Johan Huizinga’s Ideas of Ritual and War in the Rules of Fight Club

Every fight club begins with a recitation of its rules:

The first rule about fight club is you don’t talk about fight club. The second rule about fight club is you don’t talk about fight club. 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. […] And the seventh rule, […], is if this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight. (Palahniuk Cover, 50)

Each rule contributes to the identity of the club, and without one of the rules fight club would be completely transformed. Some of the rules highlight the secrecy of the club while others focus on the battle aspects. The rules of fight club work together to highlight elements of ritual and war that Johan Huizinga, in Homo Ludens, would consider “play”.

Fight Club’s rules fall into two distinct categories: those that promote its ritual and those that govern its warlike nature. The first two rules are always repeated in their entirety throughout the book and the movie. They use repetition to ensure that they are remembered correctly and taken more seriously. Before every fight club takes place, the recitation of the first two rules reminds the fighters that they are part of a tradition, or ritual. Fight club always starts with the same ritual: “from the darkness outside the crowd comes the anonymous voice of the chapter leader: ‘The first rule of fight club is you don’t talk about fight club’” (FC 179). Huizinga states that play “is transmitted, it becomes tradition. It can be repeated at any time” (Huizinga 10). Clearly, a tradition of fight club is that the rules are stated before every meeting. Fight club exists wherever the rules are stated. It does not need a specific location, but rather an adherence to its rules. This reciting of the rules turns fight club into a ritualistic event. “Just as there is no formal difference between play and ritual, so the ‘consecrated spot’ cannot be formally distinguished from the play-ground” (Huizinga 10). Ritual and play go hand in hand with each other, and it is through this relationship that fight club is “play”. The secrecy of the club and the repeated reciting of rules create a “play-ground” for the members. In this “play-ground,” fighters can be taken into the “now,” where the past and the future no longer matter. Not only do the rules hint at ritual, but they also provide order in a game of chaotic fighting. Huizinga points out that “inside the play-ground an absolute and peculiar order reigns. Here we come across another, very positive feature of play: it creates order, is order” (Huizinga 10). The “play-ground” of fight club is the basement of a bar, and because it is a form of play, there are rules attached to it. Fight club’s rules allow members the freedom to fight while still maintaining some sort of order. We can see that fight club has created order—that the fighters want order. In addition to providing a context for the fight, the rules also allow the participants to feel like they belong to something special. Fight club was founded in response to man’s often times mundane existence. At fight club, everyone is special because they are the only ones who know about the club. The first two rules make sure of this.

“The first rule about fight club is you don’t talk about fight club” (Palahniuk 48). As the hallmark rule for the club, the first rule serves to create a separation from the rest of society. Huizinga “found that one of the most important characteristics of play was its special separation from ordinary life” (Huizinga 19). Fight club is a place where men from all backgrounds can escape the monotony of their ordinary lives and take on a new identity. As the narrator puts it, “Who guys are in fight club is not who they are in the real world (Palahniuk 49). When Tyler announces the first rule of fight club, it reminds the fighters that they don’t have to worry about anyone mentioning the happenings of the club to outsiders who will judge them. The secrecy of the club creates a world that is separated from others in society. Ironically, the only way that fight club expands is when the first rule is broken.

