cover image resembles one of the covers of the DVDs I own. Using "Chuck Palahnuk's" name implies book related, but in truth he just writes the intro.

I love the discussions and am one that likes to push the envelope in making something relevant. I agree that at times I caught myself rolling my eyes at some of the comparisons, but I like the idea that the writers were tying this to something concrete (something they found to be a cultural mile stone).

I don't know that Chuck has become a first name member of the great and holy canon of American Literature, but do feel he has much to say about the last 10 years, culture and society. I personally am intrigued by Will Christopher Baer and would love to see something similiar written on his work. I also like Charlie Huston and Denis Johnson (I throw these names out more as a point of reference of what I see as similiar material and to give my bias as a reader than anything else).

It isn't the best criticism ever written, but if you like criticism that is relevant to the changes in society and dares try to get in the head of "Fight Club" (be it film or book-although, I do wish it was more novel related), this is not a bad read.

While I had assumed this was a new book by my favorite author, and it wasnt, it would still be a necessity for anyone in a highschool or college english class for analyzing Chuck Palahniuk's book, Fight Club. Besides the foreword by Chuck himself, there are 17 different interpretations of Fight Club the book, Fight Club the movie, and even Mr. Palahniuk. You really get a good feel for what people took away from the story, and a new view on every angle of the plot and characters.

If you are like me and think that Fight Club was a self help book cleverly disguised as a gritty misanthropic tale of one man's escapism turned into a rampant global underground upheaval of society, then you should read this book. It expands on many of the book's fundamental ideas. And if you're into the book not so much for its entertainment value as for its ideas, then this is a worthy supplement.

Sure, you get the inevitable essay that's way too far up it's own butt and aims more at being clever than at actually providing useful or even usable information. And you also get the tiresome comparisons between the book and the film, which you will already know if you have watched and read both.

Regardless, it's still worth reading. [...]

FINALLY, a badly needed philosophical discussion of the movie Fight Club. I've always felt that the Unabomber Manifesto was the Project Mayhem playbook, and it's discussed here. This book is packed with 16 essays from various writers who methodically take the movie apart and talk about it. This book is a must for those of us who enjoyed the movie and love to think about it in philosophical and psychological terms. I only hope this book opens the door to further explorations of the movie Fight Club.

I love Fight Club in both book and movie form and I love the fact that the story makes you think. So picking this book up seemed like a must for any Fight Club/Chuck Palahniuk fan.

I'm only two essays into it and my interest is already losing traction. The first essay was painfully overwritten considering the context of the book and the audience who will probably be reading it. If you don't have your dictionary and a good understanding of philosophy both basic and advanced, you'll probably struggle through it hoping the book gets better as I did (it does). Long, complex sentence structures, insane words and hybrid words I recognized but didn't know the meaning of and philosophy references that I had never heard before all conspired to ruin this first essay for me rather quickly.

Another major complaint I have--again with the first essay since I've only read two so far--is that there is no spoiler alert at the start of the essay. Well let me just warn you now, the first contributing essay will ruin a good majority of Chuck Palahniuk's novels if you haven't already read them. The author goes off endlessly and in detail about his theories on Chuck's other books, describing in detail certain aspects of the story and the book's overall outcome. So annoying trying to skip over stuff that seemed spoiler in nature. I haven't read Chuck's other books yet and now I don't need to; the surprise is ruined.
And that brings me to one other complaint about the first essay, it's only about 50% about Fight Club. The remainder is mostly a discussion on Chuck Palahniuk and his other books. Its an overall discussion and a damn confusing one at that.

Good news is the second essay is a breath of fresh air that focuses solely on Fight Club and is comprehensible enough to hold the reader from beginning to end.

If you like Fight Club and discussing your opinion on stuff, you'll probably get something out of this book. Complaints aside, I'm excited to finish this book.