Skip to main content

Book on Fight Club Outline

After a good, long run, we have decided to close our forums in an effort to refocus attention to other sections of the site. Fortunately for you all, we're living in a time where discussion of a favorite topic now has a lot of homes. So we encourage you all to bring your ravenous love for discussion to Chuck's official Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram. And, as always, you can still post comments on all News updates. Thank you for your loyalty and passion over the years. These changes will happen June 1.

Here is a chapter by chapter listing of my book on FC:

1. Introduction (the reception of FC)
2. Redemption, Kierkegaard, Shelley and Yeats
3. Single frames and the suspension of disbelief
4. The failure of Eastern religion and the kiss of Judas
5. Sleep, death and the longing to dream
6. Christian Symoblism
7. Ikea, consumerism and the politics of design
8. Man’s best friend
9. Impotence and the male ego
10. The liturgy of fight club
11. Self-diagnosis and the DSM IV
12. The use of contemporary film
13. Deliberate ambiguity and the existence of Marla
14. The necessary limitation of content:
Fight Club from book > script > film
15. The mask of Hannya and the demon of avarice
16. Rousseau and Romanticism’s ‘noble savage’
17. Raymond K Hessel and the feast of the antichrist
18. What do you remember: Husker du
19. Conclusions

A large number of these have been written, and I'd like to include a comprehensive bibliography, not only of scholarly articles already published--not a challenge, there are only about 8, and a reasonably full list of interviews (a wicked challenge).

If anyone can think of anything I've forgotten, I'll give you a footnote and full credit. These are short essays, as minimal as the book's chapters, but even then, this thing will weigh in as being at least as long as FC, probably a little longer. FC is only 48,000 words long.

Any comments regarding would be appreciated. Do you think that there's a market for such a book? Does FC warrant a serious study? Does a really in-depth scholarly analysis wreck the book for anyone? Should scholars care that the author is alive and kicking and may disagree with a scholar's conclusions?