Brett Easton Ellis. I don't care if there was already a thread

[QUOTE=wickerkat;983959]Well, AP was a terrible adaptation in my opinion. Satire? Humor? I thought presented very straighforward it would have been frightening. Not that there weren't moments in the book that were funny, just dark.

Haven't read LTZ so can't compare it to the film, but I liked the movie. Guess I owe BEE a gander at that one.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, they kinda lost some of the charm of [I]American Psycho[/I] in the movie. (If you can call a book like that "charming.") There are some really funny scenes in there, albeit, funny in a very twisted way. I love it when the yuppies are all sitting in a bar watching television and news of the Bhopal Disaster in India comes on. The one guy says: "So...am I the ONLY person here who doesn't give a shit about this???" Hilarious.

[QUOTE=Mad Daego;895395]No mention of the beautifully crafted movie version of Rules...? There's some interesting news redarding the aftemath of that film, apparently there's some very interesting stuff on the way including a segue to Glamorama.[/QUOTE]

Care to ellaborate on the aftermath of the film? T loved the movie. Never liked Van Der Beek till I saw it. Love him now.

[QUOTE=188416;984000]I love Bret Easton Ellis, he's my favourite living author by miles of smiles...I don't dislike anything he's written.

He is difficult to read though, at times I find myself really forcing myself forward through pages of something incredibly detailed and boring or gory or embarrassingly sexually graphic. It's always worth it though.[/QUOTE]

Granted I've only read American Psycho and Lunar Park, but while I thought AP was genuinely one of the best and more important novels of the 20th Century, I was pretty disappointed by Lunar Park. It started out really interesting, but by the [SPOILER WARNING] part where the Terby is crawling in the dog and Ellis consulting with the ghost expert and they're running tests and everything, I just thought it was lame. I respect what he intended to do and the symbolism of the skeleton who has the interchanging face of Bateman and his father and all that, but I was extremely disappointed in how Ellis seemed incapable of conjuring up sincere emotion in the moment - a lot of different moments - and so resorted to just having fictional BEE cry, and cry a lot. He cried so many times that by the last time I think I sighed or swore or begged the book to stop. On a less important note, I also did not appreciate the characterization of his son, who I thought was just a poorly written character. Not in the AJ Soprano way of being such a punk brat that I want to smash his head against the wall, but in the way that he just was a badly written character who lacked authenticity.[END OF SPOILER]

I do intend to check out Less Than Zero, though, if only under the hope that Lunar Park was the anomaly, and not American Psycho.

FINALLY finished Glamorama. Fuck. That was tough. I really enjoyed parts of it, but can somebody explain to me what was going on? I am totally lost. The whole film crew(s) thing I didn't get. Or if there is a good source out there that dissects it, post a link.

I remember that Glamorama was a tough one to get through - but I'm glad I did. The book was really good.

I read it a long time ago - so I don't really remember much about it... If I remember right though - I think he was just going crazy? I'm not sure though.

[QUOTE=wickerkat;984013]speaking of sexually graphic...

the threesome in Glam came out of nowhere, and i must say was rather arousing, and i only mention that because it wasn't expected - either the passage or the effect

anybody else have a similar reaction?

i mean it went on for like 4 pages, jeezus[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was reading it in a cafe and it made my face burn. It was pretty sexy.

I've only read Am. Psycho and The Rules of Attraction, and I love them both. I've been trying to get my hands on a copy of Less Than Zero or Glamorama but my library is a bitch and I think someone might have stolen them, I should just buy one.

I've only read American Psycho, and it seemed to be heavy in description and strong in visualization. There were many parts that were hard to swallow but all in all, I never laughed so hard. ('Till Chuck's Haunted/Choke).

I'd have to admit I completely skimmed over the chapters regarding 'reveiws' of musicians.

And I don't think I can go any deeper in this book than what has been already shown to me. So he's living a double life, he's this liberal 'for the people' kind of person in public, but a psycho behind closed doors?

