brett easton ellis The rules of attraction

havent read it yet, finished up Glamarama a while back, though.

a decent interp for the french dialogue at [url]www.freetranslation.com[/url]

[QUOTE=Minuet]havent read it yet, finished up Glamarama a while back, though.

a decent interp for the french dialogue at [url]www.freetranslation.com[/url][/QUOTE]
ah god, thank you for taking the time to find something like that, but i dont think i can find the motivation to type out the entire scene in french

well, i searched for it too online, but couldnt find anything on it.

Terrific book. Ellis's 4th best, perhaps; but that's better than most writers' 1st best.

Hey phleggy, in thanks for the sig you made me, here's a rough translation I found...emphasis on [I]rough[/I]. You'll get the general idea, though.

I could not prevent myself to approach me you to the evening. I drank too much tequila and I maybe smoked too much pot but that does not want to say that I do not like you. Nevertheless after to have said it for you, I walked until the end world and I vomited. Yesterday we separated ourselves with Beba, my small girlfriend. You, you were one of the reasons for that (then Beba does not know that I desire you) but not the alone. This that since a long time that I feel seduces by you. I am not crazy, but you interest me and I took some photos of you that I did when you did not look at. I cannot believe that you did not notice me. If you had come with me last night, I would have you happy redue. And I could have returned you happier than this type with that you left last night. While putting the things to the worse I always can reourner to Paris and live with my father. In any case, AMERICA is annoying. You and me doing the love in the villa of my father to Canes. And leave my tubby one of redacteur to Camden Courier. Maybe did you see my items? "How to warn the [B]Herpes"[/B] and "The positive effects of the ecstasy." You do not obsess me. I could have any girl that I want here (and I there passed near), but your legs are perfect, better than all the one of the other girls and your hair are so blond and also. I do not know if you had an operation of nex but your nex is perfect. Your traits are really perfect. I maybe will try once more. But does not leave the next time. Recall you that I could return you very happy. I know well to kiss and I have the card American Expresses platinum. I suppose that you have it also. Your legs are splenides, and better than the one of all other girl. Of which color are your eyes? The photos that I took are all in black and white. I would want to follow the same courses that you, but I do photo and you. . . What? The beautiful arts? You are sexy. If I knew that someone is itself infatuated of you as me, and you, you tested the same feeling towards him, I would leave. I would return drop me. No doubt.

Thanks for the translation! I too have wondered what that section meant. I enjoyed Rules, but for Ellis, Glamorama, American Psycho and The Informers are my favorites, in that order. I'd put Rules fourth as well.

I love how the movie was pretty faithful to the book, akin to David Flinchers adaption of Fight Club. I especially love the part where the guy is talking about his European trip, the movie really did that part justice.

haha thank you for filling my lazyness

i could have sworn i seen the word herpes in there though in the french

Clean the gunk outta your eyes...it's there in the translation, too. I went back and bolded it, since you were probably too lazy to even read the whole thing.

[QUOTE=fullmetalbrak]Clean the gunk outta your eyes...it's there in the translation, too. I went back and bolded it, since you were probably too lazy to even read the whole thing. ;)[/QUOTE]

you try performing your own one man bukkaki vegas act night after night, and see how good your vision is

awesome, thanks for the rough translations, and to anybody that doesn't know, he's speaking about Lauren Hynde.

what did everyone think of this book?

i have about 40 pages to go before i finish it and i still havent made any real desision weather i like the story or not. The chapter with patrick baetman made me happy as hell(actually made me hide in the bathroom at work pretending to be sick)

It took me a long time to get into it. I think I read the first 40 pages over the course of a year, and read many other books instead during this time. Once I got a feel for it though, I couldn't put it down.

I think this was much better than "Less Than Zero," and possibly even "American Psycho." I know I'm not making too many friends by saying this, but it just hit me harder.

I thought it was brilliant the way he moves the stories along through different perspectives. Perrotta does this in "Election" but that's so much more basic. "Rules of Attraction" has complex, controversial things going on, and to view them from all sorts of different angles makes it incredibly effective. I love how some of the narratives are unreliable, and you feel a bond or trust with some of the characters, and dismiss others.

To those that have finished it the book, what are your thoughts on the ending?

