Custom Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Copy-Of-A-Copy-Of-A-Copy--Framing-The 👈

1. “A Cepg » f a Capg e f ct C»pg”:
Framing th e OewMe in Fight Club
David Finchers 1999 adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk’
s 1995 novel Fight Club
provides a spectacular solution, in several senses of that term, to the challenge of
depicting the narrators split self. Brad Pitts riveting, physically visceral portrayal
0 lyier Durden, the narrators pathological projection or alter ego, offers a bald,
bold contrast to Edward Nortons nondescript, nameless narrator, rendering literal
(or more accurately visual) the «r-metaphor of Palahniuk’
s novel: the conceit of
the double. Compelling performances by Pitt and Norton make this potentially
risky directorial decision deliver, with both actors earning Gen X cult status for
their portrayals of different aspects of the same character. As with all literalizations
of metaphor, however, something is lost in the translation: in this case the very
unheimhch, or uncanny, nature of the double as narrative strategy. In Finchers Fight
Uub the double emerges primarily as a revelation of plot, while Palahniuk’
s Fight
Uub plays with character and narrative voice to make the contours and purported
integrity ofhts subject(s) blur and bleed. As a literary adaptation, Finchers film is, in
1alahniuk swords, a copy ofa copy ofa copy,”but it is also undeniably a discrete text
in its own right. In this essay we consider the operations and effects of Fight Club’
s
narrative frames and doubles as represented via the distinct media resources of prose
fiction and film. r
The deliberately shocking thematic content ofFight Club in both its novel and film
incarnations has distracted scholarly attention from analysis of its formal structures,
particularly as regards its narrative framing. The affective punch of both texts centers
541

2. 542/Framing the Double in Fight Club
on the harried, hopeful, and increasingly violent action that provides the narrative
proper, and it is this action, and its accompanying exploration of masculinity in
crisis,” that has struck such resonant chords with readers, viewers, and critics, hr a
sense, this focus is not surprising; the energy and rhythm of the texts invite it, and
formalist analysis, with its attention to close reading, might seem a counter-intuitive
approach to take with texts that appear to reject convention so emphatically. But a
narrative frame does not appear in a text by accident; it is space that offers a meta-
textual reflection on the cultural product it encases, a space where the author or
director provides a more or less self-conscious commentary on the way the product
might be read and consumed. In a pedagogical context particularly, teaching Fight
Club as a literary adaptation requires foregrounding the way the narrative frames
comment on the action in the narrative proper. While Fight Club's narrative plot is
undeniably compelling, we ignore (and teach students to ignore) its narrative frame
at the risk of reducing the text’s complexity and difficulty.
In the case of the novel, for instance, the narrative frame has important
consequences for assessingthe power dynamics between the narrator and Tyler. In the
case ofthe film, the narrative frame and its obvious differences from the novel provide
important information about the nature of the adaptation and the genre of the film.
In both texts, moreover, insufficient attention to the narrative frame results in the
occlusion or distortion of Marlas significance. In both Palahniuk and Fincher s texts
Marla Singer is the catalyst for the psychic split that occurs in the narrator. Portrayed
with apathetic insouciance by Helena Bonham Carter in Fincher s adaptation, Marla
exposes the deliberate copies that the narrator creates when she attends the various
support groups and it is her questioning of him after they exchange numbers that
hints to the audience that he has no real identity. As she looks at the business card
he has handed her, she says: “It doesn’t have your name. Who are you? Cornelius?
Rupert ?Travis?Any of the stupid names you give each night ?”
Marla (unknowingly) interacts with Tyler and the other copies of the narrator,
while the narrator himself begins to find himself haunted and possessed by Tyler—
the idealized, projected self that now threatens to replace its creator. Parallels with
Victorian Gothic fiction can be drawn here, with confusion over the identity ofTyler
and the narrator echoing common misconceptions regarding the identity of the
monster in Mary Shelley’
s Frankenstein: Is it Victor Frankenstein or the creature, or
perhaps both?2The creature of Dr. Frankenstein’s making was intended to be a thing
of beauty and distinction, as is the Tyler from Palahniuk s pages and Finchers film,
yet Shelley’
s creator ultimately recoils in horror from his creature.3So, too, does the
narrator in both versions of Fight Club: as Tyler grows larger than life, the narrator
slips further back into the shadows—at times, relegated to simply “voice over” rather
than “character.” The glass of the mirror that separates subject and reflection is
gradually fractured by the interactions both Tyler and the narrator have with Marla,
but still two figures remain, battling to be recognized as the true copy. In a sense, a
similar battle for domination occurs when adapting any novel into film, as is the case
when considering the function of filmic and fictional narrative frames in the twin
texts ofFight Club.