Sidenote: Anyone want to go deeper in disecting this book, with great regards. Or maybe theres a thread about it... :rolleyes:

Loved AP, brutal and funny - the movie really blew it IMO.

With Glam, the thing that I didn't get was the film crews. Was it all made up? Was he insane?

I thought American Psycho was really hard to get through. I couldn't take all the pages and pages about bands and about clothing etc. The torture scenes were the only thing that kept me reading.

[QUOTE=MechanicalHound;990930]I thought American Psycho was really hard to get through. I couldn't take all the pages and pages about bands and about clothing etc. The torture scenes were the only thing that kept me reading.[/QUOTE]

that's the stuff (fashion, celebrity) that i found difficult in Glam - for some reason it didn't bother me as much in AP - but i read it like 10 years ago, so maybe I was more into the scene then - also, i'm a big foodie, so i loved the restaurant/food stuff

so, even though i struggled with Glam, should I check out Zero and Rules? I'd probably do those before the Informers and LP seems like another struggle in waiting

If you struggle with Ellis because of the nihilism, you should definitely not pick up Informers or Less Than Zero.

Well, I don't THINK that's what I was objecting to:

[I]Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" does not exist, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action can be preferable to any other.[/I]

I liked AP more because it focused on aspects that I like more (ie, food). Also, Glam seemed to just drop name after name after name which means nothing if you don't know who they are. The sex in Glam was unreal, disturbing and arousing. AP is the only book that ever made me GAG reading it, but it was the way he juxtaposed the violence with the everyday life that was entertaining, if disturbing. And I never really understood what was going on with the film crews, nor have I really gotten an answer beyond the fact that the protag was insane.

I think that LTZ and ROT would be more digestible, and having seen both movies (not sure how accurate they were) they seem pretty straight forward.

[QUOTE=wickerkat;991167]Well, I don't THINK that's what I was objecting to:

[I]Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" does not exist, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action can be preferable to any other.[/I]

I liked AP more because it focused on aspects that I like more (ie, food). Also, Glam seemed to just drop name after name after name which means nothing if you don't know who they are. The sex in Glam was unreal, disturbing and arousing. AP is the only book that ever made me GAG reading it, but it was the way he juxtaposed the violence with the everyday life that was entertaining, if disturbing. And I never really understood what was going on with the film crews, nor have I really gotten an answer beyond the fact that the protag was insane.

I think that LTZ and ROT would be more digestible, and having seen both movies (not sure how accurate they were) they seem pretty straight forward.[/QUOTE]That's the point - with the name dropping. The main character (his name is on the tip of my tongue too) thinks of himself higher than he is. He name drops to prove to himself and everybody else that he is a "celebrity" too. I think the film crews filming E! True Hollywood Story (or whatever it was) was all in his head.

I really liked the movie Rules of Attraction. I thought it stuck to the book pretty well. Some people hate it though. I think if you liked the movie - you will like the book.

I liked Less Than Zero too. There's something about Ellis' style that just draws me in.

If you want to figure out if you will like him or not - I suggest reading The Informers. It truelly is a total mix of every style he brushes on. There's violence, humor, sex, minimalism, description - it's got it all. That's the first Ellis I usually recommend. Taking on American Psycho for a first is quite the task.

good post - i understand the name dropping, but it was the slowest part of Glam for me - i'll take those suggestions and pursue other BEE

I'm a huge fan of Bret Easton Ellis and its by reading his books, that I got hooked on Chucks (well that and a popular movie being made of one of them).
Both Chuck and Bret seem to be on the same world with thier writing or atleast on the same avenue, with Bret focusing on Staus and yuppies and Chuck more on the underdog uprising and the general freaks near the bottom of the social pile, so both complement each other with thier books.

I first read American Psycho which I still rank in my top 5 books along with Rules of Attraction which is probely the favourite out of his books.
The film versions havn't really been that great with the exception of "Rules of Attraction" which perfectly captures the book and I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with Glamorama, which is probely his most confusing book to date.
True Christain Bale plays Patrick Bateman perfectly in American Psycho, it just a shame the rest was pretty much a miss mash, as they attempted to make it just another slasher flick. Less Than Zero your best sticking with the book, as the film is just plain horrible, a much as pains me to say that seeing as it has Robert Downey Jr. in it.

