vineyards:implementing skyhook....

cloakroom,cilia,denominations crude Vietnamese alleging ...

psychoanalysis dismally complements prison Banbury coffees ...

And I liked both Kampung Boy and Alias the Cat, Mark, so you did a fine job convincing me to buy them.

Heck, I bought Kampung Boy and Alias the Cat because MarkAndrew gushed about them (I think he did - his writing is Burroughs-like, so I’m often too bedazzled by what he writes to fully comprehend it).

Hey. Thanks!

.
.
.
.
.

I think.

A quick minute, and a peak at the free teaser previews, later and I'm now another satisfied customer.

Thanks Greg for the sideways introduction!

Quoted for truth, as I always tell people the exact same thing. I love the Fight Club movie adnd thought they did a great job, but the ending in the book is far more interesting.

Tim Bisley: Good for you.

Bilbo Bagshot: Yeah, thanks. But that's not the point, Tim. The point is I was defending the fantasy genre with terminal intensity, when what I should have said was "Dad, you're right, but let's give Krull a try and we'll discuss it later."

It's okay, I suppose...but it's no 'Condorman', or 'Hawk the Slayer', that's for sure!

The twist is surprising but not out of left field, and it follows through to its logical conclusion (with regard to Project Mayhem’s plot, not Edward Norton shooting himself - I’m still not clear how that worked).

Tyler had taken control of the narrator’s life. The narrator was living a life without meaning and his subconscious used Tyler (his id) as a means to create meaning and purpose in his life (which turned out to be a violent rejection of the possessions that were substituting for meaning in his life). The narrator shooting himself is an existential act proving that he has control over his own actions (even if that act had caused his death, it would have been the final proof that he was in control). In doing this, the narrator has confronted and assumed full responsibility for his actions (those that he did as Tyler) and the repercussions of those actions. Once the narrator knows and accepts the actions as his own, it is immediately clear that Tyler does not exist.

When it comes to Fight Club as presented in the movie, it seems worth emphasizing that the first half of Edward Norton's journey takes place in the first 15 minutes: He can't sleep. He starts going to the 12-step survivor classes. He pretends to be a loser like all of the other survivors and cries with them. He sleeps better than a baby. Every night he dies and is reborn.

Reluctantly he is thrust back into the real world. Helena B. Carter shows up, and by getting in on Norton's action, someone else now knows what a faker he is. The experience is ruined for him. He can no longer sleep.

The cycle or death and rebirth is interrupted. When the other characters are confronted with their own mortality, with gun or with car, they know then what they want to do. Everyone knows except Edward Norton. This is the vacuum in Norton from which Brad Pitt emerges.

So, the next 2¼ hours of the movie is Norton's complex machinations to save the World as he himself was saved in his nightly resurrection. Brad Pitt is Destruction. Killing Brad Pitt is Resurrection. That's the point of Edward Norton shooting himself.

The Fight Club itself is merely Brad Pitt replicating the Cult of Consumerism, which he makes his means to save the world.

I would also remind everyone that Fight Club is about fatherless manboys who, with no war of their own to fight, end up beating themselves up. It's more than just a movie or a book, it's a cultural time capsule.

I think there's a happy medium between, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Fight Club is nothing more than a book and movie" and "ZOMG FIGHT CLUB IS EVERYTHING I'M GOING TO GO ASK SOMEONE TO PUNCH ME NOW, W00T". If you want to further argue this, see my previous comment about trolling asshats.

And someone warn me if I'm overusing the word asshat here. I know this is supposed to be semi-family friendly, but I just don't feel words on the level of "jerk" convey my point well enough.

I totally think it is wholly unreasonable for people to get personally insulted when someone rips something they enjoy.

That said, if you know that knocking something in a certain manner WILL offend people, and you can knock the book with all the same points, but in a manner that will NOT offend people, I do not know if it is not worth putting the extra effort in and framing your knock in a manner that will not offend.

It's what I try to do, at least.

I don’t know what kind of joyless asshat you have to be to dump on something that was significant to someone else

The problem here is not people who dislike things that other people like. It's people who get offended because someone else doesn't like what they do. Art criticism shouldn't be taken personally by anyone, though the artist has the only real excuse for it. After all, they're the only person the art represents.

If it hurts your feelings that I don't like Fight Club, the problem isn't on my part.

Kudos to Greg for a great post.

And Brian, thanks for fixing my code again. Can you point me at the secret web page where the correct syntax for that kind of stuff is? I'm just smart enough to believe there is such a place, but too inept to find it.