3. Framing the Double in Fight Club/543
The Novels Narrative Frame
U e first chapter o f Fight Club is recounted in retrospect by the unnam ed first-person
Z T ' j a m 0 re.C0nVT 0nal n o v d ’ thls X * m ight be called a p X u e
d the direct repetition o f its scenario and dialogue in the penultim ate chapter o f
^ " 7 m i§ht P aS an eP il<?gue’ b u t P alahniuk resists this feedback loop by
providing an extra ending, situated either in heaven o r a hospital (the correlation is
S t S l r WhlCh thf narrat° r iS ° nce ,
m ° re unw illing to choose either life or
C lu h i^f f ' 'ame 15 ' etClSoned in F in ch e r* Aim adaptation o f Fight
Club in favor o f a po ten tial rom antic rapprochem ent betw een the n arrator and his
new ly recognized love interest M arla. In one sense F inchers finale com es closer to
the psychosocial dynam ics o f the novel th an som e o f the critical responses to the film
have apprehended b u t in order to test this hypothesis it is im p o rtan t to look at the
narrative fram es o f the novel and film in question
The first paragraph o f P alahniuks Fight Club is a m asterpiece o f understatem ent
or w hat classical rhetoricians called litotes, the d e l i b e r a t e d o f u n d e r s t a t e d
for rhetorical effect The novel opens w ith o ur hero holding a gun in hL m Tuth
m o u rn in g the loss o f a best friend” and recounting that: “P eo p lf are always asking
m e if I knew about Tyler D u rd en ” (11). Even w ith repeated rereading (and7 this is t
novel th a t repays rereading), the pathos o f this opening fram e rem ains fntact. Perhaps
this is because ,t recalls, right from the outset, the m odern m yths the m ovie indusrey
uses to trigger em otion: the buddy flick, the m isunderstanding, the grand idea grow n
z f r r h r penmg is at °nce * * ■ « * 3 3
m ,ts ltio n o f n artativ e film clich' ' * - d ■ ■ is
, In the, sec° n d paragraph Tyler says, “W e really w on’t die.” In the fifth paraeranh-
U is isn t really death,” Tyler says. “W e’ll be legend. W e w on’t grow old”P( l ) A nd
the p rotagonist relates I tongue the barrel into m y check and say, Tyler you’re
chastises I L T t a ° f S“ ” ^ ^ ^ & S
s fyler for his grandiose dream s o f im m ortality, breaking the dram a down
to recognizable cliche, and transposing Tyler’s existential angst to the tropes o f teen
dram a, and laughable, com m ercialized teen dram a at that. The second-to-last chapter
a fl b epeatS S° n|T ° f 7 CSe elem ents verbatim . As reported in w hat now seems
g r o w ^ ld ^ AUt/ b CtUa 7 real_time narration, Tyler says, “W e’ll be legend. W e w on’t
f203) Protagonist again replies, “Tyler, you’re thin k in g o f vam pires”
It is hard to th in k o f a m ore com m only and critically m aligned genre than the
p opular vam pire narrative, and if the initial reference to this genre in the nove
serves to underscore our sense o f the p ro tag o n ist’s h a p le ssn e ss-h e d oesnkrealize
, • f I h f S L
'P aSa)ost its reiteration in the penultim ate narrative fram e w orks to
highlight the insidiousness o f the genre’s a p p e a l- if Tyler can’t w ork o u t o f these
n o w t u T w i Can? T h
b
Cn Tylef int° neS’I" tKe °pening frame’ “U ls is our worW,
now, ou r w orld .. and those ancient people are dead” (14) it evokes the possibility
an alternative th at the novel tantalizes us w ith, b u t eventually w ithholds Late
the novel, the p ro tag o n ists claim th a t he is “O zym andias, K ing o f K ings” (201)
registers as a delusion, but it is a delusion that, initially, the novel fsk s us to pursue.

4. 544/Framing the Double in Fight Club
Grandiose self-delusion-and equally grandiose self-abhorrence-is central to the
novel’s characterization. , , . ,,
The opening and closing frames of the novel are two places where Palahmuks
satire of self-delusion is most discernible. In the opening frame, having ironically hit
“rock bottom” in a Seattle skyscraper and with his life finally on the line, the nairator
scrambles for aweak link in the chain that binds him to Tyler and appeals directly to
his alter-ego’s delusions of grandeur:
Where would Jesus be if no one had written the gospels?
[Y]ou want to be a legend, Tyler, man, I’ll make you a legend. I’ve been here from
the beginning.
I remember everything. (15)
Proffering himself in the role of scribe and, potentially, prophet, the narrator seizes
on Tyler’s egotism, his encompassing infantile narcissism, as a means to distract im
from his murderous (and possibly suicidal) intent. In this opening fame daen^the
narrator offers himself up as a writer, specifically of gospel and legend, and n o
specifically as a writer providing these services under duress, with the aim ofavoid g
his own annihilation. Parallels to Palahniuk’s role as author of the text ofFight Club
arCThe'narratm in this way becomes a double for the author from the outset of the
novel although, with admirable restraint, Palahmuk does not reveal this aspect o
the narrative structure until the novel’s end, prompting enquiring readers to read
the novel anew. Fight Club is not just a novel that rewards rereading; for readers
attuned to the narrative frame, it demands it. On second reading, the retrospective
perspective ofthe opening narrative frame presents the narrator as an abject apologis
(held at gun point) for a project he not only no longer believes in, but feels threaten
his very existence. Celebratory readings ofFight Club's imagining of new moral and
political identities for men” and its refusal of “postmodern mens castration wod^d
do well to register the critical distance the frame narrative provides on Tyler Durdens
manifesto for masculinity.4 , . . , c
Such critical celebrations of renovated masculinity triumphant often avo
discussing the final narrative frame of the novel, where the protagonist is either in
heaven or hospital and is unwilling to leave.
Everything in heaven is white on white.
Faker.
Everything in heaven is quiet, rubber-soled shoes.
I can sleep in heaven. (206)
Sedated by various meds and able to sleep at last, the protagonist remains curious
and critical of both the world he has left and his current environment. He wishes
he could call Marla to tell him “every little thing’ and assures us that, this time,
wouldn’t hang up” (207). But he is emphatic that he doesnt want to go back yet
because Project Mayhem members are everywhere, even here (wherever here is) an