I'm off to Books-A-Million for some Bret Easton Ellis. I know that he has alot of reoccuring characters. Anyone suggest something that I should read first? I'm leaning towards Rules or AP.

I just remembered Cor recommending the Informers. I'm gonna go with that, Any objections? and.... too late, I'm out. Peace!

[QUOTE=bigshrimpn;996889]I'm off to Books-A-Million for some Bret Easton Ellis. I know that he has alot of reoccuring characters. Anyone suggest something that I should read first? I'm leaning towards Rules or AP.

I just remembered Cor recommending the Informers. I'm gonna go with that, Any objections? and.... too late, I'm out. Peace![/QUOTE]

No objections. [I]The Informers [/I]is an intense book. You will enjoy it.

I actually just picked up American Psycho this past week. I'm in the middle of reading it right now, and digging it immensely.

can somebody explain to me exactly how [I]American Psycho [/I]could be considered a [I]feminist[/I] novel?

[QUOTE=bearchaser;996989]can somebody explain to me exactly how [I]American Psycho [/I]could be considered a [I]feminist[/I] novel?[/QUOTE]

How isn't it? If you're a skilled reader of fiction with any sort of depth, if you actually ponder the motivations of the characters and really dive into the book, you'll find that Ellis isn't celebrating these acts (although he does write them with a vivid glee) but Bateman isn't the American "Hero," he's quite aptly declared a psycho from the cover forward. And while Ellis is degrading the merit of excessive lifestyle and self centered, shallow concerns of Bateman and his ilk he takes it a step further by addressing other wrongs such as misogyny, racism, murder, etc. It is not merely feminist, although in the manner that argument is made the argument can be made that is is also pro class-war, a civil rights triumph, anti-consumerist, the list goes on and on.

But you have to remember that at one point or another he thought up every word of it, which means he lived it in his mind, and wrote so strongly that there is no doubt he MEANT it. There is not a redeeming human in the novel, neither the capitalists nor the homeless, the predator or his victims. Everyone is a piece of shit.

[QUOTE=Mad Daego;1007920]How isn't it? If you're a skilled reader of fiction with any sort of depth, if you actually ponder the motivations of the characters and really dive into the book, you'll find that Ellis isn't celebrating these acts (although he does write them with a vivid glee) but Bateman isn't the American "Hero," he's quite aptly declared a psycho from the cover forward. And while Ellis is degrading the merit of excessive lifestyle and self centered, shallow concerns of Bateman and his ilk he takes it a step further by addressing other wrongs such as misogyny, racism, murder, etc. It is not merely feminist, although in the manner that argument is made the argument can be made that is is also pro class-war, a civil rights triumph, anti-consumerist, the list goes on and on.

But you have to remember that at one point or another he thought up every word of it, which means he lived it in his mind, and wrote so strongly that there is no doubt he MEANT it. There is not a redeeming human in the novel, neither the capitalists nor the homeless, the predator or his victims. Everyone is a piece of shit.[/QUOTE]

nicely said

I do not believe this could be considered a feminist novel. The females in American Psycho were mindless drones, just like the males. They would continue yammering about fashion, restaurants, etc while Bateman sat there blurting out things about murder and whatnot...I wouldn't go so far as to say it made Bateman sympathetic in his actions...he was undoubtedly a psycho...but were it not for the graphic and nauseating ways in which he tortured and murdered his victims, he almost [I]could[/I] have evoked sympathy. I can't speak for other people, but I sure as hell would have liked to at least dropkick all those yuppies in the mouths.

