Authors the Cult turned you on to

[QUOTE=insomnomaniac]well...you can try it and decide for yourself if you like it, for one thing. do people say that about ellis' work in general or just AP? because AP i can understand--i wouldn't recommend it to anyone, not because i don't think it's a good book but because i don't want them to hold me responsible for them barfing all over the place.

i regularly surf sites like rotten.com and ogrish; i love shows like CSI, cold case, medical examiner shows, autopsy shows. in terms of entertainment, i freakin' [i]bathe[/i] in blood and gore. but there were a few points in AP where...i just had to very quietly...put the book down...for a while. you get what i'm saying?

i would, however, highly recommend the movie. it's much lighter, and actually funnier, than the book. of course, like FC, it winds up having a completely different meaning because of it.[/QUOTE]

The movie is definitely much lighter than the book and I also feel it doesn't convey the psychotic nature of reading the book well. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the movie and own the unrated version, but I thought Avary did a better job of capturing the vibe of reading an Ellis novel, even though Rules of Attraction isn't all that faithful to the book in the literal sense.

Jane, all I can tell you is, if gory stuff turns you off, you will not like the book. I'm fascinated with violent, gory or otherwise disturbing things and this is the only book I've read yet where I actually had to stop reading for a couple minutes in disbelief of what I read. Trust me, that's not an easy feat.

However, if you're still curious about Ellis' work, I'd recommend Rules of Attraction. Less Than Zero might be a bit too depressing, Glamorama is long and not the most indicative of Ellis' style, and I haven't read The Informers yet.

[QUOTE=Undertow]The movie is definitely much lighter than the book and I also feel it doesn't convey the psychotic nature of reading the book well. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the movie and own the unrated version, but I thought Avary did a better job of capturing the vibe of reading an Ellis novel, even though Rules of Attraction isn't all that faithful to the book in the literal sense.

Jane, all I can tell you is, if gory stuff turns you off, you will not like the book. I'm fascinated with violent, gory or otherwise disturbing things and this is the only book I've read yet where I actually had to stop reading for a couple minutes in disbelief of what I read. Trust me, that's not an easy feat.

However, if you're still curious about Ellis' work, I'd recommend Rules of Attraction. Less Than Zero might be a bit too depressing, Glamorama is long and not the most indicative of Ellis' style, and I haven't read The Informers yet.[/QUOTE]

Less Than Zero was written by Ellis and published I believe when he was 18 or 19 years old. I found it a good book to read around that age, or if you were in that stage of college life. Same thing with Rules of Attraction.

I saw the movie of 'RoA', and while I realize that the movie probably can't compare to the book, because they usually can't, I didn't find the storyline of a bunch of spoiled rich brats having hardships to be a very appealing storyline.

I need to read more Easton Ellis like I need an asshole right.... *points to elbow*... [I]here[/I].

[QUOTE=jane s.]I saw the movie of 'RoA', and while I realize that the movie probably can't compare to the book, because they usually can't, I didn't find the storyline of a bunch of spoiled rich brats having hardships to be a very appealing storyline.[/QUOTE]

I think that's part of Ellis' satire, that these people really should have the world laid out for them yet they still have issues or think they do. I've interpreted it as a parody of people he encountered in college.

If you aren't fond of stories with rich people having hardships, you definitely won't like American Psycho. An epitome of yuppiness right there, but I think there's more mockery of that kind of yuppiness in that story than RoA (so far, at least; I'm half-way through RoA).

[QUOTE=Undertow]I think that's part of Ellis' satire, that these people really should have the world laid out for them yet they still have issues or think they do. I've interpreted it as a parody of people he encountered in college.

If you aren't fond of stories with rich people having hardships, you definitely won't like [B]American Psycho[/B]. An epitome of yuppiness right there, but I think there's more mockery of that kind of yuppiness in that story than RoA (so far, at least; I'm half-way through RoA).[/QUOTE]

Now AMERICAN PSYCHO I dugg. It simply does not get any better than Bateman. It was kind of a fresh experience for me, reading it, but man, was it crazy.

ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE

[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]Now AMERICAN PSYCHO I dugg. It simply does not get any better than Bateman. It was kind of a fresh experience for me, reading it, but man, was it crazy.

ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE[/QUOTE]

This is not an exit.

[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]I need to read more Easton Ellis like I need an asshole right.... *points to elbow*... [I]here[/I].[/QUOTE]

Are you reciting Rules of Attraction (movie) or Kill Bill vol. 2? Because's it's said in both and some RoA fans speculate Tarantino was either ripping Avary off or giving him a nod in the movie. I'm not sure.

[QUOTE=Undertow]Are you reciting Rules of Attraction (movie) or Kill Bill vol. 2? Because's it's said in both and some RoA fans speculate Tarantino was either ripping Avary off or giving him a nod in the movie. I'm not sure.[/QUOTE]

I have to go with KILL BILL VOL.2, 'cause yeah, me might've nodded or ripped, but Tarantino can bring it better than Avary.

[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]I have to go with KILL BILL VOL.2, 'cause yeah, me might've nodded or ripped, but Tarantino can bring it better than Avary.[/QUOTE]

But Avary brought it [I]first[/I]!!!!

[QUOTE=Undertow]But Avary brought it [I]first[/I]!!!! :D[/QUOTE]

Yeah then he nodded it, but he brought it betta!

[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]Yeah then he nodded it, but he brought it betta![/QUOTE]

Whatevah, yur-peen.

[QUOTE=Undertow]Whatevah, yur-peen.[/QUOTE]

This conversation... is over.

[QUOTE=jane s.]I saw the movie of 'RoA', and while I realize that the movie probably can't compare to the book, because they usually can't, I didn't find the storyline of a bunch of spoiled rich brats having hardships to be a very appealing storyline.[/QUOTE]

I can't speak for the movie adaptation of ROA because my girlfriend made me turn it off about ten minutes into it (which I didn't mind seeing that I thought it sucked ass), but that was before I read the novel, and after reading the novel and quasi-liking it, I want to see the movie again just to see if that early turn off was justified.

However, to what you said about the storyline of a bunch of spoiled rich brats being appealing, that is exactly Bret Easton Ellis. ROA was like that. Less Than Zero was like that. From what I've read of Glamorama so far, it's like that too. Everyone is rich. Everyone has a trust fund and everyone's parents drive BMW's or Mercedes. Everyone is strung out on drugs and everyone fucks everyone else, whether it be guy on guy, girl on girl, father's friend on son's friends, whatever. That is ROA or LTZ in a nutshell.

From what I've gathered from talking to friends who have read Ellis is that their appeal to him is sort of the appeal of watching the tv show Roseanne only with rich people. In other words, it's appealing to read about these rich fuck ups because it goes to show that us poor fuck ups aren't the only ones out there.

Personally I like Ellis more for his writing than for the content of his stories. I can pick up one of his books and read it in a sitting or two. The sentences and short and concise. He chapters don't drag on forever. And his references to pop culture make you relate somewhat to what he is saying. I can't relate in any way to being a rich coke head from Beverly Hills but the way Ellis writes makes the characters important from the time I open the book until the time I close it. For what that is really worth I don't know. But it's better than a lot of the crap that I've tried to read time and time again that goes on and on about lineages of third elves of second dwarves and shit like that. Stuff that a lot of people call "classic."

Clevenger and Coupland.

 So far, Danielewski, Clevenger, Bear, and Kristopher Young. 

Same for me.