5. Framing the Double in Fight Club1545
are eagerly aw aiting his revival. If the release the narrator experienced in “Rem aining
M en Together functioned as a form o f rebirth and resurrection, the final frame o f
t e novel sees him im placably resisting any such transcendence, refusing the role o f
savior his erstw hile disciples have thrust upon him .
The closing frame o f the novel provides a job-interview -styled conversation w ith
o in w hich the narrator challenges G ods interpretation o f recent events, resisting
this om nipotent s version o f the story that has just been to ld : 6
specialness? ^ £ach of us is a sacred>unique snowflake of special, unique
Can 11see how we’re all manifestations oflove?
I look at God behind his desk, taking notes on a pad, but Gods got this all
wrong. (207) 6
W hile he rejects G ods seemingly spurious self-help affirmations, the narrator also
explicitly refuses Tyler s dystopian counter-com m andm ents:
We are not special.
We are not crap or trash, either.
We just are.
We just are, and what happens just happens. (207)
s the conclusion to a highly charged, existential exploration o f contem porary
masculinity, this is distinctly underw helm ing, and it is clear to see why this episode
was jettisoned in Finchers film in favor o f a m ore spectacular resolution. B ut as the
conclusion to a satire o f a highly charged, existential exploration o f contem porary
m asculinity it makes m uch m ore sense. M orose, faintly petulant, and still self-
absorbed the narrator resists G od’s interpretation o f his story, b u t does so in the
am est o f ways: Yeah. Well. W hatever. You can’t teach G od anything” (207).
a ahniuks Fight Club ends n o t w ith a bang but a w him per— a sleight o f hand in
nanative fram ing that has been all but ignored in criticism that explores its m ore
explosive aspects. r
M arla’
s centrality to the novel’
s form al structure is highlighted at each end o f the
narrative frame and has been similarly ignored in m uch o f its critical reception.5 In
the first chapter we read: I know all o f this: the gun, the anarchy, the explosion is
really about M arla S inger.. . . W e have a sort o f triangle thing going on here I w ant
Tyler. Tyler wants M arla. M arla w ants me.”A nd at the end we hear: “Fknow why Tyler
occurred. Tyler loved M arla From the first night I m et her, Tyler or some p a rtV m e
P I r et* d r ^ WlA M a rk ' N o t that any ° f this m atters- N o t now ” (198).
a ahniuks Fight Club sports its gender logics (and illogics) from the very first page
in a brash, no-holds-barred way that can be read as liberating (if you believe that m m
have been deeply dam aged by their single m others), but can equally be read as deeply
rmsogymst, and, perhaps, at best, as a satire o f m isogynist masculine collectivity run
amok. O ne o f the m ore disturbing things about this designedly disturbing novel is its
idespread critical reception as an accurate depiction o f m en’s “m arginalization” in

6. 546/Framing the Double in Fight Club
an emasculating modern world;6this reading disregards Palahniuks own claims that
the novel is a satire and instead seems to join the legions of space monkeys who,
perhaps even more than their absent fathers or omnipresent mothers, are the object
of the novel’s social critique.
In “Remaining Men Together,” the testicular cancer support group the
protagonist attends in Palahniuks novel, Big Bob facilitates the narrators tears.
Bob’
s pursuit of masculine physical perfection, through body-building and too
much testosterone,” had made him “cold and hard as concrete to touch before the
cancer took its grip on his “houevos.’
Bob relates: “in Mexico, where you buy
your steroids, they call them eggs” (21 -
22). It is this virtually emasculated and
metaphorically feminized man who
provides the narrator’s first relief from
his insomnia: “then Bob was closing in
around me with his arms, and his head
was folding down to cover me. Then
I was lost inside oblivion, dark and
silent and complete, and when I finally
stepped away from his soft chest, the
front of Bob’s chest was a wet mask of
how I looked crying” (22). Like the
narrator’s insomnia, Bob’s chest is a
copy of a copy of a copy ; a wet mask
of how the narrator “looks” crying—
the imprint of a representation of grief.
Cocooned in Bob’s enveloping embrace,
cushioned by his estrogen-enhanced
“bitch tits,” the narrator returns to a maternal womb that is also figured as a tomb or
grave: “inside oblivion, dark and silent and complete.” Significantly it is Bobs chest,
his bosom, which captures and returns the image of the narrator’s grief; Bobs bosom
is the mirror in which the narrator catches the first bearable glimpse of his pain. And
he finds it liberating:
This was freedom. Losing all hope was freedom. ...
Walking home after a support group, I felt more alive than I d ever felt....
And I slept. Babies don’t sleep this well.
Every evening, I died. And every evening, I was born.
Resurrected. (22)
“At almost every meeting since then,” the protagonist relates, “Big Bob has made me
cry ... Until tonight, two years of success until tonight, because I can t cry with this
woman watching me’’ (22). , . , „ . . . .
Marla’s intrusion on the sacred space of the narrators weekly rebirth and
resurrection in “Remaining Men Together” causes significant psychic disruption,