[QUOTE=tom9d;1007949]I do not believe this could be considered a feminist novel. The females in American Psycho were mindless drones, just like the males. They would continue yammering about fashion, restaurants, etc while Bateman sat there blurting out things about murder and whatnot...I wouldn't go so far as to say it made Bateman sympathetic in his actions...he was undoubtedly a psycho...but were it not for the graphic and nauseating ways in which he tortured and murdered his victims, he almost [I]could[/I] have evoked sympathy. I can't speak for other people, but I sure as hell would have liked to at least dropkick all those yuppies in the mouths.[/QUOTE]

There are a lot of views that agree with you here. You should check out the special features on the movie American Psycho (Killer Edition - or whatever the new one is)

Labeling [I]American Psycho [/I]as a feminist text is a bit of a stretch. I agree with those who have said that both the male and female characters in the novel are presented in a rather unflattering light. Essentially, the novel seems to be a statement on the hollow, vapid, cruel nature of modern consumer society. Although I do agree that part of Ellis's goal here is to expose the misogyny, racism, and violence present in everyday life. But, there's a big difference between illustrating the sexist attitudes of some 80's era yuppies and actually making a pro-woman statement. (I hope that makes sense.)

I've read all of his work other than "The Informers". My only takes are that they are all very good and Glamorama is fucking insane! In a good way.

If you read American Psycho backwards infront of a mirror and close your eyes and say satan's true name six times Patrick Bateman will be behind you when you open your eyes and he'll kill you!

Pass this along to four other threads in the next six minutes or Patrick Bateman will get you!!!!!1!!!

[QUOTE=Mad Daego;1007920]How isn't it? If you're a skilled reader of fiction with any sort of depth, if you actually ponder the motivations of the characters and really dive into the book, you'll find that Ellis isn't celebrating these acts (although he does write them with a vivid glee) but Bateman isn't the American "Hero," he's quite aptly declared a psycho from the cover forward. And while Ellis is degrading the merit of excessive lifestyle and self centered, shallow concerns of Bateman and his ilk he takes it a step further by addressing other wrongs such as misogyny, racism, murder, etc. It is not merely feminist, although in the manner that argument is made the argument can be made that is is also pro class-war, a civil rights triumph, anti-consumerist, the list goes on and on.

But you have to remember that at one point or another he thought up every word of it, which means he lived it in his mind, and wrote so strongly that there is no doubt he MEANT it. There is not a redeeming human in the novel, neither the capitalists nor the homeless, the predator or his victims. Everyone is a piece of shit.[/QUOTE]

This is eaxctly the reason why Paul Verhoeven's SHOWGIRLS is also a masterpiece. Though, to call it in a way a feminist text, is stretching it a bit. I did sense a certain glee, in Mary Herron actually directing the film version of AMERICAN PSYCHO, also the screenwriter is a female also. It was almost like, yes,we got a perfect thing to add our feminist flavour to it. Note I said, add, not over it.

[QUOTE=corellion;1008160]If you read American Psycho backwards infront of a mirror and close your eyes and say satan's true name six times Patrick Bateman will be behind you when you open your eyes and he'll kill you!

Pass this along to four other threads in the next six minutes or Patrick Bateman will get you!!!!!1!!![/QUOTE]

OMG lol, i just did this and he's here next to me we're playin playstation and lol, he said my room is very maksimalist, he lieks how the sigret butts represent our western society's repressed rage for needing the planet. lol, what is he like?

[QUOTE=Freddy;1008157]I've read all of his work other than "The Informers". My only takes are that they are all very good and Glamorama is fucking insane! In a good way. :o[/QUOTE]

it is our book club selection for august - so go get it!

but Bret said that his novel was a feminist novel.

[QUOTE=bearchaser;1008700]but Bret said that his novel was a feminist novel.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't make it true.

[QUOTE=Caligula7;1008148]Labeling [I]American Psycho [/I]as a feminist text is a bit of a stretch. I agree with those who have said that both the male and female characters in the novel are presented in a rather unflattering light. Essentially, the novel seems to be a statement on the hollow, vapid, cruel nature of modern consumer society. Although I do agree that part of Ellis's goal here is to expose the misogyny, racism, and violence present in everyday life. But, there's a big difference between illustrating the sexist attitudes of some 80's era yuppies and actually making a pro-woman statement. (I hope that makes sense.)[/QUOTE]

I can buy that but this theory can be taken to a compacted level: the consumer consumed by consumerism.

