/lit/ - Literature

>>18002596
Fight Club is about Hitler and the brown shirts

>>18002643
Everything is about Hitler

>>18002643
And it's written by based chuck

Why are you using some podcast meme word?

Cringe.

>>18002682
he's okay
one of the rare instances of the adaptation outshining the original

>>18002596
Sneed Palahneed.

>>18002596
>chuds(a.k.a right wingers)
You misunderstand. "Chuds" are bad, morally and intellectually (and probably genetically) inferior people, not "right-wingers". Leftist don't oppose rightists, they oppose meanies.
Anyway, Palahnjuk is a literal faggot, so who cares.

>>18002682
Feed Cleed by Sneed (formerly chuck's)

Provide evidence of what the book is saying and why right wingers have a better understanding of that than leftists.

>>18002687
Chud? I know it's cringe just ironically used this word

>>18002596
go outside and touch grass

>>18002768
This book mostly deals with the crisis of masculinity, consumer society were traditional masculine ideals are not necessary and self-actualization. In the novel the group of frastrated men with their lives unleashe anger on themselves and rest of society through their vandal and terrorist activities
From what I have seen most right leaning people interprete this movie which is very close what author intended

>>18002861
What?

>>18002861
the point of the book is that the characters are wrong though (in some cases, literally insane), but most right wingers think they are right

>>18002881
only saw the movie, but the insane guy literally rejects his father's advice to "go to school, get a job, get married, have a family" and instead becomes an anti-capitalist antifa style terrorist, how would a rightwing person think that is right?

>>18002892
they agree with his views on masculinity and modern society

>>18002880
Right-wingers interpret this book more closely to the authors intentions than leftists
p.s English isn't my first language so sorry for the bad writing

>>18002952
Have you sampled these people, you direction-brained caveman?

>>18002937
well yeah that's why people lash out and become extremists because it's a reaction to their lack of masculinity and assertiveness. so that's not wrong, but leftwing ppl watch it and think "yeah fuck consumerism, blow up the credit card companies!" even tho that was obviously lame as shit to do.

>>18002881
That's true they are wrong not even they deny this but books view on masculinity and modern society isn't and they interprete this aspect of the book really well

>>18002987
You're saying one of the ideas posited in the book wasn't that consumerism led to people feeling disaffected, directionless, and neutered? The book seems to call into question how effective the response to this ennui was but I don't think anyone can argue it's not anti-consumer.
It's hard to say what Palahniuk wanted to say, going off what I know of the person. I'm enough of a fan of his and the only viewpoint he's put forward that I've seen could be seen as "political" is "people should have a right to assert their own individual will", which isn't an exclusive belief to the right.

>>18002861

It's not close at all in terms of how the theme is dealt with. The ending of the movie makes the protagonist into a heroic figure who kills his Jungian shadow via his regained agency; he also targets, successfully, faceless corporate enterprises keeping people down...he even starts making out with Marla to the Pixies. In the book, his connection to Marla renders his delusional self impotent; the target is a museum and the bomb fails to go off; he ends up in a nuthouse.

The movie is a basic screed against conformity.
The book is about the outcome of buying into nihilism. Totally different messages. (That said, I still enjoyed the film).

>>18002596
> He thinks you can "understand" art as if art has any sort of real explicit purpose

Kinda embarrassing anon, are you going to tell us the curtain is blue next? Gonna say you think Ready Player One is literature? Gonna piss your baby diapers?

>>18002652
OP's mom is Hitler?

>>18002987
Did you actually read the book or just see the movie?

>>18003095
You're analysis is spot on but I don't think all this contradict anything I said

>>18002643
Not really. Fight Club is about gay men rejecting femininity and recognizing they don't need women for literally anything.

Chuck P. is a gay man and Tyler is his fantasy bf. Marla, btw, is just a stand-in for the author as is the narrator.

>>18002596
Formerly Sneed Palahniuk

>>18002596
It's not right wing at all, but Fight Club (superficially) presents a sort of Gen X anarcho-nihilism that modern Lefties are entirely incapable of parsing with alarm bells informing them it's fascist, so they read all problematic elements in it as satire. The book clearly actually is shitting on eg. emasculation, dickless consumer culture, mindless conformity, etc. I have seen people simultaneously say Fight Club is simply a parable about gay culture(fight clubs are gay sex clubs in this analogy) and also say the fightclubs represent toxic masculinity, which is completely incoherent. However you read the book symbolically it indicts both contemporary society with a very broad brush, and the Fight Club subculture that springs up in response to it: the conformity, rules, submission and domination, etc. immediately reassert themselves as soon as it becomes an organization. This makes the book somewhat pessimistic, but the rebellion, and its specific anarchic and masculine characteristics, is still glorified to an extent despite its failure.

