The idea that mayhem can be reached through a systematic process of carefully researched and skillfully designed events, is contradictory. Mayhem is criminal law, violent behavior, physical assault, rowdy confusion, chaos, and disorder; to systematize it would defeat its very purpose (OED). Tyler’s plan for new world order, Project Mayhem, is problematic in that the moment their chaotic events are planned, it is no longer true mayhem. Palahniuk has similar contradictions in Fight Club with Marla: she is the spoilsport, but there are aspects of her personality that are distinctly socially feminine – if she truly followed no rules then that would apply to her not subscribing to feminine characteristics; Fight Club, according to the narrator, is all about Marla, but his actions continually undermine her and she is portrayed as passive in both narratives – more so in the movie, as seen after Marla’s suicide attempt where Tyler is the one taking charge and helping her escape.
Marla’s femininity is confusing. She exhibits very female characteristics like suicide by pills, not shooting her head off like the narrator, but a technique that preserves her beauty; a vain, typically female desire. But uncharacteristically femininely, she wears her hair short, enjoys her boyish body figure, and is cynical towards ideas of love and the rules of sex. When Marla’s in the kitchen showing off a thrift store bridesmaids dress, she mocks the institution of marriage, “It’s a bridesmaids dress and it’s all hand sewn….Somebody did all these tiny stitches just to make this ugly, ugly dress.” Marla scoffs at all the work that went into the dress: the attention to detail, the planning, the execution of it all. Those small, hand sewn stitches were just a small reflection of how much work went into the actual wedding. But it’s ending? A dress worn and forgotten, on sale for a dollar at Goodwill. Marla gets this.
As a spoilsport, Marla goes against social norms and flaunts her sexuality. She is an avid player of “sport fucks” and understands the limits and benefits of just sex, but doesn’t participate in the games that happen before the copulation. Her analogy of the condom as a glass slipper of our generation mirrors how sex is seen today. Her rebellion is doing it for the sake of doing it, for reaching her moment of “now”, for selfish, physical reasons. Without the games of flirting and the foreplay, sex is animalistic. It is basic and raw and exposed. Just how Marla likes it.
Chloe understands this. She wants to get laid for the last time. “No intimacy, sex,” is how the narrator puts it (19). Her lack of participation in playing by the rules, echo Marla’s. However, Chloe isn’t there yet – she must ask people in her support group, bribing them with porn and lubricant and sex toys. Marla just goes for it. Marla’s version is, according to Huizinga, play. It is a state distinct from other states, is absorbing, and safe place. Marla understands what sex entails, it is what she knows, what she is comfortable with. Sex is her safe place. Chloe wants to be there, wants to have the sexual freedom that Marla has. Because to be in that place, the player can experiment, try new roles, do things without the influence and constraints of the world outside of play. It is to experience deep play. This is what Marla does constantly. She has no drama that brings her out of playing because she lives in the now. She doesn’t plan ahead or think about the past, thus she can live a drama free life.
Chloe, like Marla, is dying. This is an out for them because they don’t have to deal with the consequences of their actions. But, unlike Marla, Chloe has not reached the state of being where she is comfortable with that. In the movie when Chloe tentatively asks her support group for a sex partner she is rushed, nervous, and lets herself be interrupted by the facilitator. She was hesitant a fearful of judgment because she understands – and cares – that she is not playing by the rules. Marla, however, gets that she isn’t playing by the rules and doesn’t care. When Marla is walking across a busy intersection she doesn’t even let a speeding car interrupt her. Her ability to not care is a step up from Chloe. Once Chloe can embrace the idea of not caring, then she can do whatever she wants and not have to deal with the drama, then she will reach the ranks of a spoilsport.
The narrator’s grandmother would be flabbergasted at the idea of a spoilsport. She is the picture of modestly, a true rule follower. His grandmother never wore a swimsuit in public and ran the water in the bathroom sink to mask the noise her using the toilet (105). For the narrator, this description of his grandmother, “sums up the whole story,” defining her by how she followed the rules (106). The portrayal of the narrator’s grandmother, and his lack of respect and sense of humor towards her, follows how he treats Marla.
Despite the opening of both Fight Club narrations emphasizing the idea that it is all about Marla, the rest of the text don’t reflect that. The narrator certain of one thing: “the gun, the anarchy, the explosion is really about Marla Singer” (14). But, the threat of “if you don’t cooperate we’ll go after Marla” stress the weakness in her character (203). It is saying that she is vulnerable to attack without the big, strong help from her man, that having a relationship with her is ultimately detrimental since she is seen as his weakness and therefore taken advantage of, and most importantly, perpetuates the idea that the female is the weakest player in the game. This characteristic of being the weakest player is part of Palahniuk’s contradictions about Marla being a spoilsport and fitting into the femininity stereotype. This is seen when the narrator is dealing with the realization of his split personality and Marla wants to take advantage of Tyler and says, “Hey, before we get rid of Tyler, can we go shopping?” (183). It is seen again when Tyler claims responsibility for Marla because he was chivalrous and saved her life or when she tries to kill her and admitting, “This isn't a real suicide-thing. This is probably one of those cry-for-help things” (60). Marla further undermines herself by qualifying her statements with words like “probably,” and her nonchalant attitude toward decision making. Marla as a passive participant throughout the narratives contradict how Fight Club is all about her. Marla can’t be the center of something and not be in the center.