7. Framing the Double in Fight Club/547
on several levels 8 Most obviously, her appearance at the testicular cancer support
group destroys the anonymous homosocial space in which the narrator had hitherto
found sanctuary. H er willful disregard of gender logics and her apparent acceptance
by the group expose the narrator s own blurring of traditional gender function^in his
going ritual of rebirth and renewal in Bobs arms. In the presence o f a “real”woman
(whatever that might mean), the fantasy resolution provided by Bobs maternal
embrace and unconditional acceptance is exposed as surrogates the narrator is no
longer able or willing to own.
At the narrative level Marlas entrance in the plot revives the narrator’
s insomnia,
providing the catalyst for his creation of Tyler Durden.9 W hile Tyler as double
has been interpreted in ingenious and often compelling ways, as a symptom of
masculinity in crisis, of homoerotic projection, and a desire for the absent father, the
act that (in narrative terms) Tylers creation is triggered by Marla and her blatant
;1n / ffPrr ? C
K m “ f Pma nSpaCC 1S° ften overlo°ked. The hyper-masculine mood
d affect of the novel, as well as its narrative focus, make it easy to understand this
oversight, but it is nonetheless im portant to investigate, in order to question rather
an celebrate the text s immediate and obvious rewards. We are told repeatedly that
mrmHv7 f ab° U t m o f emphatically in the novels opening and penultimate
‘ rative frames. To ignore these narrative prompts, provided by the now-knowing
protagonist in retrospect seems to willfully revel in the recuperative fantasies of
ascuhmty that admittedly provide most of the action of the novel, but which its
frames ultimately problematize and subject to scrutiny.
The Film’s Narrative Frame
The opening credits o f Finchers film can be understood as representing the
connections in the brain. As the credits disperse, the camera pulls out and tracks Across
what appears to be a close up of flesh: skin, hair, and sweat, before trailing up what
N o r r^ Athbe b a rrd ° fa , S «n beir ga,m ed into the mouth of the narrator (Edward
orton). As he opens with, People are always asking me if I know Tyler Durden,” the
auffence is nble to interpret the opening credits as having traced through the brain
center of the narrator, before exiting through his face and switching point of view to

8. 548/Framing the Double in Fight Club
that of the character holding the gun: Tyler Durden. Just over two minutes into the
film, we are presented with the first clue to the connection between the narrator and
Tyler Durden, but it is only through repeated viewings of Fincher’s Fight Club that
we begin to notice what might have flashed by the first time.
A shot of Tyler and the narrator in their front row seats for the theatre of mass
destruction that is Tyler’s plan shows the two characters reflected (or rather, mirror
images of the one person) in the glass window of the high rise building they are
occupying. Other buildings are reflected in the glass, but it is Tyler Durden (Brad
Pitt)—despite his face not being entirely revealed at this point—who is the locus of
the shot. The narrator appears to sit in the background, reflecting the position of the
audience as Tyler waits for his show to begin.
This shot also offers another clue: when the narrator discovers the true nature
of his relationship with Tyler, it is explained that the narrator often imagines that
he is watching Tyler “speak for him,” and other scenes throughout Fight Club echo
this moment, for when Tyler is taking center stage at the fight clubs, the narrator is
relegated to the background—an observer of his own doppelganger at work. Aftera

9. Framing the Double in Fight Club/549
documentary-like shot complete with explanatory narration by Nortons character
hat outlines what the demolition team of Project Mayhem has planned, we are told
that the narrator knows thist£
because Tyler knows this.”
As Tyler speaks—his face still averted from the viewer at this stage—he is
now framed in the background as the narrator turns to the camera, indicating the
beginning of the circular narrative. As he does in Palahniuks novel, the narrator
realizes that all of this is really about Marla Singer” and the shot cuts to him being
pressed against the chest of Robert “Bob” Paulson. 8
The scene of imminent destruction that Tyler anticipates is jarringly replaced bv
me shot of the narrator and Bob embracing at the testicular cancer support group,
Remaining Men Together. As the narrator explains why Bob has “bitch tits”we see
men embracing one another, sobbing, and the narrator assuring Bob that, “yes, were
still men As Bob invites the narrator to cry, he pauses in the narration to take us back
even fuither, explaining his insomnia and how he came to be a participant at these
support meetings. He tells the viewer that with “insomnia, nothing sreal ... everything
is a copy of a copy and as we see him at his workplace, a photocopier reinforcing
the copy motif, a brief flash of Tyler Durden is visible. The narrator does not seem
to notice and perhaps on first viewing most viewers may miss these “flashes.” It is
here that Finchers Fight Club begins to provide “spliced-in” clues for keen viewers
to identify upon second viewing. Like Palahniuks Fight Club, Finchers adaptation
invites re-watching in order to catch hints about the narrative that might have flashed
past the first time and escaped our attention. The flashes of Tyler occur in at least
three other scenes before he finally reveals himself to the narrator on the plane. In
order after the copy of a copy” flash they are: when the doctor speaks about seeing
real pain at support groups, during a support group meeting when “strength” is
berng spoken about, and when the narrator laments that because ofMarla, he cannot
s eep. nee more, on re-watching Fight Club, the viewer is treated to important
clues about Tyler and his nature. Not only is he a subliminal flash—relating to his
work as a projectionist operator at night, where he splices flashes of pornography
into family films to disturb unsuspecting viewers—but the words surrounding his
briefappearances early on: copy,” “pain,” “strength,” and “sleep,”all make sense when
the narrator finally discovers just who and what Tyler is.
Jh e narrator, posing as “Cornelius,” finds a reprieve from insomnia by “letting
go at the support groups. After Bob invites him to cry, the narrator finds himself
pulled against the big mans chest and, as choral music soars, he does cry: “lost in
oblivion, dark and silent, and complete.”As in the novel, he finds freedom in “losing
all hope and, pulling back from Bobs embrace, he sees the imprint ofhis tear stained
3ha f 1
face-gazing back at him from Bob’
s shirt. As the narrator attends more
meetings, he calls himself the warm little center that the world crowds around”
explaining to the viewer how “every evening he died and every evening he was born
again. This method of escaping his own pain by basking in the pain of others-
Together”°n *
*shattered by the aPPearance of Marla Singer at “Remaining Men
As the narrator tells us, “she ruined everything,” Marla casually strolls into the
meeting and becomes the focus of the shot: exhaling cigarette smoke, dressed in