All this political reading misses the more fundamental point of the book, which is that it is at its base about a mentally ill, alienated worker drone. He signs up to these support groups for diseases he doesn't have simply because he craves human contact and intimacy, until the illusion is punctured by someone reflecting his lie to him. Even more than the political or sexual implications of the Fight Club what it resembles most of all is a tribe contrasted with the atomized worker bugman. The first new member of this tribe is literally a figment of imagination of the man seeking it. You could read all sorts of implications into this neo-tribe-as-terrorist-cell feeding on modern alienation situation. But we have to remember that the book ends with him rejecting and sabotaging the neo-tribe terrorist cell, destroying his illusionary friend through destroying part of himself, and connecting with the woman, who he had been secretly seeing unbeknownst to himself, which all reinforces the theme of isolation vs connection, and the varied effects this tension has in modern society.

>>18003216
I thought it was about negros
>"An entire generation of men, raised without a dad."

>>18002652
he is that ultimate avatar

>>18003095
So what I'm getting is that lefties interpret the film, while rightoids interpret the book. Which just proves that people don't actually read the book, except literal nazis apparently.

>>18002596
I want to know what leftists believes in because I want to check myself. So?

I get the gist that there's a part of the left that believes it's toxic masculinity or whatever and there's a part of the right that thinks it's an incel bible. They're both dumb takes but cast your stones.

This whole left/right dichotomy and polarisation has been overplayed, it is boring now and tiresome. I want to go to war (figuratively) with the proponents of the polarisation on both sides.

>>18003282
>>18003197

I think it's that the themes presented in the movie are a lot more accessible and have been done to death for the last 40+ years. The book deals with nihilism which isn't confronted very often in general (and films that do so are usually popular/easy to watch). The movie flirts with nihilism and has a Hollywood ending; the book doesn't shy away from arguing for a specific outcome (going as far as to make the planned, and failed, attack on a bastion of civilization/knowledge and positing that nihilistic outlooks are ultimately self-defeating (i.e. the bomb doesn't go off) and the way to defeat them is by forming human bonds with others (i.e. Marla making Tyler evaporate)).

That said, the movie isn't bad and does what it does well (Fincher is a great director). But, IMO, it kind of becomes what the book is criticizing by changing the ending.

>>18002952
>authors intentions
not gonna make it

>>18003425
If the author is at all competent their intentions and the most sensible analysis of the text will be the same thing.
>but le death of le
suck my balls

>>18003409
>>18003282
>>18003197

*aren't usually popular/easy to watch.

What I was getting at is that the film influenced a lot of midwits (I personally don't think that gravitates particularly to one end of the political spectrum) because attacks on consumerism/conformity have been done so SO often. The movie has probably been a lot more influence than the book (on top of that fact, you have to factor in the influence passive media like film with have over active media like reading). Dealing with nihilism on a personal level, what the book does, requires a lot more critical thought and most people probably aren't up to dealing with that theme (let alone personalizing it).

>>18003439
not gonna make it

>>18003338
This. Best thing that can happen is extremists on both sides destroy each other. There have always been extremists, but in recent times, those in the middle are being pulled to one side or the other

> leftists and right-wingers

>>18003425
Nigger I know that it doesn't matter but I'm trying to make a point here got it?

>>18003459
>This.
>continues propagating the false dichotomy

>>18003503
Tell us your point, chap.

>>18003454
>not gonna ever say a single thing of value

>>18003514
The point is that right gets this book bit better than left

ummm, chuck hangs out with nazis

>>18003665
Anon, you don't agree with all of your friends politically do you?

>>18003665
both of those men are gay

>>18003665
OH
MY
FRICKING GAWDDD
IS UHM IS THAT A FRICKING NATZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE IS THAT A FRICKING HITLER WHO GENOCIDED 6 MILLION INNOCENT JEWISH CHILDREN??
OH MY GOD SOMEONE GET THE FRICKIN SPLC ON IT

>>18003710
>a person's sexual fetish determines his identity

go back, faggot >>>/lgbt/

>>18002861
>>18002881
>>18002987
>>18003409
>>18003444
i think both the book and the movie are at their core about how opposing society as a whole slowly creates a new society that is a parody of the first one. project mayhem and capitalist conformity are two sides of the same coin. its a lot bigger than capitalism or masculinity. it deals with dualities and transcending them. its there in the zen nihilism of the book and the explosions and handholding (the two sides reaching rest, canceling each other out) of the movie. viewing it as having a message or taking a side is completely antithetical imo.