Palahniuk’s attempt for the “now” in Marla is her questioning her sexuality. His desire to stay in the “now” is seen in how Marla maintains her “now” through exploring her sexuality in sex and through support groups. In Fight Club’s afterward, Palahniuk discusses how the making of Fight Club was his “now,” that as long as it was in the process he was in the “now.” Sex and support groups are Marla’s version – questioning her sexuality is her making of the “now.” Marla’s fixation with defining herself by her breasts, or redefining herself once that could be taken away is explored in “Remaining Men Together.” When Marla and the narrator find the second lump, it is sexual in the way that Marla and Tyler having sex never was. The female breasts, unlike Bob’s bitch tits, are life and death. It is a symbol for nurturing, motherhood, female. Marla’s strategy to get over that and redefine what it is to be female, is by exploring the other symbol of femininity, her sex. This, in Huizinga’s guidelines, is how Marla plays. Sex exists in its own space, it has a clear beginning and end, and there are repetitive elements.
Palahniuk’s portrayal of Marla as a spoilsport is inaccurate in that she does follow some rules set by society in what it means to be female. But, these facets add to how she pushes those boundaries to question her sexuality in such a brash and daring way making her the ideal player for living in Tyler’s new world order.
4.23.2008
Hitting Bottom in Fight Club. Violence is the Key.
The main characters in Fight Club provide evidence that hitting bottom is achieved through different forms of violence and corresponding pain, which, depending on the character, include psychological, physical, or a combination of both. I define the bottom as the place where you cannot emotionally or physically be any worse off, the place where you give up. Hitting bottom does not have to be achieved consciously and it is a relative term. In the case of Joe, for example, Tyler is part of his consciousness and Tyler is the one pushing Joe towards bottom. Joe is purposely and consciously trying to hit bottom. This consciousness and drive to hit bottom is distinctive: the other characters in the book, minus the fighters in Fight Club, achieve bottom accidentally. The variety of ways each character reaches or comes close to hitting bottom requires detailed analysis of each character’s relation with violence, pain, and whether or not they have a desire to hit bottom.
The relationship between Tyler, Joe, and hitting bottom, is mentioned multiple times throughout the book. Tyler claims that unless Joe hits bottom he cannot be saved (70). Joe starts with a psychological fall when he is introduced to the pain and suffering in the support groups. After a night where he cries at “Remaining Men Together,” the testicular cancer support group, Joe says, “I felt more alive than I’d ever felt” (22). The group provokes a physical reaction in Joe, he is now able to sleep better and able to cry. The other group members experience the actual pain from the disease and knowledge of their prognosis, for them the pull towards bottom is both psychological and physical. It is not until after this introduction to the suffering of others, that Joe creates Tyler to physically break him away from his commodities and his work. Because of Joe’s unhappiness, he creates a second persona to achieve the physical aspect of pain required to hit bottom. Tyler begins to expose him to pain and take him closer to death and the bottom.
Tyler has almost hit bottom by the nature of his personality and his existence in Joe’s psyche. Being a creation of Joe’s mind, his form of hitting bottom is psychological. Tyler is confident and “cool,” which clashes with Joe who is an adamant consumer and spends the majority of his time working for a large corporation. The doorman at Joe’s old apartment comments on Joe’s consumer fixation, "A lot of young people try to impress the world and buy too many things" (45). Tyler abhors this consumerism. Unable to stand Joe’s life, during the day when he is not in control, he decides to try to get Joe to reach bottom. If Tyler can get Joe to reach bottom, Joe will be able to fully live in the moment. “Tyler says I'm nowhere near hitting the bottom, yet. And if I don't fall all the way, I can't be saved” (70). For Joe being saved can only happen when he gives up. Tyler brings Joe closer to the bottom through physical violence. From the first punches when Tyler asked Joe to hit him, through destruction of his body at the fights, rejecting Marla (even though he likes her), the physical pain from the lye, and then, finally, with a gun pointed at himself, Tyler leads Joe to utter self-destruction. One of the strongest examples of the role violence has in hitting bottom is when Tyler kisses Joe’s hand and pours lye on it. The pain becomes unbearable. "We can use vinegar," Tyler says, "to neutralize the burning, but first you have to give up" (76). Tyler gives Joe a choice. The choice is to give up and live in the moment, nearing bottom and ending the current pain. By living in the moment, Joe will stop focusing on his Job and past. ‘Congratulations,’ Tyler says. ‘You're a step closer to hitting bottom” (78). Through the intense physical pain, and making the choice, Joe has been brought into the moment and towards the point where nothing matters anymore.
