Was the narrator an anarchist before he met Tyler?
I liked how the movie had these random little bits of cynicism and rebelliousness from the narrator early on...I mean, it's pretty clear this guy has a transgressive personality from the get-go, when he complains about corporate sponsorship of space, and all that "on a long enough timeline" stuff. But I never thought the character really developed that anti-social anarchistic edge until after he met Tyler. ("Met" being used figuratively of course.) He just seems to sort of accept it, almost enjoy it. Whereas in the book, the character doesn't seem so much to accept his life, as he is so depersonalized and ingrained in his life that he can't really feel generate the emotional capacity necessary for feeling ill-will towards it. I mean, there was that one little aspect that I felt really disappointed when it was left out of the movie, which was the story about the narrator pissing on the Blarney Stone after he got out of college. That part of the book was one of my favourites, and to me that passage was saying, "This guy has always been Tyler Durden. At least since college. Pissing on the stone that day was Tyler's birth deep within him. He's always known that he was that rebel, that cynic, that anarchist, he's always been conscious of it, he just never had an opportunity in his life to show it or express it." Whereas the movie, to me, left out that Blarney Stone story, and seem to leave out a lot of that anarchic stuff, and the character came off more as just depressed and anhedonic than the nihilistic anti-social ticking time bomb of the book who loathed his "push a button, pull a lever" life and society.
Does anyone agree with anything I'm saying? I guess basically my question is: does anyone think the narrator in the movie was actually an anarchist before he met Tyler? And if so, do you think that came across much in the movie?
"Reality is what I make of it."