[QUOTE=Robert_]To those that have finished it the book, what are your thoughts on the ending?[/QUOTE]
i think it was allright

the entire book was showing how chaotic life can be in a small fraction of time

so whos to say that that fraction of time begins or ends with a bang.

the book over all i probably would have liked a little bit more if i didnt see the movie first.

[QUOTE]To those that have finished it the book, what are your thoughts on the ending?[/QUOTE]

As a book to read, not so cool. I think this is why it took me forever to get into the book, because it just sort of happens. There's no real concrete beginning or end, it just sort of picks up and then leaves off.

When I finished the whole thing, it was powerful. It was a different type of story, and you really need to get the rhythm of the book for it to be effective.

I think his main point is that this stuff, this corruptive, abmitious, destructive stuff is just another part of these people's lives, and it's always going on. There are a few characters who have an episode begin and end, but as they go along, they start and finish other people's stories. It's just more realistic that way.

This was possibly the most realistic book I've read, simply because of that. It's just more like life than normal story telling (beginning, middle, end).

We're not used to it, it's a bit unsettling, but I think that helps the book out as a whole.

HOWEVER, in "Less Than Zero" he does this a lot. At the end of every chapter in fact, and I think it serves as more of a distraction than an effective tool of white noise. The book's also written in a stream of consiousness, and when all the action from one chapter is over, he keeps going on and on about some mundane crap, and then just sort of stops mid thought. Okay, maybe realistic, but it happened so many times, it was just boring.

[QUOTE=phlegmatics]what did everyone think of this book?[/QUOTE]Reading that book always makes me go a big rubbery one.

Am a big Ellis fan. The only one I have not read is Glama, but I am intentionally waiting for a while to read it.

As for ROA, though I never tried to understand the french, I just skipped forward to the next scene. And when I'd finished the book, I didn't reopen it.

kabol

*bump*

(bump* as in "I just finally finished Rules of Attraction (in German) that had been on my book shelf for ages."

I liked it a lot. It's a very "atmospheric" book. After reading it a lot I caught myself thinking and talking like the characters in real life. Like someone asks me what we're going to do tonight and I'm like "whatever". It's a very scary book that way, but also a book that really fulfills its purpose: it shows (really shows and not just talks about or describes) a different reality, a different lifestyle.

From Ellis I have read Less Than Zero (great). I have watched American Psycho a zillion times. And I listened to and Audio book of Glamorama but couldn't get into it at all.

So what would you suggest I do next? Read the Informers or read American Psycho?

I read Rules last year. I was really taken with the multiple POV's--as I always am; POV is my heroin. I remember being impressed with the structure. Funny, I can remember very little of what the book was about except bored, disaffected rich kids working out their free-floating rage by wrecking disaster on any convenient target. The only scene that stayed with me was (*spoiler*) the suicide scene; the only part of that scene that felt authentically human is at the very end of it, when she has bled out to the point of no return--then she starts feeling the pain and realizes what is happening and cannot stop it. Kind of a "hitting bottom" metaphor for what is awaiting every other character in the book.

As a writer, Ellis just leaves me cold. I respect his skill, but his approach to narrative just doesn't push any buttons for me.

You could try American Psycho next: more fun with the Bateman family. I read it, but just as Kabol skipped over the French parts in Rules, after a certain point, I had to jump over the violent scenes--so basically I was just reading lists of details about restaurants and the paperstock of business cards and such, Ellis's schema for conveying more of that bored, disaffected rich kid stuff he does so well. The final scene is brilliant and the last sentence nails the dismount, but to be honest: this is the only book I have literally thrown away, put in the trash can the second I closed the cover. That was my immediate, physical response to the thing.

So I guess some button got pushed after all.

Ellis is my favorite writer, even above Chuck, and [i]The Rules of Attraction[/i] is my favorite of his books, rivaled maybe by [i]American Psycho[/i]. I like everything about the book, pretty much. The ending, the French passage, and even the blank page.

I wasn’t into the movie at all, really. The "Victor in Europe" scene was well-done, but otherwise I thought it was pretty lousy. No [i]Fight Club[/i], for sure. They played the relationship between Paul and Sean down too much and misinterpreted (in my opinion) the dynamics of the relationship between Lauren and Sean. In fact, I didn’t like Lauren’s portrayal at all. I remember reading that Ellis was more pleased with this movie than the other two (he hated [i]Less than Zero[/i] and thought that [i]Psycho[/i] was too cold and not crazy enough, as I recall), but I don't see it. I thought the movie just emphasized the wrong parts of the book without ever getting to the heart of the characters or their relationships.