Marla provides a clear example that in order to hit bottom a form of violence is necessary. Her fight with cancer is not going well. Marla is forced to let go of hope as the book progresses. Marla is in many ways one of the most human characters in the book and thus it was easier for me to understand her progression towards bottom. Hitting bottom, as previously described, requires giving up and pain or violence. The pain Marla experiences is cancer. It is also the way in which she hits bottom. The cancer causes a physical and psychological form of pain. The lumps in her chest are physical and the pain that comes from knowing of her cancer and her prognosis remains. I do not know if the lumps were painful for her, as it is not covered in the book and I am not knowledgeable about breast cancer. However, I have lost my grandparents to cancer and the pain they felt was severe and violent. Marla knows she will die because of the cancerous lumps and this creates a reality and a choice. The reality is the closeness to death, which certainly brings her towards bottom. Her choice is whether or not she will live in the moment. Marla decides to give up and live in the moment. Through her relationship with Joe and her experience with the support group, which she starts going to the after she finds the first lump, Marla reaches bottom. “Now that she knows where we’re all going, Marla feels every moment of her life” (38). Feeling every moment requires hitting bottom and hitting bottom happens when Marla gives up, after finding the lump.
A great example of showing that Marla has given up and is at bottom is when she hops into the kitchen after a sad discovery by Joe; there are more lumps within her breasts. “The morning after we found her second lump, Marla hopped into the kitchen with both legs in one leg of her pantyhose and said, ‘Look, I'm a mermaid’” (107). This playfulness seems out of place, as Marla’s prognosis has just worsened, the key is that she already hit bottom knowing she has cancer, so this news does not affect her in the same way as it did when she found the first lump. The first time Marla searched for help and support, this time she played with Joe and made the most of the moment.
Big Bob’s cancer is the final straw that leads him to hit bottom. Unlike Marla’s cancer, his has already been removed. He is not hitting bottom from fear of death but rather from rejection, loss of masculinity and from emotionally violent relationships with his past wives. These relationships existed before his surgery between his body and steroids, his marriage deteriorating, and because of his testicular cancer. His “bitch tits,” as Joe calls them, have led to rejection from his friends and his bitter divorce left him without a partner. Bob’s loss of masculinity causes deep pain, because it is not only important for him as a man, but is also required for his profession. He changes from a body builder to “bitch tits,” and hits bottom when he feels he has nothing left in the world for him. In search of his new identity, Big Bob begins fighting. I see this as a way for him to prove his masculinity and to connect with others who are also trying to get away from their daily lives and come closer to bottom.
When the police commissioner cracks down on fight clubs, Tyler decides to have the “Assault Committee” come up with a way to stop the commissioner’s plan. The committee devises a plan to go after his balls. They stop him in a park and begin preparation needed to cut off his balls. He is in physical pain and psychologically attacked as well. The committee warns him that next time he will not be so lucky. The theme of the loss of masculinity and its ability to generate pain appears again. Tyler whispers to the commissioner, "How far do you think you'll get, your honor?" "How far do you think you'll get in politics if the voters know you have no nuts" (165)? This is an example of a combination of physical and psychological violence that led the commissioner to hit bottom and give up hope. He has nothing to look forward to if he loses his career, wife friends and knows he has everything to lose. Just like Marla and Big Bob, the police commissioner is forced to hit bottom.
After analyzing the characters a pattern emerges. Violence and pain, whether physical or mental, are necessary for reaching bottom. All of the characters hit or come near to bottom from exposure to or feelings of violence. According to the Oxford American Dictionaries, violence is a “Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill someone or something, “ or, the “strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.” All the characters experienced pain and violence that was either a natural force, like cancer, or physical force intended to hurt, like the lye or the fight club.
There is also a relationship between the idea of hitting bottom and living in the moment, another central theme in Fight Club. When Joe was asleep on a nude beach he met Tyler who introduced the concept of a minute of perfection. “A moment was the most you could ever expect from perfection,” Tyler explained (30). Tyler urges Jack to live in the moment and forget who he has been told he is by society, by his job and capitalism. His tactics and strategy to this end challenge Joe’s lifestyle, and force him to either accept his dull, monotonous life – or live in the moment. "‘Because everything up to now is a story,’ Tyler says, ‘and everything after now is a story.’ This is the greatest moment of our life” (75). Reaching bottom leads to that perfection. Thus living in the moment in Fight Club is contingent upon hitting bottom.
While reflecting on the characters and the experiences that led them to hit bottom and live in the moment, I realized Fight Club made me think about my own role in society, as if I was brought near bottom. Palahniuk’s writing compelled me to look at my own life. How I am also a consumer and I put a lot of importance on finding a job. I thought more about what would allow me to be happiest in my life and I thought about living in the moment and what that means. I am sure I have not reached bottom and I do not want to reach the bottom that is depicted by Palahniuk. However, the book has made me think. Not only is Fight Club one of the most gruesome, graphically scaring novels I have read, it was also one of the most thought provoking. The violence and suffering led me to a place that is nearer to the bottom than my life normally takes me. The book, to some extent, made me reconsider my role in society and gives other readers a chance to do the same.
The relationship between Tyler, Joe, and hitting bottom, is mentioned multiple times throughout the book. Tyler claims that unless Joe hits bottom he cannot be saved (70). Joe starts with a psychological fall when he is introduced to the pain and suffering in the support groups. After a night where he cries at “Remaining Men Together,” the testicular cancer support group, Joe says, “I felt more alive than I’d ever felt” (22). The group provokes a physical reaction in Joe, he is now able to sleep better and able to cry. The other group members experience the actual pain from the disease and knowledge of their prognosis, for them the pull towards bottom is both psychological and physical. It is not until after this introduction to the suffering of others, that Joe creates Tyler to physically break him away from his commodities and his work. Because of Joe’s unhappiness, he creates a second persona to achieve the physical aspect of pain required to hit bottom. Tyler begins to expose him to pain and take him closer to death and the bottom.
Tyler has almost hit bottom by the nature of his personality and his existence in Joe’s psyche. Being a creation of Joe’s mind, his form of hitting bottom is psychological. Tyler is confident and “cool,” which clashes with Joe who is an adamant consumer and spends the majority of his time working for a large corporation. The doorman at Joe’s old apartment comments on Joe’s consumer fixation, "A lot of young people try to impress the world and buy too many things" (45). Tyler abhors this consumerism. Unable to stand Joe’s life, during the day when he is not in control, he decides to try to get Joe to reach bottom. If Tyler can get Joe to reach bottom, Joe will be able to fully live in the moment. “Tyler says I'm nowhere near hitting the bottom, yet. And if I don't fall all the way, I can't be saved” (70). For Joe being saved can only happen when he gives up. Tyler brings Joe closer to the bottom through physical violence. From the first punches when Tyler asked Joe to hit him, through destruction of his body at the fights, rejecting Marla (even though he likes her), the physical pain from the lye, and then, finally, with a gun pointed at himself, Tyler leads Joe to utter self-destruction. One of the strongest examples of the role violence has in hitting bottom is when Tyler kisses Joe’s hand and pours lye on it. The pain becomes unbearable. "We can use vinegar," Tyler says, "to neutralize the burning, but first you have to give up" (76). Tyler gives Joe a choice. The choice is to give up and live in the moment, nearing bottom and ending the current pain. By living in the moment, Joe will stop focusing on his Job and past. ‘Congratulations,’ Tyler says. ‘You're a step closer to hitting bottom” (78). Through the intense physical pain, and making the choice, Joe has been brought into the moment and towards the point where nothing matters anymore.
Marla provides a clear example that in order to hit bottom a form of violence is necessary. Her fight with cancer is not going well. Marla is forced to let go of hope as the book progresses. Marla is in many ways one of the most human characters in the book and thus it was easier for me to understand her progression towards bottom. Hitting bottom, as previously described, requires giving up and pain or violence. The pain Marla experiences is cancer. It is also the way in which she hits bottom. The cancer causes a physical and psychological form of pain. The lumps in her chest are physical and the pain that comes from knowing of her cancer and her prognosis remains. I do not know if the lumps were painful for her, as it is not covered in the book and I am not knowledgeable about breast cancer. However, I have lost my grandparents to cancer and the pain they felt was severe and violent. Marla knows she will die because of the cancerous lumps and this creates a reality and a choice. The reality is the closeness to death, which certainly brings her towards bottom. Her choice is whether or not she will live in the moment. Marla decides to give up and live in the moment. Through her relationship with Joe and her experience with the support group, which she starts going to the after she finds the first lump, Marla reaches bottom. “Now that she knows where we’re all going, Marla feels every moment of her life” (38). Feeling every moment requires hitting bottom and hitting bottom happens when Marla gives up, after finding the lump.
A great example of showing that Marla has given up and is at bottom is when she hops into the kitchen after a sad discovery by Joe; there are more lumps within her breasts. “The morning after we found her second lump, Marla hopped into the kitchen with both legs in one leg of her pantyhose and said, ‘Look, I'm a mermaid’” (107). This playfulness seems out of place, as Marla’s prognosis has just worsened, the key is that she already hit bottom knowing she has cancer, so this news does not affect her in the same way as it did when she found the first lump. The first time Marla searched for help and support, this time she played with Joe and made the most of the moment.