10. 550/Framing the Double in Fight Club
black and wearing sunglasses, she casually asks: “This is cancer, right? The men of
“Remaining Men Together”warily disengage from their embraces and simply stare at
her. Dressed in “gothic-styled”clothing, filmed in astyle reminiscent offilm non with
a frame of cigarette smoke around her at most times, Marla blatantly disregards the
gender role of this support group, smokes her way through the various other cancer
groups (such as tuberculosis) an d -in the eyes ofthe narrator and the viewer—stands
out as a clear and obvious fraud. She also reminds us-and the narrator-of his own
status as a tourist, and with Marlas lie so clearly reflecting his lies, sleep begins to
elude him once again. She exposes his copies (Cornelius, Travis, Rupert, and other
names he selects when he attends these groups) and he resents her for this, yet is stil
drawn to her (as, we later discover, is Tyler)^
In the scene following Marlas original intrusion, the narrator’
s focus—while filled
with resentment-is always on Marla. Marla, the “big liar,” the “tourist and so on
but Marla does not appear to notice him until he confronts her. During this period of
obsession with Marla, which occurs from the moment he sees her, the narrator muses
on the return ofhis insomnia—“nothing is real”—before another support group sees
Marla take the place ofhis power animal (a penguin) during guided meditation. Ihis
leads to the narrator confronting her about her presence at “his” groups, to which
Marla replies that she does it because: “it’s cheaper than a movie and there s free
coffee.” In turn, she asks the narrator why he attends. He explains that people really
listen when they think you’re dying instead of” ... “waiting to speak, Marla brushes
for him. Unlike Bob or any others he finds an escape with at these groups, Marla sees
him for what he is and—for all her apathy—appears to accept him This continues
throughout the movie, whether she is interacting with Tyler or the narrator, but
it isn’t until the film’
s conclusion—when the narrative comes full circle—that the
narrator seems to grasp this. As the film’s circular narration returns to the opening
we remember the narrator’
s words from the opening of the film: And suddenly
realize that all of this: the gun, the bombs, the revolution ... has got something to do
with a girl named Marla Singer.”
Marla acts as the catalyst for Tyler’sappearance in both the novel and the him, but
in Finchers Fight Club, the key moments surrounding the introduction and departure
ofTyler, as well as Marlas role in the “split” occurring between the narrator and Mr.

11. Framingthe Double inFight Club/551
Durden,” are framed by moments of violence: explosions—real or imagined—and
sell-inflicted injury.1
0The moment before Tyler reveals himself to the narrator on­
board a flight, Nortons character revels in the fantasy of a mid-air explosion where
he enjoys the spectacle ofthe cabin ofthe plane being torn apart. Suddenly, he wakes
up to the sound of Tyler sardonically reading from the safety instructions (“the
illusion of safety at thirty thousand feet”) and he strikes up a conversation with
what he believes to be a “single-serving” friend, noticing at the time (another clue
ror the audience) that they even have the same briefcase. Upon returning home to
the destruction of his “beloved” condominium, the narrator finds Marlas phone
number miraculously unscathed among the debris scattered on the street, which
leads to another documentary-style explanation ofwhat the police believe has caused
the explosion. This exposition is inter-cut with the narrator dialing Marlas number
and the actual explosion occurring (in slow motion). As Marla answers the phone, he
replaces the receiver without speaking. This disaster lacks the romance of the fantasy
air-disaster and, as her presence did at “his” support groups, the intrusion of Marla
at this time threatens to ruin” the moment and shatter his constructed narrative.
Instead he makes another phone call, which originally goes unanswered but finally
results in a call-back: Tyler Durden.
Both novel and film open with the narrator hinting at the fascination “others”—
including himself have with Tyler Durden. The question of whether he knows
Tyler Durden has been answered when both narratives return to the beginning: not
only does he know things because Tyler knows them, he knows them because they
are the same person. Fincher’
s Fight Club depicts the “reveal” or “twist”—when the
narrator learns that he is in fact “Mr. Durden, sir”- i n a phone conversation with
Marla, with Marla once again being the exposer of the narrators fabrications. The
twist this time is that the narrator is apparently unaware that he has been indulging in
this fantasy. The unheimlich or uncanny nature of Tyler as double, the subtleties that
accompany his character, and the complexities surrounding the novel’
s narrative are
ost during the films reveal: Tyler confronts the narrator, his appearance altered since
we last saw him, his tone threatening as he dominates the flashback of the narrator
(and die film) that explains their relationship. The flashback sees Nortons narrator
in the place of Pitts Tyler in scenes that we’ve watched earlier, effectively altering
the film we think we’ve been watching by splicing a different character—the same
character—over another.
Throughout this "reveal” scene,
Pitt’
s Tyler is tanned and healthy in
appearance in contrast to Norton’
s
pale and emaciated narrator11: a
visual clue that reveals how Tyler now
dominates their shared body. Tyler,
who initiated the relationship with
Marla (“it’
s all the same to her,”he says
dismissively), now views her as a threat
as he considers that her “knowing too
much” might “compromise” their
goals. At this moment, he and the
narrator not only begin to turn on each

