Choosing to be Sheep: In Literature and Life

I find Fight Club to be an ideological abyss. In real life, does anyone choose to be a sheep?

I don't think so. Maybe someone will decide to assimilate in order to be "good" or for the "common good." At an extreme level, and most closely related to the characters in Fight Club, a suicide bomber decides to assimilate with a various terrorist group. This could be to either satisfy their own desire to be a "good human" as defined by their interpretation of religion, or to satisfy the needs of their movement. I don't think, however, these people are decidedly becoming followers. I think these people see themselves as "hated by the world" of man, and they'll be loved in the afterlife by their god. I don't know if that's something necessarily found in whatever interpretation of Islam that leads to terrorism... I was vaguely paraphrasing an idea that's repetitive in the Old and New Testament. Essentially, being religious is following a crowd. I've met very few people (there are always exceptions) that say they're religious and have actually read and studied the entirety of their religious texts. So, they rely on someone else to interpret it for them. Even if one has read the entirety of a religious text, it's still an INTERPRETATION. Even if you're part of a brand new religion, and you've talked directly to the creator, you're still following that person. Unless you've created your own religion, you're a "sheep!"
If we choose to be religious, are we CHOOSING to be a sheep?
I don't think so. I really think that we're choosing to be "good." And sometimes it's easier to let someone else define such a broad and seemingly subjective term. I don't many people that could define what's right or wrong in the grand scheme of things without in one way or another quoting someone else's idea. Human rights, anyone? You'll probably think of what's "right" for humans in America. Or the ten commandments.
This is enough for most. Hmmm... Karl Marx, is this what you meant by, "Religion is the opiate of the masses?" I find myself constantly quoting this. It's really not intended to be offensive, as I hope I've explained. It's just, who can really say that they know the true meaning of good and evil, entirely on their own? Without any form of government to dictate this to them?

You can't choose to be a sheep, just like you can't choose to organize chaos. It's all an oxymoron. The characters in Fight Club didn't know how to be productive in society, so they let someone tell them how to be destructive. They felt like they had really accomplished something, right?
That's lame! If you can't figure out how to accomplish one thing, resorting to the opposite is such a cop out. Extremely emotional and juvenile and weak! I always think it's hilarious when someone goes from one extreme to the next. Like... Anne Rice was all about morbity and vampires and gothicism. Now she's a born-again Christian. Also, many criminals become devout. I guess when you don't practice anything in moderation, you eventually can no longer justify your decisions and lifestyle. Instead of being rational and truly considering what is good and what is right, you completely change to the opposite extreme!
The narrator of Fight Club found himself entirely devoted to consumerism and success in his established society. He failed. So he decided to be the polar opposite. Why didn't he just get down on the ground and flail himself around, screaming at the top of his lungs like a toddler? If one thing isn't working out, fix it. Find balance in your life. What is ever worth a life, either your own or another's?
Or many others' lives, in the case of a terrorist? What can ever justify taking these lives? Extremism. It's just unacceptable.

It takes a truly GOOD person to rethink entirely what being good means. If we accept human rights as being those that are currently permitted in this arbitrary time and place, couldn't we largely be missing a mark? That's what BEING a sheep is. Though, I don't think anyone would CHOOSE to be ignorant, weak, and make awful choices. We all want to be good in one way or another, right? (I think a few ancient Greek philosophers may have spilled a lot of ink to prove this point.) Yet, simply wanting to be good does not make you a good person. We are all responsible for ourselves, even if that means we're responsible to educate ourselves on right and wrong. I feel confident when I say I could never be brainwashed. I could never really be a sheep. I could never commit evil while chasing a false morality. I think most people would say the same. I think the people in Fight Club would justify their actions with some nihilist claim to the nonexistence of evil. But, aren't they all just really angry boys with no fathers to guide them?
Guide yourself.

Literary Comparison

From the moment I picked up Leslie Marmon Silko's Ceremony, until I finished it, I noticed a pleasant similarity to Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five. I thought this was an interesting parallel to explore. I read Slaughterhouse-Five in high school, and at the time, I found it to be very confusing. The main cause of my confusion was also present in Ceremony: time-travel. The main character in Vonnegut's novel, Billy Pilgrim, literally travels through time throughout the story. The time-travel in Ceremony may not be as literal. Tayo explains, "distances and days existed in themselves... They were not barriers" (19). It was this kind of limitless existence which allowed Josiah to be in the jungle when Tayo believed he had killed him. The time-travel in both novels is accentuated by the intermittent and non-linear disclosing of the plot. I suppose, for some, this adds a "punch" to the themes presented in the fragments. However, as stated, I found myself confused. Tayo explains his escape from the chains of time by framing it as a tribal belief. Vonnegut frames the ability to move throughout time as a knowledge received from aliens. Both authors see time as a perception that an ultimate wisdom can conquer.
Both Slaughterhouse-Five and Ceremony took place during Vietnam; written in 1969 and 1977, respectively. The war itself was responsible for many existential crises. Tayo and Billy Pilgrim both seem to consider the war undeserving of the lives it cost. For Tayo, the war was unworthy of the assimilation required to become a soldier. For Billy, the war similarly limited his free will. Yet, in both novels, war was not the main focus. Billy found restrictions of free will beyond his time in the army. Tayo battled the urge to assimilate after being a soldier. The war, though real, still served a metaphor for the extreme struggles present in wartime and everyday life. Tayo learned that trying to convince anyone of his authenticity as a Laguna was a futile battle. In the same respect, he learned that outsiders or white people would never attempt to understand the Laguna people. Tayo would find that his only true free will was to mold his own understandings and knowledge of his identity. Billy Pilgrim also found great opposition from those surrounding him. A senior man that believes in time-travel is received as senile, just as an Indian with faith in rituals is received as "supersitious."
Another similarity I found was in the uncensored, grotesque revelry of bodily functions. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Slaughterhouse-Five, and my memory is failing me. However, I do remember multiple imprudent, unforgiving descriptions of diarhhea in army latrines. The description was brash and seemingly juvenile. In Ceremony, there were many depictions of vomiting. I do remember that my high school teacher supplied some sort of explanation for the seemingly exorbitant passages. Apparently, I didn't find his explanation to be reasonable, and discarded it somewhere in my memory. Similarly, I don't see a plausible necessity for Tayo's never-ending upchuck. Are these uncontrollable ejections a metaphor for the expulsion of societal burdens? Are they ridding themselves of preconceived guilt? I couldn't help but find these depictions almost humorous, devaluing the gravity of the authors' intentions. Maybe my reading comprehension falls short of the authors' abilities. I just don't know!
Regardless of the intent, I found myself confused by both the authors' styles and metaphors. It's possible that the authors had contrasting intentions. Yet, my ceaseless bewilderment did not discontinue my interest in Ceremony or Slaughterhouse-Five. I found both to be unique depictions in a sea of representations of their subject matter. I am very quickly bored by recounts of both wartime books and echoing narrations of oppressed groups. However, Ceremony and Slaughterhouse-Five both kept my attention. I suppose that my fascination lies in the unknown and unexplained. But I'd still like an explanation! Seriously, what's with the puking?