Big Bob’s cancer is the final straw that leads him to hit bottom. Unlike Marla’s cancer, his has already been removed. He is not hitting bottom from fear of death but rather from rejection, loss of masculinity and from emotionally violent relationships with his past wives. These relationships existed before his surgery between his body and steroids, his marriage deteriorating, and because of his testicular cancer. His “bitch tits,” as Joe calls them, have led to rejection from his friends and his bitter divorce left him without a partner. Bob’s loss of masculinity causes deep pain, because it is not only important for him as a man, but is also required for his profession. He changes from a body builder to “bitch tits,” and hits bottom when he feels he has nothing left in the world for him. In search of his new identity, Big Bob begins fighting. I see this as a way for him to prove his masculinity and to connect with others who are also trying to get away from their daily lives and come closer to bottom.
When the police commissioner cracks down on fight clubs, Tyler decides to have the “Assault Committee” come up with a way to stop the commissioner’s plan. The committee devises a plan to go after his balls. They stop him in a park and begin preparation needed to cut off his balls. He is in physical pain and psychologically attacked as well. The committee warns him that next time he will not be so lucky. The theme of the loss of masculinity and its ability to generate pain appears again. Tyler whispers to the commissioner, "How far do you think you'll get, your honor?" "How far do you think you'll get in politics if the voters know you have no nuts" (165)? This is an example of a combination of physical and psychological violence that led the commissioner to hit bottom and give up hope. He has nothing to look forward to if he loses his career, wife friends and knows he has everything to lose. Just like Marla and Big Bob, the police commissioner is forced to hit bottom.
After analyzing the characters a pattern emerges. Violence and pain, whether physical or mental, are necessary for reaching bottom. All of the characters hit or come near to bottom from exposure to or feelings of violence. According to the Oxford American Dictionaries, violence is a “Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill someone or something, “ or, the “strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.” All the characters experienced pain and violence that was either a natural force, like cancer, or physical force intended to hurt, like the lye or the fight club.
There is also a relationship between the idea of hitting bottom and living in the moment, another central theme in Fight Club. When Joe was asleep on a nude beach he met Tyler who introduced the concept of a minute of perfection. “A moment was the most you could ever expect from perfection,” Tyler explained (30). Tyler urges Jack to live in the moment and forget who he has been told he is by society, by his job and capitalism. His tactics and strategy to this end challenge Joe’s lifestyle, and force him to either accept his dull, monotonous life – or live in the moment. "‘Because everything up to now is a story,’ Tyler says, ‘and everything after now is a story.’ This is the greatest moment of our life” (75). Reaching bottom leads to that perfection. Thus living in the moment in Fight Club is contingent upon hitting bottom.
While reflecting on the characters and the experiences that led them to hit bottom and live in the moment, I realized Fight Club made me think about my own role in society, as if I was brought near bottom. Palahniuk’s writing compelled me to look at my own life. How I am also a consumer and I put a lot of importance on finding a job. I thought more about what would allow me to be happiest in my life and I thought about living in the moment and what that means. I am sure I have not reached bottom and I do not want to reach the bottom that is depicted by Palahniuk. However, the book has made me think. Not only is Fight Club one of the most gruesome, graphically scaring novels I have read, it was also one of the most thought provoking. The violence and suffering led me to a place that is nearer to the bottom than my life normally takes me. The book, to some extent, made me reconsider my role in society and gives other readers a chance to do the same.
Tyler Durden is Homo Ludens: or, Johan Huizinga is the Narrator
Johan Huizinga wrote Homo Ludens nearly sixty years before Chuck Palahniuk published Fight Club. However I would not be surprised if early twentieth century Dutch culture featured its own form of the secretive bare-knuckle boxing community. Huizinga’s description of play and its importance within the individual and public human being is epitomized by the focus of Palahniuk’s novel. Not only does the Fight Club follow the organization of Huizinga’s definition of play, it has the same functions. This discovery either implies that one inspired the other somehow or that both authors describe a truth about human beings in their respective texts.
Firstly the arrangement of the Fight Club endeavor is identical to that described by Huizinga. “Rules. . . are a very important factor in the play-concept. All play has its rules. They determine what ‘holds’ in the temporary world circumscribed by play. The rules of a game are absolutely binding and allow no doubt.” (11) Huizinga states the necessity of stern rules that control the bounds of the play and the players themselves. Fight Club, too, has its rules. On pages 48-50, the narrator describes the community’s rules to the audience, us, while explaining it to his audience, the new members in the story. The rules are crucial to the maintenance and development of the Club. “Play demands order absolute and supreme.” (10)
The rules, in fact, address some of Huizinga’s other criteria for play. Rules one and two, “you don’t talk about fight club,” (48) are cornerstones of the secrecy of the play-concept. “The charm of play is enhanced by making a ‘secret’ out of it. This is for us, not for the ‘others.’” (12) The third rule, “when someone says stop, or goes limp, even if he’s just faking it, the fight is over,” is essentially Palahniuk’s response to Huizinga’s fear of a “disenchantment” (21) of play or even the concept of a “spoil-sport.” (23).
