Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club is written using a style different from any of the other works we've read. As we discussed in class, this is partly related to the time period during which the book was written (1996). Discuss the relationship between Palahniuk's style and changing societal norms and values in the 1990s-2000s. How does the society a novel is produced influence the style of the novel? Also consider the other novels we've read in terms of style/year produced. For example, House of Leaves was written 4 years after Fight Club, though the 2 novels have seemingly disparate styles. Are there any connections between the styles of the 2 novels?
comments for this post will remain open until Sunday 4/13 at 11:59 pm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Society can influence the way a book is written, but more importantly it influences the writer and what audience he is looking to serve. For instance, the House of Leaves and Fight Club are written within a similar time frame but they have very different styles. The House of Leaves is very long, confusing, and in depth. Whereas, Fight Club has a very short, choppy style, that is more direct. Palahniuk is reaching for the younger, more technology dependent age. The younger generation firmly believes time is money and when reading for pleasure they are looking for a quick read for entertainment and to be done. They do not want to do an in depth analysis of the novel and make sense of different aspects like that needed in the House of Leaves. Danielewski is aiming for the older generation that enjoys long in depth novels providing them with thought and filling their free time. This is further supported by noticing than when the younger generation looks for a novel to read they would often not even pick up a novel such as House of Leaves purely because of its length. I personally enjoy reading Fight Club much more because it’s an easy, shorter read that makes me feel as though I am getting to the point of the story, not reading to read and feeling completely lost like House of Leaves.
I don’t think that Chuck Palahniuk's style necessarily caters to contemporary’s societies or youth’s desire for quick on-the-go entertainments, something that was proposed in class. I think that our generation has allowed a freer style of writing, such as Palahniuk's with the allowance of raunchy dialogue and short, unpretentious sentences. Authors are freer to write in any style they choose because it sells either way. I think Fight Club, and other of Chuck Palahniuk's books appeal to pop culture, but I’m not sure if his style reflects such a culture consciously. I don’t think that he writes in such a way to please such a culture, but that the culture just happens to really enjoy his novels. Newer novels may break away from using symbols to represent some aspect in their book or in their characters, but such breaking away allows a more direct critique on our contemporary society, such as with Palahniuk's satire.
I could see House of Leaves regarded as more scholarly, as it seems to have been given more thought, but such a book shows that the two can each write in an unconventional style, but not necessarily seem unconventional. There are certainly less filters or restrictions on what can be written and still be considered scholarly literature.
The two books we have read recently, House of Leaves and Fight Club, while seemingly “disparate”, have a lot more in common than the books we had read previously in class. The diction these books are written with conform more to the manner in which we speak these days versus the way in which the previously read books were written. This provides the contemporary reader with a novel that is much more accessible to read, allowing for, in my opinion better analysis and understanding. Examine the classes general attitude towards the previous books before House of Leaves and Fight Club. Most of the students in the class could not associate with the book because of how it was written and the norms it portrayed. Fight Club was a novel that pushed the boundaries for contemporary horror (the first to fill that role and land in the spotlight was American Psycho) and push a trend towards a loose free thought style of writing. House of Leaves pushes that to an extreme, using free thought writing, and through technology (which is a huge influence on this “free thought” writing) incorporated free thought story structure. All these contemporary novels reflect the norms in our society of a quick uptake of information delivered as rapidly as possible. I am almost afraid eventually we will be faced with 1984’s “new speak” in novels.
