Thing 1: actually, it is both the first and second rule 
The Rules:
It was a joke! Without smilies nobody can get humor around here!
John
aha, you’re stup…endous!
I understand your dismay at Norton retaining both consciousness and coherence after such an injury. Although I believe the former is possible, I doubt the level of calm depicted is realistic. jmullaney’s assertion regarding the test with lye does offer some credibility to Norton’s mental state. Pertaining to the trajectory of the bullet, I believe that was simply creative license.
tymp, you stated:
I disagree with this statement (the rest of your post provides some excellent insight). His possessions don’t distract him, they define him as asserted by Norton himself. Norton destroys his possessions in an attempt to redefine himself. Has anyone noted monster’s comment pertaining to the credits? Norton is listed as the Narrator. He is unnamed; that is why nobody has been able to recall the name of Norton’s character. When Tyler Durden introduces himself on the plane, Norton does not reciprocate; in fact, no one addresses Norton’s character via a proper noun in any of the dialogues. He is unnamed, he is undefined and that is why nobody has a name in Project Mayhem.
I believe the significance of destroying the credit card companies’ buildings is not quite so simple as reviving the anarchistic element. Instead, I think that act alludes back to the explosion of Norton’s apartment. It is not so much a political state of anarchy, but an individual state of anarchy. Through this act, Norton enables other individuals to undergo a similar transformation in definition.
Now for the big B.S. metaphor:
Lye and fat are two of the constituents of soap. Fat, which represents the idleness of Norton, and Lye, which represents the caustic nature of Pitt, create something clean and fresh. [gag]
I apologize, but I had to do it.
Seriously, aha, that’s what the fight club is. It’s the caustic, animalistic, barbaric, primitive (or whatever adjective you wish to use) element which is necessary for growth. It is that element which provides a balance which takes Norton out of a state of complacency. Yes, it’s just beating the shit of each other, but the ramifications of those events aren’t simple (ref.: tymp’s post). Clarity and vivaciousness ensue where haze and idleness previously prevailed.
I’m feeling verklempt, talk amongst yourselves.
just for reference, in the movie script he is refered to as “Jack” as in “I am Jack’s raging bile duct” i’m sure it was just to keep them straight for the actors.
BTW, this particular movie spoke to me more then any other I’ve ever seen. In my oppinion, it is the greatest story ever writin. as for the bullet going through Jack’s (norton’s)jaw, but tyler’s (pitt’s) head, I think the idea was that he had to destroy tyler in his mind, where the actual bullet went is irelevent.
Was his character actually named Jack? You have the script?! I am extremely jealous. I thought the Jack references were specific to the titles of the books.
no, his character was not named jack. i am not even certain if it was indeed jack in the script. i know that the cast and crew called him jack, to make things easier.
not even the director knew what the character’s name was.
Thank you Kilgore Trout, I didn’t think I had blantantly lied.
well you all didn’t call me stupid but you sure made me feel stupid.
Thanks for the imput…I think I actually understand the movie now thanks to all who posted!
Exquize me?
hey eggo.
don’t make yourself look stupid.
this is what i said: i am not even certain if it was indeed jack in the script.
note the “i’m not even certain.”
note i did not say “eggo is an idiot, he is not called jack in the script.”
note you called me an ass.
note that you ended up being the ass.
idiot.
and if he was indeed called jack in the script, this was an updated working version, merely there to avoid confusion.
the actual character was not named jack.
if you disagree, go buy the dvd and watch it with audio track 4.
I apologize, I misread your post. I am truly sorry, as it was my mistake. to me it sounded like an attack on my credability, I’m sorry.
eggo
so what you are saying is: you don’t know Jack…
heh…
So what did they call Norton’s character in the book?
what is the name of the book, for that matter?
the reviews at amazon.com say no name was given.
the book is called fight club.
Nen,
This might be drifting a bit far from the OP, but I’m OK with that.
When a man defines himself by his possessions, it is because he has lost sight of his own personal value. He is driven to consume because he has lost the ability to identify objects as possessions and, instead, sees them as the meat of his existence. To my way of thinking, defining yourself by your possessions is the same as distracting yourself with them.
Fight Club is a story of abandoning the extraneous crap in one’s life in order to identify a core and build a new path based on that core. Throughout the movie, Norton (with the help of his construct, Tyler) picks apart and examines every aspect of his existence (“I am Jack’s prostate”) and abandons that which is not essential. Norton abandons all that he has ever known in order to identify and build upon that which he really knows.
I would suggest to anyone who has only seen it once that you watch it again. When I watched it the first time with my wife, who definitely got the movie (such a cool babe), we had to stop it about 20 minutes before the end, right after he Norton his duality. After the company left, we decided just to start it over again.
The entire movie made sense the second time around, and was twice as enjoyable. Every scene w/ the girlfriend makes sense; instead of her seeming to be the freak, it’s Norton.
BTW, did you realize that no one called the Norton character by any name? He calls himself Jack, but only in the “I am Jack’s brain” sense. So his name is really Tyler Durden!! At the end, the girlfriend calls him Tyler, and it makes sense once you stop thinking of Norton as Jack.
Regarding the disputed gunshot at the end: throughout the movie, Norton had exhibited, if nothing else, an instinct for self-preservation. When he shot himself, and displayed that he plainly had lost that self-serving part of him that Pitt was the antithesis to, then Pitt’s personality had no reason for existence.