In Fight Club the movie, Tyler (Brad Pitt) slightly changes the rules of fight club. In the movie “The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club” (Movie) There is a slight change from “about fight club” to “of Fight Club”, which changes the tone and severity of the rule. Making this small change gives Brad Pitt a more commanding tone, which is then reduced after the first two rules. “The second rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club” (Movie). Similarly, the second rule in the movie adds a more commanding tone than in the book. “Don’t” implies a more informal tone, while “do not” suggests harsher consequences for breaking the rules. Not only that, but this small change in diction helps characterize Tyler in different ways. The book version highlights Tyler’s nonchalant attitude while the movie version shows his powerful side. Then in the movie the rules start to get really jumbled around as “Third rule of Fight Club—Someone yells ‘Stop!’ goes limp, taps out, the fight is over” (Movie). This rule only appears in the book during its earliest explanation of fight club: “That’s the third rule in fight club, when someone says stop, or goes limp, even if he’s just faking it, the fight is over” (Palahniuk 49). However, each time the rules of fight club are repeated thereafter the third rule changes to “The third rule of fight club is two men per fight” (Palahniuk 97). Even the inside cover of the book prints this version of the third rule in big blue letters. The third through eighth rules all emphasize the warlike aspect of fight club, which is why they can, and are, altered throughout the book. Their function is not as reliant on the exact wording and order as the first two rules because their purpose is to regulate the warlike battles in fight club, while the first two rules are a ritual that must be repeated verbatim to correctly function. Changing the order of the first two rules would completely alter their purpose, yet varying the other rules does not change their intention. Palahniuk’s language throughout the entire book is straightforward and attention grabbing, which explains why only the first two rules are repeated verbatim throughout the novel. The first two rules provide the uniqueness in fight club because rarely are a set of rules listed for a game that has two of the exact same rule. Because of this uniqueness, it serves as the attention grabber not only for the readers/viewers but also for the fighters. Hearing the first rule repeated twice signals the rituality of the event. “Fourth rule—Only 2 guys to a fight. Fifth rule—One fight at a time, fellas. Sixth rule—No shirts, no shoes. Seventh rule—Fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule—If this is your first night at Fight Club you have to fight” (Movie). The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh rules drop the prefix “The […] rule of fight club is...” The movie needs to define Tyler’s character more in his language than with descriptions about his thoughts, like in the book. So the movie includes Tyler talking in a very “cool” sort of manner, implying that he is likable and powerful. He says “fellas” to refer to the crowd of people around him to demonstrate his likeability that the narrator (Joe/Jack) wants to have. In the book, all the rules begin with the prefix “The […] rule [of/about] fight club is…” because Palahniuk wants to draw attention to the importance of the rules and their ritualistic nature. The movie has the advantage of controlling the amount of time it takes to say each rule and adding a dramatic tone to the rules. Palahniuk needs to draw attention to the rules other ways, specifically by repeating this prefix. However, later in the book the rules begin to change as different people recite them. Big Bob, for example, nails the first two rules verbatim but casually states the third rule as “Only two men per fight” (Palahniuk 100) and the fourth rule as “Only one fight at a time” (Palahniuk 101).

All the rules except the first two are included more to provide rules for battle, and their lack of ritual value is reflected in their wording. Many of them coincide with Huizinga’s explanation of war and play, such as “The private duel avenges outraged honour” (Huizinga 94). The third and fourth rules of fight club in the book call for only two men per fight and one fight at a time, which sets the stage for this classic duel that Huizinga talks about. Fight club’s “private duels” are not meant for fighters to avenge outraged honor, but rather encourage them to gain honor from knowing that they can beat someone in a fight. The third rule of fight club in the movie demands that the fights are over if someone goes limp, or says stop. Huizinga explains that “it is quite in accordance with the ritual character underlying the private duel that the fighting should not aim at killing but stop at the shedding of blood, when honour is satisfied” (Huizinga 95). In fight club, the members strive to win the duels that they engage in to gain this honor and demonstrate their worth. They in no way try to kill their opponents even though they brutally attack them. Fights in fight club are a form of battle and of “play”, and as Huizinga points out, the “play” is in the honor gained from the victory rather than the kill.