-Ben Farias
The book’s short, to the point sentences reflect how society is changing. Society has become that of an information based collective. We want all the info we need as short as possible, and as quick as we can get it. Fight club follows this patter. Most sentences are short and to the point. We get just enough information to form the picture the author wants is to paint, and that’s it. No superfluous statements or long winded descriptions are found in the book. Palahniuk even makes lists short. He separates things into sentences or sentence fragments instead of keeping them all together and giving us the information in one long continuous sentence. The need for efficiency and brevity is what we want, so the author wrote to please people in society. This gives his work much more of an appeal than the older stories we’ve read. Readers can zip thru the book or find plenty of pause points to that it is most efficient. When reading House of Leaves the story lasted forever, all of the stories in the book did, rather. There weren’t many clear places to stop and mark your spot. I felt like I had to read it all at once or I’d miss pieces of information and story if I stopped before a clear break. When things get smaller or shorter in the story, the sentences also become smaller. The main reason House of Leaves isn’t as concise in whole as Fight Club, is to reflect the overall story going on in the book. The explorations, though they lasted a short time for the readers, lasted hours or days for the characters in the book. By making the story last and the sentences longer what the characters feel time wise is reflected. In Fight Club, the character sees things in brief bursts (like on the planes and in airports) and also he has a seemingly fast paced life. By making the sentences shorter we get that reflected brevity that he experiences. So, both novels use sentence and idea length to mimic the character’s point of view within the story.
The style of Chuck Palahniuk’s novel Fight Club is directly related to the personality of the narrator. The narrator’s life is heavily influenced by society. Evidence for this includes his living space, his occupation, and his general outlook on life. By paralleling the society and time period of the story to his current settings, Palahniuk is making a satirical comment on the lives of average, middle-class, white men. The society a novel is produced in influences its style by providing a relevant background for the mindset the reader should be in. For example, the style of Turn of the Screw is very reminiscent of late 19th Century society. In using straightforwardness and lack of ambiguity in most of the scenes as well as discussing all events from only one perspective, the author conveyed the sterility of the strict, class-based society in which he lived. Danielewski’s House of Leaves uses various forms of technology to convey the main themes. His discussion of different cameras, equipment, and worldwide events helps put the story into context. Danielewski also underscores the strong connection between technology and time period. One element that connects both the styles in House of Leaves and Fight Club is the use of narration. Both authors chose to convey the course of events mainly through the eyes of the narrator. While the reader of House of Leaves mainly gets a second-hand account of Navidson’s perspective in the form of a commentary, the reader of Fight Club gets the narrator’s direct thoughts and feelings as they are occurring.
Palahniuk’s style is very reflective of the era in which it was written. In contrast to all the books written in the early 1900s, Fight Club is much more modern and the style in which he writes echoes that. Before, it was common that long sentences structure was used in writing style. However, in Fight Club, there are much shorter sentences and some not even complete, as if someone is writing down their every thought, like the process of stream of consciousness. Furthermore, Fight Club is very liberal in talking about explosives as well as modern day issues. This also mirrors the time in which it was written because in the 1990s-2000s it was common that current issues were openly spoken about. Also, divorce was very common; it still is. What is very noticeable between House of Leaves and Fight Club is their abundant use of curses and the conversational tone used by both the narrator in Fight Club as well as Johnny in House of Leaves. However, House of Leaves has a mostly academic tone and style because the purpose of the book is come across as if it was real. Also, House of Leaves uses a more inventive style of literature by having the way the text appears to the reader reflect what is happening to the characters in the story. Both novels use very innovative styles of writing.
Chuck Palahniuk’s writing style in Fight Club is different from all the other horror novels we have read so far. Palahniuk uses short, choppy, to-the-point sentences where the other novels like Turn of the Screw and The Haunting of Hill House are written more traditionally with lengthy sentences and paragraphs. Palahniuk also uses flashbacks and flash-forwards mixed in with what is going on in the present. Even though Fight Club and House of Leaves were written in the same time frame, the authors styles are uniquely their own. I think that Palahniuk reflects in his writing what was popular at this time. Instant Messaging, the Internet and AOL were booming at this time. Considering this, Palahniuk’s writing style appeals to the generation that likes to receive information in a short, simple, non-confusing way. House of Leaves was written more analytically and confusing which I think appeals to readers that are deep thinkers and want to try to figure out what is going on in the novel. Since Fight Club was written so simplistically readers are able to understand what is going on without an immense amount of thought. I think that the writing style of Fight Club appeals to a larger amount of readers because the storyline is simple and it is quick to read.