In order of preference, my favorite Ellis books:
[i]Rules of Attraction
American Psycho
Glamorama
The Informers
Less than Zero[/i]

And that's that. I can’t wait to read [i]Lunar Park.[/i]

CF

[QUOTE=Chris Fabulous]Ellis is my favorite writer, even above Chuck, and [i]The Rules of Attraction[/i] is my favorite of his books, rivaled maybe by [i]American Psycho[/i]. I like everything about the book, pretty much. The ending, the French passage, and even the blank page.

I wasn’t into the movie at all, really. The "Victor in Europe" scene was well-done, but otherwise I thought it was pretty lousy. No [i]Fight Club[/i], for sure. They played the relationship between Paul and Sean down too much and misinterpreted (in my opinion) the dynamics of the relationship between Lauren and Sean. In fact, I didn’t like Lauren’s portrayal at all. I remember reading that Ellis was more pleased with this movie than the other two (he hated [i]Less than Zero[/i] and thought that [i]Psycho[/i] was too cold and not crazy enough, as I recall), but I don't see it. I thought the movie just emphasized the wrong parts of the book without ever getting to the heart of the characters or their relationships.

In order of preference, my favorite Ellis books:
[i]Rules of Attraction
American Psycho
Glamorama
The Informers
Less than Zero[/i]

And that's that. I can’t wait to read [i]Lunar Park.[/i]

CF[/QUOTE]I enjoyed the film but is was considerably different in tone to the novel. The novel was deeper in it's lack of depth by virtue of portraying said lack without tricks and humor.

Ellis' [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B] is an excellent novel (especially at the age he was when he wrote it and the period of American society that he was satirizing). Of course, the real angle is the multiple POV structure. Still, [B]American Psycho[/B] (which he wrote when he was my present age, and I can only envy that) is, to me, much better because he only has to deal with one POV, and he completely becomes that character's voice. He says it is his most "autobiographical" novel, and I'm sure. All "reality vs non-reality"-debates aside, [B]American Psycho[/B] is so masterfully written that the obvious mistakes Bateman makes during his interior monologues and attempts at showing off his "knowledge" fit just as well to show that he will present himself as well-informed and not second-guess his "facts"--and unless the reader knows better, they end up believing Bateman. The difference between [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B] and [B]American Psycho[/B] show a cataclysmic jump in the author's own abilites--or maybe it was the subject matter--but nevertheless, I see [B]American Psycho[/B] as a near flawless book, and [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B], for what he was seemingly trying to do and though not near as masterfully written, would be my second choice when it comes to Ellis. I'll recommend [B]American Psycho[/B] to very intelligent friends--and find myself telling more to NOT read the book than I tell TO read it--while [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B] I recommend to anyone that is interested in seeing how there are still so many ways a story can be told.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]Ellis' [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B] is an excellent novel (especially at the age he was when he wrote it and the period of American society that he was satirizing). Of course, the real angle is the multiple POV structure. Still, [B]American Psycho[/B] (which he wrote when he was my present age, and I can only envy that) is, to me, much better because he only has to deal with one POV, and he completely becomes that character's voice. He says it is his most "autobiographical" novel, and I'm sure. All "reality vs non-reality"-debates aside, [B]American Psycho[/B] is so masterfully written that the obvious mistakes Bateman makes during his interior monologues and attempts at showing off his "knowledge" fit just as well to show that he will present himself as well-informed and not second-guess his "facts"--and unless the reader knows better, they end up believing Bateman. The difference between [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B] and [B]American Psycho[/B] show a cataclysmic jump in the author's own abilites--or maybe it was the subject matter--but nevertheless, I see [B]American Psycho[/B] as a near flawless book, and [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B], for what he was seemingly trying to do and though not near as masterfully written, would be my second choice when it comes to Ellis. I'll recommend [B]American Psycho[/B] to very intelligent friends--and find myself telling more to NOT read the book than I tell TO read it--while [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B] I recommend to anyone that is interested in seeing how there are still so many ways a story can be told.[/QUOTE]
To me, the difference in the two, actually between Psycho and the rest of his oevre lies in the the fact that all of his other characters seem consigned to their fate as apathetic, affectless drifters of life, while Bateman is actually railing against that very thing, albeit in a dysfuntional way. That makes the latter an existential piece you can sympathize with rather than one in which you cannot.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]To me, the difference in the two, actually between Psycho and the rest of his oevre lies in the the fact that all of his other characters seem consigned to their fate as apathetic, affectless drifters of life, while Bateman is actually railing against that very thing, albeit in a dysfuntional way. That makes the latter an existential piece you can sympathize with rather than one in which you cannot.[/QUOTE]