12. 552/Framing the Double in Fight Club
other, but they battle for dominance
of the shared body. The narrator
collapses as Tyler takes control, with
Norton’s voiceover telling us that:
“it’
s called a changeover. The movie
goes on. And nobody in the audience
has any idea.” Once more, the switch
is linked back to the idea of film
projection, of a flash of the subliminal
spliced in and, without having our
attention drawn to the clues, we—the
audience—continue to be immersed
_ . within the narrative, unaware that
a changeover has occurred. Fincher s reveal literalizes and in doing so diminishes
the subtlety of Palahniuk’
s text. Despite the narrator insisting that nobody has any
idea, the viewer is now only too aware of Tyler s nature and can no longei trust the
narrator as a reliable point of view. As the only character to interact with Tyler and
the narrator, Marla is revealed as our most reliable source of information, as she has
been all along. She sums up the narrator as “Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Jackass because, from
her point of view, they are the same person—Nortons narrator and she has seen
him for what he is since their first encounter at “Remaining Men Together.”
The interactions between the narrator and Tyler following the reveal scene
alternate between haunting and comical; Tyler is able to appear and disappear on
either side of a glass door, taunting the narrator as he attempts to smash his way into
a building to undo the work of Project Mayhem. He is also able to vanish after a
bullet is fired at him. When the narrator opens fire at Tyler, striking a van filled with
nitroglycerin and enraging Tyler, we cut to security camera footage that shows the
narrator standing alone, screaming into thin air. The security footage also depicts the
narrator—in defiance of physics—being dragged backwards through the building s
garage and later tumbling down a set of stairs, intercut with scenes of Tyler inflicting
this violence. While this is supposed to reinforce the idea that Tyler and the narrator
are in fact the same person, the scene s dark humor and the use of security footage
to establish “realism” in the battle between the two personalities eliminates the
subtleties of the internal struggle. As the narrator lies defeated and unconscious at
the bottom ofthe stairwell, Tyler steps out ofview and we return to about where we
came in,”with Tyler holding a gun in the narrator’s mouth—the opening scene ofthe
film—only this time, Tyler’
s face is no longer obscured from the audience.
The destruction of Tyler in the film is achieved by the narrator shooting himself
in the head; Tyler exhales smoke as he collapses, an exit wound visible at the back of
his head, and we hear the sound ofhis body hit the floor and then he simplyvanishes.
Fincher’
sFight Club deviates from the novel’
s conclusion here, as the space monkeys
deliver Marla and depart in awe of Mr. Durden, with the final shot (excluding the
flash ofapenis that Fincher splices in) being ofthe narrator and Marla holding hands
and gazing at one another as the spectacle of exploding and collapsing buildings
unfolds before them. The narrator seems to have become a version or a copy of
Tyler Durden, as evidenced in his interactions with the space monkeys after the death