Later in the book, Tyler makes up new rules, such as “nobody should be the center of fight club […] Nobody’s the center of fight club except the two men fighting. […] another new fight club rule is that fight club will always be free” (Palahniuk 142-143). These rules show the evolving nature of the club and how its tradition is passed along. Many sports and games in society today have incredibly large sets of rules that have evolved over time, like fight club. Rules for games are always changing, like the clock stopping in college football in order to move the first down chains, which is a rule that was created merely to stop opposing teams from trying to cheat by wasting time moving the chains (usatoday.com). Originally, this rule was not needed because football players hadn’t thought of this method of cheating. When the game started to evolve, players started to use the clock stoppage cheat as if it were part of the game. All games with rules, fight club included, continually evolve as players find new ways to master the original rules. Rules will be made that no one can ever anticipate from the start, but are crucial in responding to the evolution of the game. Palahniuk uses these new rules to show that fight club has started to evolve, as people have obviously begun charging money to join the club before this rule was created. As the club becomes more popular it will continue to evolve, and studying the addition of rules gives insight into this evolution. Changes must be addressed with new rules to maintain the order within the game.

Fight club eventually branches off into Project Mayhem, which has its own set of rules that clearly resemble fight club’s. “You don’t ask questions is the first rule in Project Mayhem. […] the second rule of Project Mayhem is you don’t ask questions” (Palahniuk 122). The first two rules follow the exact form that fight club’s rules follow. They are the same rule repeated twice, which, like fight club, emphasize the ritual element of the project. Project Mayhem’s first two rules also serve to parallel fight club’s first two rules and expand from their ritual intent. As Tyler’s now established trademark, repeating the first two rules twice hints that his ideals will be similar to fight club’s, such as living in the “now.” Like fight club, Project Mayhem brings its members into the “now” when they perform thrilling tasks such as blowing up buildings. Even though the first two rules of fight club and Project Mayhem essentially have the same function, there is a clear distinction between the two. Project Mayhem demands that its members don’t ask questions, while fight club requires its members to not talk about it. Fight club’s first two rules serve more of a purpose to the members while Project Mayhem’s appeal more to Tyler. Not talking about fight club means that the members are part of a secret society, where they can separate themselves from the rest of society. Demanding that members of Project Mayhem don’t ask questions gives more power to Tyler, who wants more control over the actions of his members. “The third rule in Project Mayhem is no excuses. […] The fourth rule is no lies. […] The fifth rule about Project Mayhem is you have to trust Tyler” (Palahniuk 122,125). The rules of Project Mayhem clearly serve the purpose of giving control to Tyler, while the rules of fight club exist to facilitate the “play” aspect of the club.

Rules can behave in many different ways depending on the function that they are intended to have. In fight club, the rules emphasize the ritualistic nature of the club that lets members separate themselves from society, and bring order to the bloody duels that take place. In Project Mayhem the rules serve as a method of control in order to achieve Tyler’s goals. The ritual elements of each club work differently though, as fight club’s are more aimed at establishing secrecy while Project Mayhem’s, in addition to establishing a secret environment, announce that Tyler’s goals will be similar to fight club’s. Order makes a huge difference for rules that emphasize ritual, because ritualistic rules rely on their order and syntax to maintain their effects, such as repetition. Other rules are solely concerned with what they say, such as the battle rules and the new rules that mirror the game’s evolution. It does not matter what order they are written in or how they are worded as long as they state what the rule is. Repeating one of the warlike rules or new rules would change its meaning into a ritualistic role because repetition has little effect on what a battle element or evolution rule means. Repetition does, however, have inherent ritualistic effects. The movie and book versions of Fight Club use slightly different syntax and tone to create their desired effect of the rules. Ultimately, the collection of rules defines games and is a reflection of the goals of the person who created them.

Works Cited

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Ed. and trans. Not fully attributed: “This edition is prepared from the German edition published in Switzerland, 1944, and also from the author’s own English translation of the text, which he mad shortly before his death…” London: Beacon Press, 1950: 1-27, 46-75, 89-104, 119-135, 195-213.

NCAA. “NCAA Football Rules Changes.” http://www1.ncaa.org/eprise/main/playingrules/football/2005/2007NCAAFootbalRulesChanges--Final.doc?ObjectID=46974&ViewMode=0&PreviewState=0. March 2007.

Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club. New York, 1996.

I Am Jack's Essay... I Will Civilize You

Johan Huizinga offers a historical approach to the concept of play in his book Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. In his chapter regarding his theory of Play and Contest as Civilizing Functions, he suggests ways in which culture develops from forms of play: “Culture arises in the form of play, that it is played from the very beginning” (Huizinga, 46). Through this, he tells us that play is older than culture. He says that culture is not sufficient enough to tell us how play came about, by saying animals have not waited around for humans to teach them how to play. Play is something that is learned and that brings about a culture within a certain group. This notion of play brings groups together in civilizing ways in which they carry themselves through everyday life. In the foreword, Huizinga states, “It was not my objective to define the place of play among all the other manifestations of culture but rather to ascertain how far culture itself bears the character of play”. There are many forms of play to engage in and many ways to analyze the context of that play, as demonstrated in the differences between Huizinga’s theories and Chuck Palahniuk’s view of play in this novel Fight Club.

Palahniuk’s novel displays his particular forms of play more as originating for more internal reasons rather than external ones, which I found intriguing. We see a chronic insomniac man fighting to find his inner passion through life as well as to seek a new society that does not place the same structural restrictions. Fight Club has the participants initially engaging in a form of play aimed at the deconstruction of the self and civilization for the sake of progress of the individual, questioning traditional assumptions about certainty, identity and truth seeking, to expose contradictions in society. Palahniuk builds the story to demonstrate that the deconstruction of the self must take place before changes in civilization can occur; the same way in Huizinga puts the formation of play prior to the creation of civilization.

In relation to Fight Club and Huizinga’s theories, we begin to find tension through the different ways in which they utilize play. Huizinga’s idea of play analyzes a more external view of how society uses things such as sports and socialization as play, considers only the outward appearance of the product of the game, not necessarily the impact on individual players. Huizinga shows ‘play’ as games that many like to participate in. He states that, “ ‘play together’ has an essentially antithetical character. As a rule it is played between two parties or teams” (Huizinga, 47). This is the type of play we see through sports, business and many other types of competitive socialization. “The picture changes as soon as play demands application, knowledge, skill, courage and strength. The more ‘difficult’ the game the greater the tension in the beholders” (Huizinga, 48.). These are ways in which Huizinga tells us the way in which play and contests serve our society as civilizing functions.

But is this the only way in which play can provide civilizing functions to society? Huizinga’s model of play parallels the changes that occur in Fight Club as the skill levels and people change. The “game” of “Fight Club” becomes the “club” of Project Mayhem. This then becomes the political action of a small society. In Fight Club, I noticed it’s not the outward appearance of the product of the game but the internal changes occurring to individual members of the group, and the direct result of those changes on the group as a whole. Huizinga and Fight Club portray play differently, noticeably in the transition from “play” to “club” in Fight Club. Huizinga sees the act of play itself as producing cultural changes while Fight Club has the significant societal impacts occurring only when the “play” turns to “club”. Fight Club demonstrates the struggles between one another within the club and society. Internal conflict is shown through the group’s unhappiness within themselves as individuals and where they are in society. Fight Club shows the basic competition and tension is actually between the two perspectives of ‘internal change’ and ‘outward appearance’.
“Nothing was solved when the fight was over, but nothing mattered. The first night we fought was a Sunday night, and Tyler hadn’t shaved all weekend so my knuckles burned raw from his weekend beard. Lying on our backs in the parking lot, staring up at the one star that came through the streetlights, I asked Tyler what he’d been fighting. Tyler said, his father.”(Fight Club 53.)

This “Who were you fighting?” quote shows us how tension through play in Fight Club is different than that of Huizinga’s tension. This has the fight representing internal individual struggle manifested with outward interaction.
Competition seems to come out when a person or group is faced with tension. The way competitive play is exhibited in Fight Club and through Huizinga differs greatly. In Fight Club, the creation of group culture is manifested through individual members personal growth. The primary importance of the individual and his place in the developing of society is apparent through this quote.

