Random Image
New Forum Topics
Latest Interviews
Amy Hempel
by Rob Hart
Christa Faust
by Rob Hart
Ed Brubaker
by Garrett Faber
Brian K. Vaughan
by Garrett Faber
Our Social Networks
Narrator's Name
So, I'm having an argument with a buddy about the Narrotor's name.
He thinks it is Jack.
I think he doens't have one.
He thinks IMDB is right.
I think the only way to know is to get the answer from Chuck.
Is there a way to find any real documentation regarding the Narrator's possible name.
Thanks!
/sorry if this was posted before. i'm at work and gotta make this quick!
NO! His name is Joe in the engloish musical adaptation, but in the book he has no name. IMDB lists him as Jack, but only because Ed Norton insisted on a name other than "narrator" for the credits. Make some research.
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better."
Chloe? I thought of the narrator as Jack but is Tyler who is Chloe. It makes sense to me that Chloe is Tyler Durden. Isn't that who Tyler Durden was based off of, Chloe? So, actually I thought it was Chloe who is Tyler speaking through Jack.
Few white citizens are acquainted with blacks other than those projected by the media and the so—called educational system, which is nothing more than a system of rewards and punishments based upon one’s ability to pledge loyalty oaths to Anglo culture. The media and the “educational system” are the prime sources of racism in the United States. --Ishmael Reed
Ugh. It almost seems like even asking here is a mistake.
In the movie, he reads stuff like "I am Jack's..." from the articles and then narrates them, to himself, and you hear him narrate it times later in the moive. In the credits it is listed as Narrator. It doesn't say Jack anywhere in the credits I've seen. Sorry, guy who told someone to "[do] some research", but you should also.
In the book, he reads stuff like "I am Joe's..." from the articles and then narrates them, to himself, and you read what he is narrating to himself later in the book. When he confronts Marla about who he is he narrates things like "My parents know my real name". The Narrator never actually SAYS anything in the book as you would traditionally SAY anything in books (i.e., with quotes [" "]).
There is no way on God's green Earth that Chloe is anything more than a skeleton Meryl Streep. Tyler isn't anything involving that cancer victim. How is a man with all that muscle, brain, and charisma based off a dying woman? That is insane. Tyler is kinda like the "Id" of the narrator, the subconscious.
The narrator doesn't have a name in the book OR movie.
I don't think it is to unreasonable to assume he [i]has[/i] a name. He was probably given a name at birth or while being raised. I'm sure his boss wouldn't hire him without a name. Also, in the book he says that his parents know his name.
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
<Gin Rummy>
So just because his name was never flat out told to the reader as his name, nor told or shown (possibly on his driver's license or business card would have been a neat spot) to the viewer in the movie, does not mean that his name was not supposed to be Joe/Jack.
Maybe we as the readers and viewers are supposed to be clever enough to realize his name is Joe/Jack without indiscriminate proof of this fact.
They just switched it from Joe to Jack for the film because they couldn't get Reader's Digest to give them the rights to use the articles he reads from so they just changed the name.
Am I understanding you correctly that they got around the rights by changing the name because the name (Joe) was part of a quote out of the article? If so, wow that's really all you have to change for it not to be copywright infringement? Wish I knew that in high school... :^Þ
The narrator doesn't have a name in the book OR movie.
I don't think it is to unreasonable to assume he [i]has[/i] a name. He was probably given a name at birth or while being raised. I'm sure his boss wouldn't hire him without a name. Also, in the book he says that his parents know his name.
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
<Gin Rummy>
So just because his name was never flat out told to the reader as his name, nor told or shown (possibly on his driver's license or business card would have been a neat spot) to the viewer in the movie, does not mean that his name was not supposed to be Joe/Jack.
Maybe we as the readers and viewers are supposed to be clever enough to realize his name is Joe/Jack without indiscriminate proof of this fact.
The narrator doesn't have a name ~~> [b][i]IN[/i][/b]<~~ the book or movie.
in the world of the book or movie, he is never given an actual name. Of course, it can be figured he does HAVE one, but it's never given.
They just switched it from Joe to Jack for the film because they couldn't get Reader's Digest to give them the rights to use the articles he reads from so they just changed the name.
Am I understanding you correctly that they got around the rights by changing the name because the name (Joe) was part of a quote out of the article? If so, wow that's really all you have to change for it not to be copywright infringement? Wish I knew that in high school... :^Þ
For the small amount they used the articles in the film, yeah, that's all they really needed to do. If they were going to use the entire article word for word, and use it over and over, they'd need to do a lot more than just change the name. If they were just going to use the line once and that was it they probably could get away with using the entire thing. But for the amount the did use it, (maybe 10 times throughout the film/book?) and just using the first line from it and not the entire article. Just changing the name does a lot to take away from them having to worry about a lawsuit later on. They also did the same thing with the dynamite recipe.
The narrator doesn't have a name in the book OR movie.
I don't think it is to unreasonable to assume he [i]has[/i] a name. He was probably given a name at birth or while being raised. I'm sure his boss wouldn't hire him without a name. Also, in the book he says that his parents know his name.
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
<Gin Rummy>
So just because his name was never flat out told to the reader as his name, nor told or shown (possibly on his driver's license or business card would have been a neat spot) to the viewer in the movie, does not mean that his name was not supposed to be Joe/Jack.
Maybe we as the readers and viewers are supposed to be clever enough to realize his name is Joe/Jack without indiscriminate proof of this fact.
The narrator doesn't have a name ~~> [b][i]IN[/i][/b]<~~ the book or movie.
in the world of the book or movie, he is never given an actual name. Of course, it can be figured he does HAVE one, but it's never given.
They just switched it from Joe to Jack for the film because they couldn't get Reader's Digest to give them the rights to use the articles he reads from so they just changed the name.
Am I understanding you correctly that they got around the rights by changing the name because the name (Joe) was part of a quote out of the article? If so, wow that's really all you have to change for it not to be copywright infringement? Wish I knew that in high school... :^Þ
For the small amount they used the articles in the film, yeah, that's all they really needed to do. If they were going to use the entire article word for word, and use it over and over, they'd need to do a lot more than just change the name. If they were just going to use the line once and that was it they probably could get away with using the entire thing. But for the amount the did use it, (maybe 10 times throughout the film/book?) and just using the first line from it and not the entire article. Just changing the name does a lot to take away from them having to worry about a lawsuit later on. They also did the same thing with the dynamite recipe.
I think I know a little more about this than any of you. Make some research!
I'm so happy someone on this thread took my post seriously. Mayhem!
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better."
I Can't help but think Chuck didn't give the narrator a name just to see how much people would fuss over what the guy should be called, or argue over what his name really is when you look at all the "clues". His name is not of importance (kinda like the suit case in Pulp Fiction with what was in it). But his symbolism and meaning is so important, that it seems unbearable to not refer to him with a name, rather "the narrator". Hell, if you really need him to have a name that bad, call him whatever you want. I like calling him Dave.
- Jefferson
i honestly never noticed that he doesnt have a name in the book or the movie till these threads about it.
you know how some days you read, and somedays you make a mad dash about the office in search of a new typewriter? today was a typewriter.
Joined: 2008-05-08
From: