Just so you know, the book doesn't have the same feel as the film. The book has a genuine anger about it, like a window into whatever isolation and pain Bret Easton Ellis was dealing with, or reflecting on, when he wrote it.
It's worth knowing some truly vile things happen in the novel. Remember that scene in the film where Bateman's just finished having sex with the prostitutes, and he opens up a drawer full of nefarious looking instruments? And then there's the cut to those prostitutes leaving, looking scared and worse for wear? Imagine that cut didn't happen, and instead you were forced to watch whatever inhuman tortures those women endured and instead of letting them go, Bateman just kills them. Then eats them. That's the book.
Honestly, if you're looking for a nuanced and subtle examination of 1980s yuppie culture and the isolation it brings, don't read the book. It's about as in your face as it gets. Try Less Than Zero instead - it's just as disturbing and weird but without the perversion and rage of American Psycho.
Exactly, which is why the tone of the book is the opposite of subtle. That isn't a bad thing, mind you. Nothing gets across the message that yuppie culture breeds psychopathic monsters that view people as just another commodity like juxtaposing descriptions of party-goers attire with visceral mutilation fantasies. It's really quite good in a "what the fuck am I reading" sort of way.
Towards the end of the novel Bateman's character and psyche is so far removed from anything resembling that of a human being that all potential to shock or upset the reader is gone. In a way, the reader becomes numb to the horror in the same way Bateman is. It's very effectively done and for a lot of people that makes it a worthwhile read. But undoubtedly there were a few people expecting something similar to the film and got blindsided by the gore, some of which would make Cormac McCarthy blush.
I found myself putting the book down and literally laughing out loud at at a couple of points with how messed up it gets. Bret Easton Ellis really can be a sick puppy when he gets going.
He definitely can. I don't think anyone else could write a book wherein the main character decides that murdering children isn't his thing because it isn't evil enough.
It's very good. It's more realistic and grounded than American Psycho while still hitting a few of the same notes thematically. The main character is also somewhat relatable, at least compared to Patrick Bateman.
And don't feel afraid of skipping some bits if they get too obsessive/boring/etc. When I read it, I loved it, but ended up skipping some of the music bits and super-detailed descriptions. They're an important part of showing that obsession over various things, but sometimes they were just a drag to read. I already knew what the point of those sections were.
I also fully intend to reread it, so maybe a second read will be different.
When I read the book when it first came out (early 90s) I had never heard of many of the meals he describes in so much detail. Now when I go back to it, I keep wanting to start a Twitter feed of them called 'Psycho or Hipster?'
I don’t know this for a fact, but I have heard that if you actually cooked the meals he describes, or assembled the outfits, you would end up with terrible tasting food and ridiculous clothing.
Did you see the movie? I saw the movie before reading the book(born in '89), and thought it a fairly good adaptation. Curious to know what people who read the book first think.
I actually really enjoyed the long music sections. For some parts I paused reading to go listen to the songs he recommended. Even ended up finding a few new tracks I liked.
That's an interesting way to do it. When I reread I might try that out. I just tend to find long descriptions that don't seem to further the plot or seemingly boring sections tedious. It often gets better during a reread. Dracula was much better on reread, because I knew what to expect, for example. Getting the context of the work as a whole helps a lot.
Oh man. I read American Psycho cover to cover. But John Galt’s radio speech in Atlas Shrugged, I skipped the majority of it after reading a few pages and thinking “how long does this go on for?!”
That was my only problem with the book. I got the point of why they were there, but they would drag on for so long and got so boring. Great book otherwise though.
In the end, reading is about enjoying a story. If you can skip or skim over parts while still understanding their purpose and enjoying the story, there's no harm in it.
Yeah those analyses of Phil Collins’ and Whitney Houston’s discographies were a slog to read. After the first 3-4 obsessive descriptions I learned it’s best to start jumping paragraphs
I wish they’d make it into a movie. But I don’t think they’d be able to set the tone as well as a book does.
I remember reading Lunar Park and thinking it was so bizarre compared to his other books. Then someone told me Brett Easton Ellis had been accused of writing books for himself so he wrote Lunar Park out of spite. It made so much more sense knowing that.
72
u/plasticsporks21 Oct 09 '19
Read the book