“You aren’t alive anywhere like you’re alive at fight club. When it’s you and one other guy under that one light in the middle of all those watching. Fight club isn’t about winning or losing fights. Fight club isn’t about words. You see a guy come to fight club for the first time, and his ass is a loaf of white bread. You see this same guy here six months later, and he looks carved out of wood. This guy trusts himself to handle anything. There’s grunting and noise at fight club like at the gym, but fight club isn’t about looking good. There’s hysterical shouting in tongues like at church, and when you wake up Sunday afternoon you feel saved” (Fight Club, 51).

This shows me that Fight Club teaches everyone to be competitive internally in order to find themselves and their place in the external world. In Homo Ludens, Huizinga expresses that “Competition is not only ‘for’ something but also ‘in’ and ‘with’ something. People compete to be the first ‘in’…” (Huizinga, 51-52). The ideas he brings up are externally evident that competing is not for just ones inner fulfillment but for winning a certain prize or applause in the end. Either way you see it, these are both ways of creating civilized functions through community and forms of winning. The products of either perspective are evident through behavioral norms, cultural structures, political structure, and systems of reward.

In order to be able to compete, all types of play must have rules and this is clear through both writings. Both these authors realize the importance of rules through play and contest in order to create civilizing environments. A writing that has analyzed Huizinga in these terms has shown how his view on rules originates from the civilizing influence of play in warfare and how it gave rise to chivalry. Through chivalry there was a form of international law that served as a regulating tool to the character of play community, and if the law were violated there would be no more play spirit or real civilization at all (Anchor, 81). So we see how rules let play carry out which then creates our culture in some way. Throughout Fight Club, the whole point is that there really are no rules. The point being that in order to attain a state of personal well-being and enlightenment which allows for participation in enacting social change, you need competition and in order to attain competitiveness and drive you need rules to follow. We see the entire group go through their moments of praxis. In Fight Club the rules to follow in order to find inner accomplishment were:

“1. You don’t talk about fight club.
2. You don’t talk about fight club.
3. When someone says stop, or goes limp, even if he’s just faking it, the fight is over.
4. Only two guys to a fight.
5. Only one fight at a time.
6. They fight without shirts or shoes.
7. The fights go on as long as they have to.
8. If this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight”
(Fight Club 48-50)

These two different forms of viewing competition still show a parallel in that they are each generate rules to reach different levels of achievement or “civilization”, whether external or internal.

So where does competition itself fit in here? In the article “Sports Chatter” by Umberto Eco, he emphasizes that competition through spectator sport is unhealthy and that it is a voyeuristic act: “The illness that undermines this exercised health (like someone who watches not two human beings but two bees making love, while waiting to witness the death of the drone)…” (Sports Chatter, 161). Fight Club doesn’t see voyeurism as a side effect of competition. “After you’ve been to fight club, watching football on television is watching pornography when you could be having great sex” (Fight Club, 50). Fight Club stresses engagement in all those things that are influencing your life.

After tension, the establishment of rules and competition comes the winning aspect of play. Fight Club and Huizinga’s views on winning do not agree. Huizinga sets up winning as the act that leads to constructing society and creating civilized communities.
“Closely connected with play is the idea of winning. Winning, however, presupposes a partner or opponent; solitary play knows no winning, and the attainment of the desired objective here cannot be called by that name… Winning means showing oneself superior in the outcome of a game” (Huizinga, 50).

Fight Club is focusing on the deconstruction of the community and its replacement with a new structure of their own design. The group itself feels that this would be the external validation of their internal victories, and all this began with play.
“Everything’s going according to plan.”
Whispers:
“We’re going to break up civilization so we can make something better out of the world.”
Whispers:
“We look forward to getting you back” (Fight Club, 208).















