The most interesting thing about You Don't Talk About Fight Club is that the collection of essays within present critical analyses of not just the original work by Chuck Palahniuk, but also the film adaptation by David Fincher, offering an even wider variation of viewpoints on the book and film that have both earned their own unique place in the cultural residue of America's turn-of-the-century zeitgeist.


There are some very solid entries that compare Palahniuk's work to Tolkien, Barthes, and Oedipus on the literary end of the spectrum, and the film version gets its own comparisons to other late '90s films such as American Beauty and The Game. The more obvious social-economic, political, psychological, and cultural themes are examined, as are those dwelling on identity and sexuality, and while some of this might seem like well-worn terrain, a detailed discussion of Fight Club would be remiss in ignoring these topics. For more bizarre tangents, there are direct links made to Fight Club as a clear illustration of government mind control experiments, and (my personal favorite) as a direct sequel to the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes.

While length is not necessarily a requirement for quality writing, the collection is hurt somewhat by the inclusion of some single-page and single-paragraph pieces that would work much better as blog comments than anthology contributions. Outside of these brief intrusions, the weakest parts of this collection are a rather tenuous comparison of Fight Club to Pink Floyd's The Wall, and "former martial artist's" supposedly tongue-in-cheek examination of fighting physics and homo-eroticism that comes off more homophobic than humorous. But apart from these few glaring exceptions, this collection does offer plenty to talk about when you do not talk about fight club. ( )

POINTS OF INTEREST

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ: Fight Club is about de-conditioning the programs we have been fed.

CHRISTOPHER CHANDLER and PHILIP TALLON: Anarchism is fundamentally an anti-authoritarian movement. They oppose not just capitalism, but any imperialist or fascist state. They seek a more democratic type of law and rule. In the same way that anarchism questions the legitimacy of the state to govern affairs, so Fight Club derides the unquestioning legitimacy of authority. The similarities between anarchism and Fight Club’s philosophy are remarkable. Both arise among the working-class poor and rage against capitalism and the authorities that promote them. The most intriguing similarity between anarchism and Fight Club is their similar propaganda. It was anarchist who developed the concept and practice of “propaganda by the deed.” The acts in Fight Club are not senseless; they have a purpose. Tyler’s method is “propaganda by the deed.” The goal of anarchists is not nihilism, but financial equity. In Italy, anarchists moved from town to town, liberating debtors by burning the financial archives, distributing tax receipts, and destroying the mechanisms that state used to observe and collect surplus goods (like counters and grain machines). They would then distribute weapons to the peasants and incite social brigandage. The irony of anarchism is that it employs violent means to achieve a peaceful end. This has been the enduring criticism of those who study anarchism.

DAVID MCNUTT: J.R.R. Tolkien located the essential element to a true fairy-story in its ending. Although he believed that drama’s true form was tragedy, he found the authentic form of fairy-stories in its opposite. Because he could not find an existing word to express this idea, Tolkien – ever the sub-creator – decided to invent one: eucatastrophe. Eucatastrophe is, quite literally, a good turn of events. According to Tolkien, it is an abrupt change in the face of disaster, “a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur.” It is a completely unexpected and undeserved rescue in the midst of tragedy, a fortunate ending through unfortunate means. It is that moment when all appears to be lost, but then – incredibly, unbelievably – all is saved and restored. It is “a surprise, a deliverance that no human effort could have made possible,” the eucatastrophic moment “must be experienced not as an achievement of triumphant revenge, but rather as a divine gift.” The turn at the end of fairy-stories is preceded by disaster, and there must exist the possibility for genuine catastrophe – for “sorrow and failure” – in order for “the joy of deliverance” to be authentic. What eucatastrophe does deny is universal final defeat. In this way, fairy-stories provide sincere consolation to the tragic, mournful facets of life. ( )