Agreed totally. I wonder how many people would consider Patrick Bateman as a character that is "railing" against the conformity around him, whatever his method? Probably not many, and thus that's why I like your point. Bateman has always seemed to be a character that is--dare I say--doing his best to break from the mold he allowed himself to be fit into. He wants to fit in, but he knows he is losing his soul in the process.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]Agreed totally. I wonder how many people would consider Patrick Bateman as a character that is "railing" against the conformity around him, whatever his method? Probably not many, and thus that's why I like your point. Bateman has always seemed to be a character that is--dare I say--doing his best to break from the mold he allowed himself to be fit into. He wants to fit in, but he knows he is losing his soul in the process.[/QUOTE]
Yeah he is, I like the way Ellis concealed that beneath the outre and the Grande Guignol madness of the book... and the real world controversy.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]Yeah he is, I like the way Ellis concealed that beneath the outre and the Grande Guignol madness of the book... and the real world controversy.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Ellis is forcing the reader to go through Bateman's mind, like it or not. Including the banality, the detail given to surface matters, et cetera, while "hiding" or encasing (better word) these little sigifiers to said reader that "Hey, this narrator MIGHT not be very reliable..."--and the bits of info that show Bateman as more than the cardboard-props-of-people that he surrounds himself with. One thing about this (and well, all of Ellis' books) is that most people I know don't (or can't) see the idea that what they're reading in a novel structured this way is ONLY what the narrator allows. Without talent, then a book that tries this (or the multiple POVs of [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B]) and its readers are done-for. Still Ellis manages to create a voice SO authentic that it isn't Ellis, it's Bateman. Likewise, I can pick up [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B] at random and know whose "section" I am reading--and I've read criticisms of the novel that say the opposite, that "all of them sound the same"--which is not fucking true. I've heard Ellis called "a writer's writer" (because, presumably, only another writer can appreciate what he is able to do structure and character-voice-wise), and this may be semi-true... but I know plenty of "writers" that simply cannot appreciate HOW he writes, the third-person narrative is so ingrained. So no, Ellis is not a "writer's writer", but one HAS to understand why and how the structure he chooses causes the reader to feel however they might towards the writing. Ellis does test the audience and their "concern"--[B]American Psycho[/B] being a perfect point. Those that miss the humanity that is in Bateman, those that rail against the rascism, the violence, the "BORING DETAILS that aren't NECESSARY", are missing out on a chance to be surprised. And if one can't see humanity in Bateman... maybe the reader isn't quite being honest with their self. Of course, no one wants to admit that... so they read it and then throw it away. Then maybe talk about how well it was written, minus the content.

[CENTER]----------[/CENTER]

[QUOTE=phlegmatics]haha ... i could have sworn i seen the word herpes in there though in the french[/QUOTE]

In Lauren's "first" titled chapter, when she's about to fuck Steve:
[INDENT]"You don't have any herpes or anything, do you?" he asks while we undress.
I sigh, say, "No, I don't." Wish I was drunk.
He tells me he heard maybe I did.
I don't want to know who he heard that from. Wish I was very drunk.[/INDENT]

Do me a favor, I wrote a story as an experiment and it has a kinf of Ellis-esque alternating first person... It's linked above my sig, if you have Workshop access. Take a look if you might. I'm trying to decide of the voices are distinct enough.