Works Cited
Anchor, Robert. “History and Play: Johan Huizinga and His Critics”. History and Theory, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Feb., 1978), pp.63-93. http://links.jstor.org

Eco, Umberto. “Sports Chatter.” Travels in Hypereality. Trans. William Weaver. New York: Harcourt, 1986: 159-65.

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Beacon Press, 1950: 1-27, 46-75, 89-104, 119-135, 195-213.

Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. 1996.

"deconstruction." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 07 Apr. 2008. .

"external." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 07 Apr. 2008. .

"knowledge." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 07 Apr. 2008. .
"praxis." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 07 Apr. 2008. .

Identifying Huizinga’s Characteristics of Play in Fight Club

Throughout the narrative in Fight Club the first person narrator actively participates in the story; however, he is never identified as the narration proceeds rapidly between different areas of his life. The constantly changing plot and setting enforce tension by stressing that the action being described is happening in the present. At that moment “you wake up at Love Field” then Tyler is in the projection booth, then Tyler is a banquet waiter, and “you wake up at Sea Tac” (26). The tension this narrative structure creates mirrors that of play because it holds the reader in the moment as the suspense of play focuses the player. As the story continues, it becomes harder to distinguish which area of the narrator’s life is real or ordinary life to the extent that the narrator’s real life is absent from the text. Instead three distinct areas containing various levels of Huizinga’s definition of play emerge in the narrative: work and traveling, group therapy, and Project Mayhem and fight club. These distinct areas of the narrator’s life are emphasized in the movie by three distinct uniforms the narrator wears. At work he is in a shirt and tie, at fight club he wears no shoes and no shirt, and at therapy he has a coat and no tie.

The essential play characteristics which can be applied to three areas of the narrator’s life are that play lies “quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life,” play absorbs the player completely by creating tension, nothing material is gained through play, it has a specific time and place, it promotes secret social groupings, there are rules, and events occur in an orderly matter (13). It can be assumed that when I refer to the narrator I am referring to the novel Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk, when I refer to Edward Norton I am referring to the movie adaptation of the book, and otherwise I will specifically mention or cite Huizinga.

Huizinga’s model applies most readily to group therapy because the narrator merely plays at dying, realizing that “If [he] didn’t say anything, people in a group assumed the worst” (22). Guided meditation provides a perfect example of how the tension created by play holds the participant in the moment. Also, nothing material is gained from these meetings. There are rules and the meetings tend to be orderly. Because the group follows the narrator to stop him from killing himself, the group demonstrates that therapy generates a strong community. Throughout this study of the varying levels of play within the different areas of the narrator’s life, group therapy remains the closest to true play. Because the other areas of the narrator’s life vary in their level of play, what allows therapy to remain consistent? With what respect does therapy differ from the other areas of the characters life and can this be used to define play more precisely.

“The first rule about fight club is you don’t talk about fight club” (48). This rule does several things to qualify fight club as play. It is a rule and it professes the need for the secrecy the social grouping. At first the text makes it clear fight club exists outside of real life with the juxtaposition of three paragraphs beginning with “Who guys are in fight club is not who they are in the real world…Who I am in fight club is not someone my boss knows…In the real world, I’m a recall campaign coordinator” (49). The level of tension within fight club compels the narrator to proclaim, “You aren’t alive anywhere like you’re alive at fight club” (51). Nothing material is gained from fight club. Finally, the boundaries of space and time are the ring under the single light bulb; “fight club exists only in the hours between when fight club starts and when fight club ends” (49). Like therapy, fight club matches Huizinga’s description of play.