First of all, I think that the society and time period in which a novel is produced have a lot to do with its style. This is the case because the novel must be fitting for the tastes of the readers, and the author, therefore, is likely to cater their novel to what they think their audience will want to read. Fight Club is an example of a book that may have been written in its unusual style because of the audience it was targeted to. Palahniuk uses a style very different from those in the other books we’ve read this semester, one that uses very short, concise statements, doesn’t go into great detail, and jumps around a lot leaving the reader kind of confused and disoriented. I think this is, in part, because of the great effect that this style has on emphasizing his story. Jumping around so much, for example, goes along well with the story in which the narrator is in an intense and confusing transitional stage in his life. However, I do think that the style does have something to do with the fact that the book was written in America in the last fifteen years, while our society becomes more and more fast paced and impatient. This quick moving, to the point novel attracts readers’ attention but allows them to get through the story quickly. The great thing about the story, though, is that, despite its being written so concisely, it is still a very deep story which is likely to leave the reader thinking about and contemplating its meaning even after their quick completion of it.
In considering other books we’ve read, I will compare Fight Club to The Turn of the Screw, which was written about a hundred years earlier than the former and, therefore, in a completely different style. The Turn of the Screw, written at a time in which people’s lifestyles, in general, were much slower and people’s time was less jam-packed, is a much more slow reading book than Fight Club. House of Leaves, which is a modern book like Fight Club, is a much longer story but is still written in a style that often allows the reader to breeze through fifty or so pages in ten minutes or less. Though I would argue that this style was produced with a different purpose than to attract impatient readers, it could still have been influenced by the fast-paced and impatient society in which it was produced.
Chuck Palahniuk's novel, Fight Club, is unlike any of the other books we have read this semester. The reasoning as to why this is can be attributed to the dates at which the books were published. Fight Club was published in 1996, during a time when the world was becoming increasingly technologically advanced. Our society was developing in a way such that tasks could be completed in a quicker and more efficient manner. Similarly, Palahniuk’s writing style parallels with these changes in society. Unlike Turn of the Screw, Fight Club lacks an eloquent, flowery vocabulary. Instead, Fight Club consists of numerous short, choppy sentences, crude language, and paragraphs that are very to the point, rather than ambiguous like most of the other novels we have read. Although I do believe that Palahniuk’s writing style is greatly influenced by the time period in which it was written, I do not think that is the sole reason for his particular technique. It is also important to recognize the message Palahniuk is trying to convey in this story. The choppy, to the point sentences emphasize the fast-paced lives that his characters are living. Not only would these types of sentences not make sense in Turn of the Screw because of the differing time periods when writing was more articulate and elongated, but this style would fail to captivate the personalities and lifestyles of characters like the governess.
Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club truly shows how society has changed the way that they communicate. In the past, people used to communicate with eloquent vocabulary and long winded sentences that used to be appropriate but are now obsolete. Nowadays, the attention span of people, (due to recent technological innovations) has greatly decreased. People now find it difficult to sit down and read a novel that contains long, drawn out sentences. After some of the previous texts that we have ventured into, I have learned to enjoy the simple pleasures of a concise, well thought out book. The sentence structure and overall language usage is very contemporary and coincides with changing societal views in Fight Club. The way that I read it is for long periods of time covering a lot of material; this is made easy because of the fast paced plot. I had a difficult time treading through House of Leaves for various reasons. It was troublesome partially because it was just weird, but on a greater scale, it just confused the hell out of me. Trying to keep track of all of the characters and “who said what” was quite a task. Even though HOL was written 4 years after Fight Club, it seemed as if though Danielewski was trying to revert back to past styles in some of the Navidson Record. I find it difficult to compare Fight Club to HOL just because of the sheer complexity of HOL and all of the deeper meanings that are so prevalent in its text.