The nature of the fighting in Fight Club always offers the risk of permanent damage with its brutal violence, and this risks an interruption of the game. “At any moment, ‘ordinary life’ may reassert its rights either by an impact from without, which interrupts the game, or by an offence against the rules, or else from within, by a collapse of the play spirit, a sobering, a disenchantment.” (21) Injury serves as the possible reassertion of “ordinary life,” while faking it serves as the collapse of the play spirit. (We see an interruption of the play of Project Mayhem, to be addressed later, when Big Bob dies on page 177. “Ordinary life” reasserts its rights.) The rule is even followed by directions, “every time you see this kid, you can’t tell him what a great fight he had” (49) to help discourage the “collapse of the play-spirit.”
Rules four, five, six, and seven are basically maintenance rules. Their function is primarily to facilitate the consistent upkeep of the play atmosphere. However, there is something to be said for the primal environment created by shirtless, shoeless men fighting mano-a-mano until one can go no further. This helps the assertion that play is at the core of human nature. It swims among our basic needs along with survival and procreation.
Rule eight (though Tyler calls is the seventh rule in his speech), “if this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight” (50) has two primary effects. First, it helps to replenish the ranks and spread the gospel (though it is against the rules) of Fight Club. Secondly, it demands the play spirit from all of its participants. It eliminates Huizinga’s spoil-sports. This is another way to keep Fight Club insular and apart from the “real world,” as Huizinga refers to it.
The “secludedness” and “limitedness” that Huizinga notes as imperative is also successfully captured by Palahniuk. “It is ‘played out’ within certain limits of time and place.” (9) Palahniuk addresses this within the same pages he sets up the rules of fight club, as though he were checking off Huizinga’s criteria for the play-concept. “Fight club only exists in the hours between when fight club starts and fight club ends.” (48) Palahniuk uses repetition to stress the importance of time-limited existence. “Except for five hours from two until seven on Sunday morning, fight club doesn’t exist.” (52)
Huizinga later stresses the importance of physical separation. “One of the most important characteristics of play [is] its spatial separation from ordinary life. A closed space is marked out for it. . . hedged off from everyday surroundings. Inside this space, the play proceeds, inside it the rules obtain.” (19) Palahniuk responds directly again. Fight club is held in “the basement of a bar. . . after the bar closes on Saturday night.” (50) Few places are emptier than a closed bar after a Saturday night.
This separation from society enables Palahniuk to create Huizinga’s play-community. “The feeling of being ‘apart together. . .’ of mutually withdrawing from the rest of the world and rejecting the usual norms, retains its magic beyond the duration of the individual game.” (12) This tight brotherhood created by fight club does not exist once its members crawl out of the bar basement steps, but the experience lasts with the individuals permanently.
The experience of play, described by Huizinga, and the experience of fight club, described by Palahniuk, hardens the uncanny similarity between the two depictions. First, the outcome is irrelevant. “The whole point is the playing.” (17) The results are yielded to the participants through playing, not through winning. “The action begins and ends in itself, and the outcome does not contribute to the necessary life-processes of the group.” (49) As he has consistently before, Palahniuk parallels Huizinga’s statements with his story’s. “You aren’t alive anywhere like you’re alive at fight club. . . Fight club isn’t about winning or losing fights. Fight club isn’t about words.” (51)
What is gained through these experiences is illustrated by Huizinga through reference to the works of Leo Frobenius. Frobenius refutes that it is purely an innate “play instinct.” (16) Instead, “the experience of life and nature. . . takes the form of a seizure.” (16) Frobenius says, “Man is seized by the revelation of fate.” It is a “necessary mental process of transformation.” (17) The Huizinga-Frobenius philosophy of seizure and fate-revelation is paralleled by Tyler and the lye-kiss in the story. Though this scene occurs outside the framework of the actual fight club, it reflects the same ideologies. Tyler urges the narrator to accept the pain. “Come back to the pain.” (75) Tyler explains, “Someday. . .you will die, and until you know that you’re useless to me.” (76) Tyler steers the narrator towards a “revelation of fate.” (I admit the “useless to me comment” corrupts the purity of the moment, but it does so in the same fashion that Project Mayhem corrupts the play of fight club for a “real world” purpose.)