13. Framingthe Double inFight Club/553
of the “real” Tyler. Or, at the very least, he is content to be recognized as such and
appears to have found something that “defines him as a person” that is not available
from an Ikea catalogue, and Marla is a key part to the narrators final definition
Finchers portrayal of Marla alters Palahniuk’
s depiction of her character in
several respects. Finchers narrator is not as fundamentally afraid of Marla as
Palamuks narrator is.1
2 In the film, her disruptive presence at the support groups
and her seduction” of Tyler are the main points of the narrator’
s annoyance The
plot involving making soap from Marlas mother and its awkwardly misogynistic
justification by Tyler and his converts (“liposuctioned fat sucked out of the richest
thighs in America [150]) isjettisoned in Finchers adaptation, as is what Marla gains
rrom the support group meetings. In the novel she almost functions as another copy
of the narrator, mirroring his lie; by taking part in “his” experience at these support
groups she is able to feel something after basking in the griefand pain of others:
She actually felt alive. Her skin was clearing up. All her life, she never saw a dead
person. There was no sense oflife because she had nothing to contrast it with. Oh
but now there was dying and death and loss and grief. Weeping and shuddering!
terror and remorse. Now that she knows where we re all going, Marla feels everv
moment ofher life. (38) '
Finchers film presents Marla as both an obstacle to desire between the narrator
and Tyler and as an object of desire for both men. He does not, however, endow
hei with any particular depth or subjectivity in her own right, with the result that
the psychological parallels Palahniuk draws between Marla and the protagonist all
but disappear Their eventual desire for each other is depicted in Finchers film as
a result of exhaustion, circumstance, and proximity, rather than the random and
almost miraculous confluence of paranoias, predilections, and tentative affection
that Palahniuk portrays.
If the closing shot of Finchers film represents an affinity between these two
characters that does unexpected justice to the psychosexual dynamics of the
novel, this is more a result of the films investment in a spectacular climax than in
any previous investment it has made in portraying that relationship as potentially
meaningful. Fincher s film ends with an undeniable bang, with a satisfying explosion
and the prospect of make-up sex to come. Palahniuk’
s novel ends with a veritable
whimper, in a fugue state of semi-consciousness, with the protagonist fiddling with
is Valley of the Dolls play set,’ determined, if nothing else, to avoid the siren call
j c ac<? return to life. Analyzing the narrative frames of Palaniuks novel
and Finchers film in combination provides important insights into the ways these
texts presented themselves in their original publication formats. Foregrounding their
narrative frames in a study of literary adaptation brings out some of the surprising
similarities as well as striking differences in the Fight Clubs produced by Palahniuk
and Fincher that are too often conflated in the popular imagination.
Elizabeth Kinder
Patricia Pender
University ofNewcastle, Australia

14. 554/Fram ing the D ouble in Fight Club
Notes
1 The Guardians P hilip French saw th e film as “a dazzling an d distu rb in g parable about th e d iscontent
o f m en at th e en d o f a terrible cen tu ry ” Sight and Sounds A m y T aubin applauded th e film s expression o f
“som e p retty subversive, rig h t o n the Zeitgeist ideas ab o u t m asculinity and our nam e brand, b o tto m line
society” (16). Paul W atson celebrated Fight Club’s “com plex articulation” o f th e lin k betw een “sick m ale
psychology an d m oney-m otivated, nam e-brand A m erican society an d suggested th at the genuine sense
o f helplessness, anom ie, an d p ain w hich attends Jack’s narrative clearly affected th e film’s audience” (Davies
an d W ells 17).
2 See C ostas C o n stan d in id es on adaptations o f th e double in Fight Club and the elem ents o f th e G o th ic
in dom estic space th ro u g h o u t th e film (95-98), an d Joe N azare o n view ing P alahniuk s novel as a late-20th
C en tu ry u p d ate o f th e G o th ic novel” (n. pag.).
3 N o t only does confusion su rro u n d the identity o f “F rankenstein” w hen discussion o f M ary Shelley’s
novel is raised— for exam ple, th e m onster is often incorrectly identified as th e title character—
-b u t the
reaction o f V icto r Frankenstein to his creature’s “aw akening can be linked to th a t o f th e n arrato r s su^ (|erj
realization o f T yler’s tru e nature. W h e n th e creature looks at its maker, F rankenstein finds his^ h eart filled
w ith “breathless h o rro r an d disgust” as th e “beauty o f th e dream vanishes (58). U nable to endure the
aspect o f th e bein g ” he h ad created, he fled (58-59).
4 See, respectively, Paul W atson 19 and A lexandra Juhasz 210-11. For a salutary critique o f w h at he
calls th e “th e univocal critical reception o fFight Club’
,’see M ark B edford, w ho argues th a t th e academ ic
discourse th at has b u ilt up aro u n d Fight Club has ten d ed to m isread th e film s u n reco n stru cted negative
representations o f w om en an d th e cynically com m ercial constructions o f m ale cultural-alienation (50).
H en ry A. G iroux an d Im re Szem an provide one o f the few essays before B edford to q uestion Fight Club s
supposed radicalism .
5A significant exception is B edford, w ho sees Fight Club s gender politics as queasily redolent o f 1950s
‘m om ism ’— a discourse th at blam ed overbearing, em asculating m others’ for p ro d u cin g w eak, often
hom osexual m en’” (53).
6See T aubin; Sconce; W atson.
7 P alahniuk considers th e novel to be satire, as stated in an interview p ublished online by Fora.tv in
A ugust 201 2 ab o u t th e legacy o f Fight Club.
8 C aroline R uddell argues th at “th e fu n ctio n o f M arla in th e text is to create discordance betw een Tyler
and the N arrato r” (496), an d to h in t to th e view er th at th eir relationship m ay n o t be w hat it seems.
9 The role o f M arla in P alahniuk’s Fight Club is h ig hlighted by Peter M atthew s, w ho po in ts o u t th at “in
term s o f p lo t structure, it is no accident th at th e n arrato r first m eets M arla im m ediately after his initial
enco u n ter w ith Tyler at th e beach” (90). H er appearance in F incher’s film, how ever, occurs before Tyler
reveals him self to th e n arrato r during th e flight.
10M arla is also responsible— in b o th th e novel an d film versions o fFight Club for ultim ately disru p tin g
T yler’s presence in th e n arrato r s life, leading to th e dem ise o f “M r. D urden.”
11 S. F. Said’s interview w ith E dw ard N o rto n reveals th e decisions m ade by the actors to alter th eir
appearances in o rd er to achieve th e contrast betw een Tyler an d the n arrato r (2003).