>>18003768
I don't think the book, or even the film, is about creating a new society. Rather, they explore what it means to follow a nihilistic path through anarchy and destruction. The message the book provides is forming a human relationship will transcend meaninglessness (i.e. you have to maintain a level of vulnerability)--this alongside the idea you'll never be able to eradicate civilization without self-destructing; the message the movie gives is self-actualization through personal sacrifice (pseudo-suicide to stop Durden) paired with a poorly handled nonsequitur about it being ok to blow up credit card companies.

Again, the movie has a happy ending while the book shows the endgame of ending up in a mental institution (which is open to interpretation...the protagonist seems to be reveling in nihilism again after being placed into a societal institution--a mental hospital).

Overall, the midwit read focuses on hyper-masculinity, nonconformity, and rebelling against consumerism. (Those are the gateways to the book's them and not themes in and of themselves).

>>18004005
>is about creating a new society
they dont set out to do this but it does happen by itself. project mayhem ends up being about pure conformity, the thing it was supposed to oppose
>forming a human relationship will transcend meaninglessness
this is in the movies ending too
>paired with a poorly handled nonsequitur about it being ok to blow up credit card companies
neither the book or movie says its ok
>the movie has a happy ending
i thought it was equally nihilistic and open to interpretation. sort of a "what now?" direction

i dont know if they intended it to have messages, but that would be contradictory to the nihilistic feel of the endings. it has a lot more value if those ideas are read as themes rather than messages. plus saying a piece of art has a "message" whether its intended or not feels like insulting it.

>>18003197
it doesn't contradict anything you said but it also doesn't say anything you said.

Wait, Palanuk is a homo?

>>18004294
>they dont set out to do this but it does happen by itself. project mayhem ends up being about pure conformity, the thing it was supposed to oppose
The point you're trying to make is a bit muddled. It's not so much about them establishing something as it is about them devolving into anarchy and the ideology that organically arises. There is something there regarding a new type of conformity but it isn't a parody of what they're rebelling against (i.e. it isn't ironic).
>this is in the movies ending too
In a way, but I'd argue the protagonist in film resolves things through developing a sense of personal agency conveniently sparked by a line dropped by Marla. It's less about their relationship than it is about convenience in the narrative. (Also, the film's focus on the protagonist gaining personal agency undermines the idea that it's the vulnerability of human connection...it makes it a rescue mission where he ends Tyler for her sake instead of her dissolving Tyler)
>neither the book or movie says its ok
The imagery in the film is triumphant. There's no comparison to the book because the motivations of the characters are totally different as is the symbolism of what's being targeted. To better understand this point, just think about the fact the bomb doesn't go off in the book.
>i thought it was equally nihilistic and open to interpretation. sort of a "what now?" direction
No way. The movie ends on a positive note (he gets the girl) and, intentionally factoring in the sympathies of its audience when it comes to destroying the corporate bad guy's base, is triumphant. The book has the protagonist musing about his creation (i.e. it's ironic in that he "created" something of which the aim is to destroy things created by others).
>i dont know if they intended it to have messages, but that would be contradictory to the nihilistic feel of the endings
Only if you read the book from the perspective that nihilism is presented as a good thing,
>saying a piece of art has a "message" whether its intended or not feels like insulting it
No offense, but that's kind of a midwit hot take (even more so on work that explores nihilism)

>>18003216
So IT IS REALLY about fascism. Kek.

>>18004617
>devolving into anarchy
but they find themselves in a stricter system with more rules where everyone is even less of an individual. its ironic to me
>The imagery in the film is triumphant
i dont think so. its just more climax-y. its happy in a letting go kind of way, not a a good thing happened kind of way
>he gets the girl
but he already had the girl. now theyre just holding hands
>even more so on work that explores nihilism
its about ideologies, its not an ideology itself. ideology is used like color is used in a painting. its the mareial, not the substance.
>No offense, but that's kind of a midwit hot take
its not an issue of intelligence. approaching art through that lens misses the artistic spirit and true aesthetic value

>>18002697
>ynr stephen king was mad about the movie, and decided to make his own movie, only to end up with some shittty version no one even remembers it exists