[QUOTE=Cougar69]I have only read The Rules of Attraction, Less Than Zero, and American Psycho but out of those three I liked Rules the best. American Psycho is a good book but it was so sick I really didn't enjoy reading it and the pictures it put in my head.
I think I liked Rules of Attraction most because I could relate to the characters somewhat more than in the other books. The kid in Less Than Zero was so bland and Patrick Bateman is fucked up.
The parts written in French got on my nerves. Patricia Highsmith does that alot in one of the RIpley books, I think the Boy Who Followed Ripley and it comes out of nowhere in dialogue and you get thrown off. I figured it didn't matter as much in Rules since it wasn't such a plot driven book and it didn't hurt to miss some of it. Just like American Psycho you could lose a lot of those chapters about Whitney Houston and Huey Lewis and still get the same basic effect maybe just not as funny.
One thing I didn't get about the book is whether or not Paul and Sean actually hook up. I remember the movie makes it clear that it's a dream but the book leaves it pretty open. Seeing the movie first fucked the book up for me because I have a hard time seperating it in my memory and the characters looks were all fixed in my head already except for Lauren. It was a lot easier picturing her as a blonde. She seemed hotter in the book.
There was a cool story called Less Than Zombie by Douglas E. Winter in this old collection called The Book of The Dead. It's a great parody of Bret Easton Ellis and disturbing on its own.
I'd like to read Glamorama. I read an interview where he said that he wrote it because the way the fashion and advertising makes people insecure is similar to the way terrorists do and he wanted to draw that comparison in a blatant way.[/QUOTE]

I agree that out of the three of Ellis' first novels, [B]The Rules of Attraction[/B] is probably the most easily relatable to the largest number of readers. It's odd--[B]Less Than Zero[/B] was hailed and critically acclaimed so much and then [B]ROA[/B] was given the exact opposite attention. [B]American Psycho[/B] made its own news, story or book aside. I'd recommend to read [B]The Informers[/B], but if [B]Less Than Zero[/B] was too bland for you, then forget [B]The Informers[/B]. [B]Glamorama[/B] is laborious. It reminds me of [B]Less Than Zero[/B] in that everything is the opposite: [B]Glamorama[/B] is as extremely fast-paced as [B]Less Than Zero[/B] is not and plods along, but [B]Glamorama[/B] is Ellis in full-blown "style-mode", and his narrative voice is more HIM than [B]Less Than Zero[/B], overall. But it's not that great of a book--it IS well worth laboring over, but once I finished it, I was very tired and glad to be through with the thing. [B]Less Than Zero[/B]--about halfway through--starts to pick up and move, with ever-increasing sections that show the "Ellis" that Ellis becomes, slowly losing its traditional structure as the protagonist goes deeper and deeper into the drugs and atmosphere of L.A. in the early 80s. But read it, read them all. But I must defend [B]American Psycho[/B]. Gruesome or not, "unnecessary" chapters about bland musical groups, whatever, there is NOTHING in that book that is not imperative to understanding and forming one's own interpretation of the novel overall. The bitter, evil, dark humor, the sex, and then the descriptions of violence... all of it is imperative.

Back to [B]ROA[/B]: the approximate one-page "Bertrand" section in French is just that: one and easy to read even if you don't know French. I learned that "herpes" is spelled the same...

And finally, about Sean and Paul, and the great "Did They?" question, I'm sure they did. The movie dodges it, yeah, but not the novel. It is AMBIGUOUS (almost to the point of not being able to be sure, and I suppose no one can be SURE) but you get corroboration from several different sides, not to mention the direct stories from Paul. I myself am sure that he and Sean had a relationship, a physical one, and there are [I]several[/I] scenarios that I believe back this up.

Nevertheless, it was cool to see that someone had posted more in an Ellis section. Thanks for the post. It gave me another excuse to talk about it.

[QUOTE=Cougar69]The one thing that annoys me about Ellis is the time in between his work. What does he do otherwise? Why not be more prolific? Does he ever talk about that in interviews?[/QUOTE]

I'll return to your other other points tonight, but for now, this is the best Ellis interview I know of: [url]http://home.c2i.net/ajohanne/frames_jamieclark.htm[/url] .

I went and picked up Glamorama hardback at the overstock store, try wading in again soon. Only one of his I haven't read.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]I went and picked up Glamorama hardback at the overstock store, try wading in again soon. Only one of his I haven't read.[/QUOTE]
I am really really liking this book. I'm almost done and I'll probably finish tonight. It is sort of draining, but so was American Psycho. When I finished that book I just had a whole sense of relief like it was finally over. I have a feeling I'm going to feel the same thing when I finish Glamorama.

I agree with you here.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]Only one of his I haven't read.[/QUOTE]
[URL=http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=19547]I wish you weren't a liar.[/URL]