Lastly, Homo Ludens and Fight Club discuss the differing appearances of the playing participants in the real world and in the play-world. Huizinga refers to it as “dressing up.” “The disguised or masked individual ‘plays’ another part, another being. He is another being.” (13) The narrator in Fight Club reflects this as he comments on the same topic within the club. “Who guys are in the fight club is not who they are in the real world. Even if you told the kid in the copy center that he had a good fight, you wouldn’t be talking to the same man. Who I am in the fight club is not someone my boss knows.” Huizinga finds this third type of separation, the personal, as the most significant. “Here the ‘extra-ordinary’ nature of play reaches perfection.” (13) The narrator in Fight Club agrees. He finds pride in his distinctively different personalities in one realm compared to another (and distinctively different are his personalities ever!).
Through all of Huizinga’s pseudo-scientific, uncited, psychological analyses, he does summarize his description of play cleanly in one paragraph on page 13. Palahniuk fulfills each of the various components of Huizinga’s definition of play. “Summing up the formal characteristics of play we might call it a free activity standing quite consciously outside the ‘ordinary’ life as being ‘not serious’, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly.” The members of fight club pursue it out of their true freedom as individuals. It is consciously perverse to societal expectations for it exists in direct opposition to society. It completely enraptures its player; it is why they keep their hair short and trim their nails. “It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it.” The winners of fights garner no more respect than the losers. All members seek the fight, hitting and being hit, not the knockout. “It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner.” From two to seven on Sunday mornings in the basement of the bar, the club meets, and at no other time and in no other place does it even exist. Rules are the foundation of the club, and the particular rules create an order that facilitates the desired play. “It promotes the formation of social groupings which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means.” The club’s first and second rules shroud it in secrecy. It is openly and aggressively counter-culture, and it relies on its members becoming different human beings at the set hour and location.
The key-and-lock match of the Huizinga theories and the Palahniuk story offers two possible explanations. Somehow one drew inspiration from the other, or something like it. Or they have both found a truth in the human spirit. They both have seen similar patterns in the human behavior of and need to play, albeit Palahniuk describes a much more violent, scandalous method. Nonetheless, I think the film credits may have well as rolled “Edward Norton – Johan Huizinga, narrator.”
Firstly the arrangement of the Fight Club endeavor is identical to that described by Huizinga. “Rules. . . are a very important factor in the play-concept. All play has its rules. They determine what ‘holds’ in the temporary world circumscribed by play. The rules of a game are absolutely binding and allow no doubt.” (11) Huizinga states the necessity of stern rules that control the bounds of the play and the players themselves. Fight Club, too, has its rules. On pages 48-50, the narrator describes the community’s rules to the audience, us, while explaining it to his audience, the new members in the story. The rules are crucial to the maintenance and development of the Club. “Play demands order absolute and supreme.” (10)
The rules, in fact, address some of Huizinga’s other criteria for play. Rules one and two, “you don’t talk about fight club,” (48) are cornerstones of the secrecy of the play-concept. “The charm of play is enhanced by making a ‘secret’ out of it. This is for us, not for the ‘others.’” (12) The third rule, “when someone says stop, or goes limp, even if he’s just faking it, the fight is over,” is essentially Palahniuk’s response to Huizinga’s fear of a “disenchantment” (21) of play or even the concept of a “spoil-sport.” (23).
The nature of the fighting in Fight Club always offers the risk of permanent damage with its brutal violence, and this risks an interruption of the game. “At any moment, ‘ordinary life’ may reassert its rights either by an impact from without, which interrupts the game, or by an offence against the rules, or else from within, by a collapse of the play spirit, a sobering, a disenchantment.” (21) Injury serves as the possible reassertion of “ordinary life,” while faking it serves as the collapse of the play spirit. (We see an interruption of the play of Project Mayhem, to be addressed later, when Big Bob dies on page 177. “Ordinary life” reasserts its rights.) The rule is even followed by directions, “every time you see this kid, you can’t tell him what a great fight he had” (49) to help discourage the “collapse of the play-spirit.”
Rules four, five, six, and seven are basically maintenance rules. Their function is primarily to facilitate the consistent upkeep of the play atmosphere. However, there is something to be said for the primal environment created by shirtless, shoeless men fighting mano-a-mano until one can go no further. This helps the assertion that play is at the core of human nature. It swims among our basic needs along with survival and procreation.
Rule eight (though Tyler calls is the seventh rule in his speech), “if this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight” (50) has two primary effects. First, it helps to replenish the ranks and spread the gospel (though it is against the rules) of Fight Club. Secondly, it demands the play spirit from all of its participants. It eliminates Huizinga’s spoil-sports. This is another way to keep Fight Club insular and apart from the “real world,” as Huizinga refers to it.
