Fight Club Book ReviewReview of Fight Club
Fight Club's first rule: Nobody speaks about the standard of the book.
First, most reviewers speak about Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club is policy. And the second thing they are talking about is policy. Third- and fourthly, there are issues of masculine identities and force (which are probably also policy issues.) Then there could be debates about paternal deities, Nietzsche, terror, therapeutic cultures, violation and all the other concepts that Palahniuk so insistently and proverbially represents.
I have seen tens of essays about true fight clubs, "constructs of masculinity", pathriarchalism and suchlike. I have also seen lots of dissenting politics reportedly constructed from the book, on the website's peers who referred in last week's paper to reading group. I have not seen much debate about the book as a work of work.
Part of the reason for this is that it came out in 1996, just before the web began to preserve book review ing for the afterlife. Possibly also because there weren't that many criticisms. When it came out, it was an unidentified author's first novel with a circulation of 10,000 pieces (which took years to sell).
Fight Club's vision and policies are so compelling that it's difficult to concentrate on them. All of the book's idea was so fist-in-your-face that I didn't stop to think about whether I should open the reading group debate last weeks by asking about Fight Club's policy - it just felt right.
Ultimately, it is the skills of the writer that give all these conceptions and thoughts such an effect. There is no need to tell me that this book is quoted indefinitely - there is a good chance that you have overheard this. It' s only because of its lack of aphorism that it should be preserved.
During an Observer 2005 interviewer with Palahniuk, Sean O'Hagan wrote: "If I were to advise why Chuck Palahniuk has so much cash and such a dedicated worldwide following, I would say that it's mainly because he is writing fiction for those who don't normally do it.
" I also want Dan Brown to address those who normally don't get to know much - and the hypothesis I always assume is that his fiction is so lousy that these unfortunate folks will never open a book again. I' m not so worried about Palahniuk. Fight Club is meager, quick and straightforward.
However, there are many celebrity verbs: Humans always do something, the campaign goes on and on. Writing like this requires a lot of skill and Palahniuk shows just as much in this book. The slippery and gliding narration also opens the way for the great revelation that Tyler Durden and the storyteller have more in common than their addresses and tendencies to fight.
Even wiser is the fact that from the first sale onwards this mystery is clearly visible in Palahniuk: Reading the book again, I realized how difficult these indications were. Dalahniuk has a lot of pleasure in spelting the events and at the same times distracting the first readers in such a way that the surprises are never spoilt.
The Fight Club is a reward for additional awareness, and that's why folks will still talk about it, because our present policy is nothing more than a poor one.