But there are soooooo many funny little things going on here. I read a crit of the novel where some halfwit chastised Ellis for failing to explore the professional aspect of these Wall St. types and I almost cried. I couldn't believe someone so slow is paid for their opinion! One of the standout clever aspects of the book is that Ellis took a subculture traditionally known for being uniformly boring and fashion redundant and turned them into MEN obsessed with the minute nuance of these wholly pointless fashion rules. It's brilliant farce! They are never once concerned with aspects of their careers, only status and appearance. Peer acceptance, etc. But it's not as if these musings on Ellis's commentary on surface haven't been driven into the ground, but this particular method was so deceptively simple that most readers miss how complicated it really was to devise, even wrap your mind around it knowing what we know, could any of us devise a more effective and entertaining device?

[i]American Psycho[/i] has yet to reach the epic accolades I feel it is due. This book is a legitimate piece of art, a masterpiece commentary on America yesterday and today, that brings forth so many vital philosophies pertaining to the direction of our culture and ourselves as a people that have yet to be determined. People think we've changed since the 80's and nothing is further from the truth, the only difference is SURFACE. Whereas we once openly championed success we now act with more conservation while behaving just as cut throat, if not worse, than ever before. Where racism was once open then sublimated but now it's distracted behind go-nowhere diversity agendas that only succeed in fostering greater resentment.

A masterpiece... fucking masterpiece.

I have read all of his books so I am going to post my meaningless opinions on them.

Less Than Zero – Probably my favourite, the first book I read by him. The second from last part is one of my favourite bits of any book.

Rules Of Attraction – Was okay, liked some characters more than others. Not as good as LTZ.

American Pyscho – Immense, the bits with the sort of nihilistic reeling narrative made my skin tingle. A masterpiece.

Glamorama – Found this signed in a small seaside town 40 mins from my hometown, bought it for 50 pence. Read it, wasn’t that impressed but struggled on. Didn’t get it really, sold it on ebay for a lot more than I bought it. Least favourite book along with…

The Informers – Some good stuff, you can tell it was written earlier than the rest though.

Lunar Park – was sceptical when I heard the whole theme of the book and the story… was pleasantly surprised that it worked. The last page made me cry. A feat only Catcher In the Rye and Town and the City (Kerouac) have also achieved.

Will he ever write another book? For some reason I’m not so sure.

In an interview i saw,he said he was thinking of doing a follow up to Less then zero were the main characters from first novel will be adults and have teenage kids.

[QUOTE=LECKIE;1054794]In an interview i saw,he said he was thinking of doing a follow up to Less then zero were the main characters from first novel will be adults and have teenage kids.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I remember reading that, I just feel like he isn't going to. I don't know, Glamorama seemed to come full circle.

If he writes Less Than Zero 2, after bringing back loads of characters from his previous books in Glamorama it's going to be a bit sort of, recycling you know?

I'd sooner he write an original new novel, but I'm sure Less Than Zero 2 will be good if it happens...

If you like BEE you should check out The Fighter by Craig Davidson. Top notch.

[QUOTE=Barca Boy;1054870]If you like BEE you should check out The Fighter by Craig Davidson. Top notch.[/QUOTE]

i just read the fighter recently. i really liked it. more than i liked most of ellis' books.

[QUOTE=Barca Boy;1054870]If you like BEE you should check out The Fighter by Craig Davidson. Top notch.[/QUOTE]

sweet, on my to read list

[QUOTE=wickerkat;1054880]sweet, on my to read list[/QUOTE]

Well I read the first few pages on Amazon and they sucked, by no means comparable to the first pages of [i]...Psycho[/i] which were so fantastic at pulling you right into the period, mindset, and atmosphere. God, how I love Tim. "Maniac babies, Nazi babies..."