Fight Club is different from any of the other novels that we have read in class. Chuck Palahniuk's novel uses various amounts of short, choppy, straight to the point type of sentences. Although the time eras of the novels we’ve read in class vary, I believe that that is not the only reason as to why the style of writing changed so drastically from one novel to the other. The House of Leaves uses very long eloquent sentences to convey the length and confusing situations that the characters of the novel are in. Yet during the part where the characters are running away in House of Leaves, the sentences become very choppy and short as well. I think that this resembles the fact that in Fight Club the characters live very hectic lives. In addition Palahniuk's novel also uses various amounts of flashbacks which usually cut the story at that moment also adding emphasis as to why the sentences are choppy and cut up. The novel Fight Club gets straight to the point making it easier for people in today’s society to read. A lot of the technology has really impacted certain styles of writing. Now a day society likes to find the answer to things quickly and as concise as possible. When instructions are too long people tend to just glance at them and continue on. Things such as these have made the novels change their writing to being concise as well. Text messages is something that is very common in today’s society, texts are short and straight to the point. This shows how society has changed with time as well as how writing style for novels have.
Karen Esquives
Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club has been one of the most “stream of consciousness-like” pieces I’ve read in a while. The syntax is short and quick, as if the thoughts are ejected from the mind. This style fits the book, because unlike Haunting of Hill House and Turn of the Screw, the main narrative voice is in the mind of the nameless narrator. I feel like this is the only possible way the book would need to be written to convey the mind, because the mind generally does not structure random thoughts in an organized matter. It makes the book easy to read. During the 1990’s and 2000’s generally is referred to a time of loud rock and angst filled lyrics in a music sense. I feel like the book reflects this because of all of the violence and the angst filled histories of the characters. The book feels angry, in a sense. I think the social outlook and trends really affected the book, because they are similar in these aspects. Looking at other mention novels for example, the Turn of the Screw was very proper in both the time era and the way it was written. It was dense and very proper in terms of structure and language. The House of Leaves was written later, but I feel that in 2000, the Internet played a much larger role, as definitions of reality and authenticity are in question. The House of Leaves reflects more of this Internet like era. Both novels also reflect the technology of that time, like drugs, references to certain stores, and others. Also both are written with a modernist point of view, one in a stream of consciousness manner and the other like the Internet.
In response to general: I agree that technology does play a large role in both (House of Leaves and Fight Club) of the novels, however, I feel that House of Leaves have clearer aspects of this than Fight Club, because of the use of the pages and the way it was written. Yes, House of Leaves was supposed to look academic, but I think that it also plays off academic papers on the Internet and how people can easily glance through scholarly literature. I feel like Fight Club is more reflective of the angry, rogue, unsatisfied outlook on society than technology.
There are lots of factors that contribute to the writing style and readability of a novel. Trends of the time period have obvious impacts on the sentence structure, vocabulary, and writing style of a novel. A great example of this is the obvious difference in sentence structure and readability between Turn of the Screw and Fight Club. The vocabulary used in Turn of the Screw is also quite different from Fight Club in that the words used in the older novel are of a higher level, and there are certainly no ‘improper’ words used. Another big difference in the way that modern novels are written is that the idea of marketing and writing for a specific audience is now a big factor. House of Leaves was clearly written to be a largely intellectually novel, with many complexities, intricacies, and layers. While Fight Club was also written within four years of House of Leaves, it is a far simpler book from an intellectual standpoint and has a relatively simple visual composition. With that in mind, we can almost draw conclusions as to the intent of each author in writing their novels. The two recently written books do have the common element of using a contemporary setting and contemporary diction that makes both of the books fairly easily accessible to modern readers to enjoy.