The third area of the narrator’s life which emerges as play, his participation in civilization in the form of his job and interactions outside of fight club, is not as easily described as pure play because Huizinga directly describes civilization as false play for it “is impossible to say where it begins and where it ends” (206); however, it is clear that civilization does have rules, nothing material is gained from it, and it promotes social groupings. Another problematic aspect of civilization as true play is that it is hard to say it stands outside of real life. At this point it is necessary to consider the different areas of the narrator’s life as containing different levels of play and not as either serious or true play. Tyler Durden tells the narrator, Edward Norton, “You are not your job.” If the narrator’s participation in civilization is deifined asas his actions at his job and traveling for his job, then Tyler’s proclamation distinguishes this part his life as play because suddenly the narrator’s identity as a recall coordinator, in the real world, is stripped from him; the loss of identity also provides civilization with a boundary for the time and space. When the narrator is at work he is playing a role, but when he returns home to the Paper Street Soap Company he withdraws from this play world. When the narrator describes how “everything in the real world gets the volume turned down” it demonstrates that he is conscious of his withdrawal from civilization. This also shows he is conscious that he is playing. Also, because his “word is law” the narrator is able to impose a higher order upon the play world (49).

While Tyler’s dogma allows the narrator to withdraw from what he once considered the real world, it also augments some aspects fight club such that of fight club becomes false play. The first rule of fight club forces the participant to break down the boundaries of time and space. By not talking about fight club in the real world the characters are still absorbed in the game and playing by the rules. This creates a community and an alternate civilization existing as part of ordinary civilization. This community bond is demonstrated in the movie through knowing glances cast towards the narrator by the man in the copy room and the waiter at lunch towards. Because this community perpetuates itself beyond its boundaries it becomes a false play like civilization. What was his real or ordinary life ends at fight club and then Project Mayhem takes over from there. When the community evolves into Project Mayhem it ceases to be even false play. While the all-black uniforms to disguise and distinguish members, rules are followed religiously, and everything in the Paper Street Soap Company is defined by perfect order, Project Mayhem does not have boundaries of time and space. The Space Monkeys and the narrator live at the house and carry out assignments during the day all over the community. This shows their actions as a community are no longer restricted to Saturday nights. The Space Monkeys deface skyscrapers and destroy corporate art to begin their war to return the world to a time before Ikea. Their assignments begin and end however their involvement in Project Mayhem does not. In this way Project Mayhem becomes real life. However, besides becoming real life for the narrator and the space monkeys, the anti-corporate, anti-civilization sentiment embodied in the terrorist acts the Space Monkeys carry out attach a moral value to Project Mayhem. This changes the community from a play community to one of true seriousness because “it is the moral content of an action that makes it serious” (Huizinga 210). The war of terror conducted by the Space Monkeys bears striking similarities to a holy war because it is conducted in order to achieve some “higher goal than the gratification of the self” (Huizinga 211). Their purposes are of high moral value because their assignments are not ends in and of themselves; they do not just want to destroy corporate art, they want to destroy it to demonstrate a point. A holy war is fought in order to protect a rite to practice or a holy land. It is the added purpose which transforms Project Mayhem and Holy War into seriousness, outside the sphere of play.

While Tyler’s influence over the narrator changes what was the real world into a play at civilization and what was play into a serious new reality ceasing to be play group therapy remains unchanged. Although the narrator stops going because “there’s a new group, but the first rule about this group is you aren’t supposed to talk about it”, he still reaches out to it in the middle of the text when he again is suffering from insomnia (Palahniuk 100). Fight club and Project Mayhem are “support groups. Sort of”; however, support groups do not vary in their play attributes in the narrative (119).

It is the conscious mental play aspect of the support groups which separate them from the others. In therapy the characters, although transported from their bodies are not sucked into a temporary reality that gradually replaces ordinary life as fight club replaced civilization. Therapy is a religious ritual or right in terms of the mental experience it invokes. The narrator follows Chloe into caves where “ice covered the floor of the cave, and the penguin said, slide” (20). The narrator is transported outside his body and similarly imagines his “pain as a ball of white healing light floating around [his] feet” (20). For the rest of the group, therapy works to assuage their fears associated with their illnesses. Through guided meditation Chloe is able to claim, “she no longer has any fear of death” (35). Therapy acts as to provide a “higher order than that in which they customarily live…A sacred space, a temporarily real world of its own…it continues to shed its radiance on the ordinary world outside” and thus matches Huizinga’s definition of a religious ritual, falling under the sphere of play (Huizinga 14).