The “secludedness” and “limitedness” that Huizinga notes as imperative is also successfully captured by Palahniuk. “It is ‘played out’ within certain limits of time and place.” (9) Palahniuk addresses this within the same pages he sets up the rules of fight club, as though he were checking off Huizinga’s criteria for the play-concept. “Fight club only exists in the hours between when fight club starts and fight club ends.” (48) Palahniuk uses repetition to stress the importance of time-limited existence. “Except for five hours from two until seven on Sunday morning, fight club doesn’t exist.” (52)
Huizinga later stresses the importance of physical separation. “One of the most important characteristics of play [is] its spatial separation from ordinary life. A closed space is marked out for it. . . hedged off from everyday surroundings. Inside this space, the play proceeds, inside it the rules obtain.” (19) Palahniuk responds directly again. Fight club is held in “the basement of a bar. . . after the bar closes on Saturday night.” (50) Few places are emptier than a closed bar after a Saturday night.
This separation from society enables Palahniuk to create Huizinga’s play-community. “The feeling of being ‘apart together. . .’ of mutually withdrawing from the rest of the world and rejecting the usual norms, retains its magic beyond the duration of the individual game.” (12) This tight brotherhood created by fight club does not exist once its members crawl out of the bar basement steps, but the experience lasts with the individuals permanently.
The experience of play, described by Huizinga, and the experience of fight club, described by Palahniuk, hardens the uncanny similarity between the two depictions. First, the outcome is irrelevant. “The whole point is the playing.” (17) The results are yielded to the participants through playing, not through winning. “The action begins and ends in itself, and the outcome does not contribute to the necessary life-processes of the group.” (49) As he has consistently before, Palahniuk parallels Huizinga’s statements with his story’s. “You aren’t alive anywhere like you’re alive at fight club. . . Fight club isn’t about winning or losing fights. Fight club isn’t about words.” (51)
What is gained through these experiences is illustrated by Huizinga through reference to the works of Leo Frobenius. Frobenius refutes that it is purely an innate “play instinct.” (16) Instead, “the experience of life and nature. . . takes the form of a seizure.” (16) Frobenius says, “Man is seized by the revelation of fate.” It is a “necessary mental process of transformation.” (17) The Huizinga-Frobenius philosophy of seizure and fate-revelation is paralleled by Tyler and the lye-kiss in the story. Though this scene occurs outside the framework of the actual fight club, it reflects the same ideologies. Tyler urges the narrator to accept the pain. “Come back to the pain.” (75) Tyler explains, “Someday. . .you will die, and until you know that you’re useless to me.” (76) Tyler steers the narrator towards a “revelation of fate.” (I admit the “useless to me comment” corrupts the purity of the moment, but it does so in the same fashion that Project Mayhem corrupts the play of fight club for a “real world” purpose.)
Lastly, Homo Ludens and Fight Club discuss the differing appearances of the playing participants in the real world and in the play-world. Huizinga refers to it as “dressing up.” “The disguised or masked individual ‘plays’ another part, another being. He is another being.” (13) The narrator in Fight Club reflects this as he comments on the same topic within the club. “Who guys are in the fight club is not who they are in the real world. Even if you told the kid in the copy center that he had a good fight, you wouldn’t be talking to the same man. Who I am in the fight club is not someone my boss knows.” Huizinga finds this third type of separation, the personal, as the most significant. “Here the ‘extra-ordinary’ nature of play reaches perfection.” (13) The narrator in Fight Club agrees. He finds pride in his distinctively different personalities in one realm compared to another (and distinctively different are his personalities ever!).
Through all of Huizinga’s pseudo-scientific, uncited, psychological analyses, he does summarize his description of play cleanly in one paragraph on page 13. Palahniuk fulfills each of the various components of Huizinga’s definition of play. “Summing up the formal characteristics of play we might call it a free activity standing quite consciously outside the ‘ordinary’ life as being ‘not serious’, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly.” The members of fight club pursue it out of their true freedom as individuals. It is consciously perverse to societal expectations for it exists in direct opposition to society. It completely enraptures its player; it is why they keep their hair short and trim their nails. “It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it.” The winners of fights garner no more respect than the losers. All members seek the fight, hitting and being hit, not the knockout. “It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner.” From two to seven on Sunday mornings in the basement of the bar, the club meets, and at no other time and in no other place does it even exist. Rules are the foundation of the club, and the particular rules create an order that facilitates the desired play. “It promotes the formation of social groupings which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means.” The club’s first and second rules shroud it in secrecy. It is openly and aggressively counter-culture, and it relies on its members becoming different human beings at the set hour and location.
The key-and-lock match of the Huizinga theories and the Palahniuk story offers two possible explanations. Somehow one drew inspiration from the other, or something like it. Or they have both found a truth in the human spirit. They both have seen similar patterns in the human behavior of and need to play, albeit Palahniuk describes a much more violent, scandalous method. Nonetheless, I think the film credits may have well as rolled “Edward Norton – Johan Huizinga, narrator.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)