I will, however, get around to reading this.

Just finished Glamorama. I found it bloated and the ending lame. Boo to you, Ellis.

PS - I say this while also believing that American Psycho is one of the more important books of the 20th Century.

Post-Post-Script: My copy of Glamorama has high praise on the front cover from GQ. Based on the themes of the novel, isn't there some irony here?

[QUOTE=alexander_thorul;1056799]Just finished Glamorama. I found it bloated and the ending lame. Boo to you, Ellis.

PS - I say this while also believing that American Psycho is one of the more important books of the 20th Century.[/QUOTE]

i just about agree with that

[QUOTE=alexander_thorul;1056799]Just finished Glamorama. I found it bloated and the ending lame. Boo to you, Ellis.

PS - I say this while also believing that American Psycho is one of the more important books of the 20th Century.[/QUOTE]

For sure. I would really like to hear how he REALLY wrote that book. I'm not apologetic for questioning statements made by authors who claim to crank these masterpieces out as if possessed, by accident, and in single sittings. I know Hemingway claims to have worked that way, no revisions, one sitting. I know King actually says he doesn't remember having written some texts due to drug abuse. And while there is an "original scroll" for Kerouac's work I highly doubt there weren't pages of notes destroyed in the process. And while I not only appreciate but implicitly understand what it means to be plagued by an overactive ADHD mind I know that another aspect of that curse/gift is a total inability to settle on something the first few times around. My best guess is that Bateman WAS Ellis, was what Ellis thought, not likely much of what he said out loud, but was the culmination of every single annoying day blurted out and then skewed to bring out the laughs. The satire is too well executed for this to simply be a confession. The gore was simply a diversion to bring controversy in hopes that people might read the real horror, their lives.

Isn't it odd how Bateman also played Batman?

[QUOTE=Mad Daego;1056848]For sure. I would really like to hear how he REALLY wrote that book. I'm not apologetic for questioning statements made by authors who claim to crank these masterpieces out as if possessed, by accident, and in single sittings. I know Hemingway claims to have worked that way, no revisions, one sitting. I know King actually says he doesn't remember having written some texts due to drug abuse. And while there is an "original scroll" for Kerouac's work I highly doubt there weren't pages of notes destroyed in the process. And while I not only appreciate but implicitly understand what it means to be plagued by an overactive ADHD mind I know that another aspect of that curse/gift is a total inability to settle on something the first few times around. My best guess is that Bateman WAS Ellis, was what Ellis thought, not likely much of what he said out loud, but was the culmination of every single annoying day blurted out and then skewed to bring out the laughs. The satire is too well executed for this to simply be a confession. The gore was simply a diversion to bring controversy in hopes that people might read the real horror, their lives.

Isn't it odd how Bateman also played Batman?[/QUOTE]

Franscesca makes reference to Bateman and asks Daisy what she is doing with a stud like Batman on pg 206. (Vintage paperback.) lol

[QUOTE=corellion;1008160]If you read American Psycho backwards infront of a mirror and close your eyes and say satan's true name six times Patrick Bateman will be behind you when you open your eyes and he'll kill you!

Pass this along to four other threads in the next six minutes or Patrick Bateman will get you!!!!!1!!![/QUOTE]

Ha.

[QUOTE=jmizair;1057229]Franscesca makes reference to Bateman and asks Daisy what she is doing with a stud like Batman on pg 206. (Vintage paperback.) lol[/QUOTE]

Now I'm not going to lie and say I looked that up - but isn't she talking about Sean? Again I could be wrong because I'm trying to remember from reading it over a year ago.

It's true, she calls him Batman repeatedly in that dialogue. Just ironic.

[QUOTE=Mad Daego;1058969]It's true, she calls him Batman repeatedly in that dialogue. Just ironic.[/QUOTE]

Oh wait - I didn't even notice it said BATman instead of BATEman... wow I guess I totally missed that one.

i've read lunar park and american psycho, great books, i have to order the others of ellis, too.