The mental aspect of play present in group therapy is also present in the other areas of the narrator’s life. At fight club the narrator describes “There’s hysterical shouting in tongues like at church, and when you wake up Sunday afternoon you feel saved” (51). This direct comparison to Sunday Church shows perfectly how fight club can fit the definition of play as a religious ritual. However, because this exceeds the barrier between imagination and realty, unlike therapy, the narrator loses the ability to distinguish between his play and ordinary life. After planting explosives in his boss’s computer, he is unsure “if reality slipped into [his] dream or if [his] dream is slopping over into reality” (137). It is also shortly after at this point that Tyler Durden disappears from the narrative and temporarily play reality completely replaces reality. The narrator becomes fully conscious that he is merely playing a role at his job. With this knowledge he becomes a false player cheating the system, blackmailing his boss, and no longer going to work.

Similarly, Tyler Durden who is “funny and charming and forceful and independent, and men look up to him” is revealed as a actualization of impossible character traits (174). Huizinga describes a child at play who is convinced that he is the tiger he is imitating; he is “transported beyond himself” (14). Tyler is a “sham-reality as a realization in appearance: ‘imagination’ in the original sense of the word” (Huizinga 14). Therefore, anytime Tyler is present in the narrative, the narrator is engaged in a form of play. Tyler’s appearance for a split second in the film when Edward Norton is attempting to get sleeping pills, when he is at group sessions, and when the narrator is in the hotel room on a business trip reflects the play nature of these different areas which, at the time, may not appear to be play. Tyler’s boundaries of time and space are those of the imagination. Tyler cannot coexist with reality; not only that, but Tyler directly opposes what the narrator considers the ordinary life by seducing the narrator into blowing up the narrator’s apartment and office.

As a result of Tyler becoming a realization the narrator creates a new higher order that dominates the order to which the narrator is accustomed. Within the narrator’s imagination, “a sacred space, a temporarily real world of its own,” is created (14). The temporarily real world, however, takes over permanently until the narrator attempts to escape it. Tyler like group therapy, civilization, and fight club and Project Mayhem is reducible to play under Huizinga’s definition of the word. What becomes most important about play then is that it is a conscious mental state. Tyler as an imagination is present until the play community that is Project Mayhem ceases to be distinguishable as play. Also the narrator’s work only becomes play when he becomes conscious that he is merely playing a role as a beatification a productive and law abiding version of himself.

The conclusion that all these parts of the narrator’s life are various levels of play only holds under Huizinga’s definition if, and only if, they exist “quite [consciously] outside ‘ordinary’ life” (13). This conditional makes it necessary to pose the question what remains in the narrative that could be considered real or ordinary life? Where do all these different play elements fall apart? Marla is not able to coexist with the narrator’s most powerful form of play, the actualization that is Tyler Durden, she destroys the play aspect of narrator’s group therapy sessions by appearing in Edward Norton’s cave in the movie, and calls him away from work to give her a breast inspection. This last act physically pulls the narrator back into reality; however, it is interesting that throughout the text she has sex with Tyler, which must be considered play. What is the difference between these forms of physical contact? Why is there this distinction between sex as play and the desexualized naked female body as seriousness? And to further the focus of this essay how does the mental aspect of these scenarios differ and how does this distinguish one as play and the other as serious? It is beyond the scope of this paper to prove that Marla is what is real in the narrator’s life; however, it is merely a tool necessary to prove that the other parts of the narrator’s life are in fact forms of play in varying levels and a topic for further investigation.

Works Cited

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element In Culture. Boston: The Beacon Press.

Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.