I think Palahniuk’s writing style is created from the changing societal norms and values in the 1990s-2000s. He knew the audience we wanted to reach, young adults, and he knew what entertains them. During the late 90s technology was becoming more prevelant and advanced and taking the attention span of most youth. Palahniuk knows readers can get on the internet and if they don’t like something on a web page, just click one button and be done with it. That one second it takes to click that button is the same amount of time it takes an individual to pick up a book and judge/decide as to whether or not they want to read it. Palahniuk wanted to make sure his book got a chance so he formulated thinking about how young adults are busy, with short attention spans and always looking for a quick answer. I think House of Leaves was written for a different audience Palahniuk was targeting a very specific audience where as House of Leaves is a more general read that is enjoyed by scholars, students, and those just interested in weird things. There aren’t dominant connections between the novels other than the use of a narrator as a main character.
During the ‘90s, I would say that people were more conservative than they are now only because as time passes on, people form more opinions and seek their own definition of ‘being free’. The style that Fight Club is written in reflects this change of times brilliantly through Palahniuk’s disregard for traditional book structure and content. I think he succeeded at doing something that House of Leaves did, but Fight Club’s execution of it was better; although different, both books play on the way readers think and speak during that time period. The short, broken, incomplete sentences, thoughts, and paragraphs in Fight Club reflect many conversations people have with one another in that they are always either interrupting the other person or talking at the same time. In House of Leaves, the arrangement of words on the pages helps readers picture what goes on in the story. The time between 1996and 2000 is evident in both of theses books because they are more imaginative than older books. They were written with a sense of creativeness and originality that modern societies have become used to by watching movies, going to theme parks, playing video games, etc. Or if I’m completely wrong, it could just be that a change in times calls for a change in style….
In response to carlos r… I agree that people nowadays have shorter attention spans and that it may have something to do with our abilities to read House of Leaves because I also found myself skipping over passages that I read 3 or 4 times because I got off track. However I don’t think that Danielewski was trying to revert back to more traditional readings. I think his style is very modern, but it’s just that when he has those longer passages (even if it’s just a list of names,) he uses that time to tell a deeper story than he can with the shorter, less wordy pages. His style made you sit back and think how two completely different stories on the same pages relate to one another. It also just to emphasize his play on words on structure within the book,
The society and time in which a novel is written and published definitely influences the style of the novel. Fight Club is written in short and choppy vignettes of different parts of the story. The reader only gets to read the most important and vital information without being bogged down by extraneous details and flowing, wordy sentences. This is the way people like to receive all information today (and even in 1996 when Fight Club was written), very efficiently and to the point. Today we send someone a short, abbreviated text message to relay information; we do not dial their phone number and have a conversation with them to give them information. So it makes sense that this is the same mode in which we would want to read our novels, with only the pertinent information given as quickly as possible. Because of this, some of the relaxation and pleasure has been taken out of reading a novel. Sometimes the information comes too fast when you want to slow down and think about the last important event before the next one comes. The other extreme of this rush of information is in House of Leaves in which some parts could definitely have been speed up or even completely skipped over. Much, though not all, of Zampano’s lengthy analysis and research was irrelevant and I often found myself automatically skipping the parts where his text appeared. Danielewski may have intended for the reader to do this; push the fast forward button and skip parts of the novel themselves instead of the author choosing what to skip and what to keep. We discussed this in class when we tried to figure out who the true author of House of Leaves Danielewski intended to be and why the true author chose to keep in the novel what they did. Both novels encourage a sense of hurriedness, as though there is a really good part coming up, but Fight Club only gives the reader the important information and Palahniuk decides what parts to skip over whereas Danielewski’s House of Leaves makes the reader choose this for themselves.
In response to Caroline: I think you have the reason for Palahniuk’s choice of style exactly right. The fast-paced style of the book relates directly back to the fast-paced society of today. Semantic ambiguity is almost completely eliminated in order to present a message that is more relevant to the everyday reader. Literature used to be an upper-class luxury, but today anyone can pick up a book for free from a public library. The content as well as the style of contemporary literature, such as Fight Club and House of Leaves, is related modern-day society. Thought is provoked by content rather than subject matter. Hence, books can be about something as fallacious as a never-ending hallway and still be presented in a form that directs the reader adopt a specific train of thought.
Post a Comment