15. F ra m in g th e D o u b le in Fight Club/555
C ynthia K uhn explains how it is in fact M arla “w ho appears to scare the narrato r th e m ost, evidenced
by his decision (w ith Tylers counsel) to leave th e Paper Street house” (41) in Palahniuk's novel after she
discovers they have been rendering her m o th ers fat to create soap.
W orks C ited
B edford, M ark. “Smells Like 1990s Spirit: The D azzling D eception o f Fight Club's G runge-A esthetic.”
New Cinemas:Journaloj ContemporaryFilm 9:1 (M ay 2011): 49-63. W eb. 9 M ar. 2013.
C onstandm ides C ostas “A dapting the L iterature o f th e D ouble: M anifestations o f C inem atic Forms in
ightUubmA EnduringLove!'JournalofAdaptation in Film and Performance2:2 (Sept. 2009)-
95-107. W eb. 10 Apr. 2013. ^ r ‘
Davies, Philip John, and Paul Wells, eds. American Film and Politicsfrom Reagan to BushJr. M anchester-
M anchester UP, 2002. Print.
Fight Club D in D avid Fincher. Perf. B rad Pitt, Edw ard N orton, and H elena B onham Carter. T w entieth
C entury Fox, 1999. Film. D V D 2009.
Fora.tv. C huck Palahniuk: N eed for C haos & Legacy o f Fight C lub.” O nline video d ip . YouTube. 29 Aug.
2012. Web. 10 M ay 2013. <http://w w w .youtube.com /w atch?v= oqV M D jN 7qU w >.
French, Philip. “You L ooking at M e?” The Guardian 13 Nov. 1999. Web. 12 Apr. 2009. < h ttp -//w w w
guardian.co.uk/film /19 9 9 /n o v / 14/p hilip ffench> .
G iroux, H enry A., and Im re Szeman. “Ikea Boy Fights Back: Fight Club, C onsum erism , and th e Political
Lim its of N ineties C inem a.” Lewis 9 5 -1 0 4 .
Juhasz, A lexandra. “The Phallus U nfetished: The E nd o f M asculinity As We K now It in Late-1990s
Fem inist' C inem a.” Lewis 2 1 0 -2 4 .
K uhn, C ynthia. “I A m M arla’
s M onstrous W ound: Fight Club and The G othic.” K uhn and R ubin 36-48.
K uhn, C ynthia, and Lance R ubin. Reading Chuck Palahniuk: American Monsters and Literary Mayhem
N ew York: R oudedge, 2009. Print. J
Lewis, Jon, ed. The End ofCinema As We Know It: American Film in the Nineties. L ondon: Pluto 2001
Web. 19 Mar. 2013.
M atthew s Peter. “D iagnosing C huck P alahniuk’s Fight Club.” Stirrings Still: The InternationalJournal of
ExistentialLiterature 2:2 (F all/W inter 2005): 81-104. W eb. 21 Apr. 2013. J
Nazare, Joe. “G o th i^ “ ? /Postmodem Terror in Palahniuk’
s Fight Club.” Macabre
epublic. 10 Nov. 2010. W eb. 21 May. 2013. <h ttp ://w w w .m acab re-rep u b lic.co m /2 0 1 0 /ll/
gothic-trappings-paradox-and-postm odern.htm l>.
Palahniuk, C huck. Fight Club (1996). Sydney: R andom H ouse, 1997. Print.

16. 5 5 6 / F r a m i n g t h e D o u b l e i n Fight Club
R u d d e ll, C a ro lin e . “V ir ility A n d V u ln e ra b ility , S p litti n g a n d M a s c u lin ity in Fight Club-. A T a le O f
C o n te m p o r a r y M a le Id e n ti ty Issues.” Extrapolation: A Journal ofScience Fiction And Fantasy
4 8 :3 ( W in t e r 2 0 0 7 ) : 4 9 3 - 5 0 3 . W e b . 19. M a r. 2 0 1 3 .
S a id , S. F. “I t ’s th e T h o u g h t th a t C o u n ts .” The Telegraph 1 9 A p r. 2 0 0 3 . W e b . 16 M a y 2 0 1 3 . < h t t p : / / w w w .
te le g r a p h .c o .u k /c u lt u r e /f il m /3 5 9 2 9 5 5 /I ts - th e - th o u g h t- th a t- c o u n ts .h tm l> .
S c o n c e , Je ffre y . “Iro n y , N ih ili s m a n d th e N e w A m e ric a n ‘S m a rt’ F ilm .” Screen 4 3 :4 (2 0 0 2 ): 3 4 9 -6 9 . W e b .
1 9 M a r. 2 0 1 3 .
S h e lle y , M a ry . Frankenstein. L o n d o n : P e n g u in , 2 0 0 3 . P rin t.
T a u b in , A m y . “S o G o o d It H u n s” Sightand Sound 9:U (N o v . 1 9 9 9 ): 1 6 - 1 8 . W e b . 19 M a r. 2 0 1 3 .
W a ts o n , P a u l. “A m e ric a n C in e m a , P o litic a l C r itic is m a n d P ra g m a tis m : A T h e ra p e u tic R e a d in g of Fight
Club andMagnolia”D a v ie s a n d W e lls 1 3 -4 2 .

17. Copyright of Literature Film Quarterly is the property of Salisbury University and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.