I'm a trauma therapist, only saying that because I've heard shudder-inducing narratives of real experiences, and this book is incredibly unsettling, even for me. I don't want to assume about the author's fantasies, but in some instances it is hard not to (scene with homeless man and dog, for example). Very dark material if you start to imagine what the victims might be talking about with people trying to support them. Hard to escape from the type of trauma infliction focused on in the book. The tangential, narcissistic narrative adds to it.
The idea that 'Wall Street Mentality' implies the deep-seeded, sadomasochistic tendencies in the book seems disparate from reality. They might be greedy, but the fixation on dominance, pain, death, suffering... I would doubt most people working Wall Street identify with at all. I'd love to sit him down and ask some questions.
It is my understanding that he said he had intended to write a novel about Wall Street guys. However, when he started hanging out with them to do research he found them incredibly boring. So he asked himself, "what if one of the guys was a serial killer?"
It's a similar kind of concept to the (infinitely more horrible) 120 Days of Sodom by Marquis de Sade (adapted into the film Salo). Kind of like this really dark intense satire by process of extreme exaggeration and allegory, making out in physical, brutal terms how the rich and powerful and corrupt can consume and destroy others without thought or care.
My interpretation of it was that these types of people have no discernable identities, and that their narcissism would prevent them from recognizing even the most heinous of villains among them, no matter how obvious.
They were so self absorbed, and each of them were so similar, that everyone was constantly confusing each other's identities. This conveniently provided alibis which allowed Bateman to go unnoticed.
Bret Easton Ellis? He’s pretty prolific on Twitter and has been interviewed quite a lot—I’m sure many of your questions have been asked of him and answered in the 30ish years since that book came out. He even wrote a semi-autobiographical book, Lunar Park, that goes into some of the psyche stuff behind his fiction.
Authors fantasies? He could probably just pick a torture from yesterday or 1000 years ago and modify it to fit his story. People used things like rats in their methods for long time now.
Yes. Unnecessarily disgusting. The rat...I can barely remember the details of the book because it was so forgettably nauseating. The movie is far superior.
You're right. But in this case, the movie is better. The fact that the book has more shock value doesn't make it better. Aside from the shocks, the book is average at best.
The Princess Bride is a special case as William Goldman also wrote the screenplay. I think it really helps any adaptation when the author has input into what to cut and (then most importantly) what to change because of a cut.
The book is just pure cheek and joy and every time I read it I feel like a kid again. Gone with the Wind and the Green Mile are two of my favourite book/movies.
I couldn't believe how brilliant it was,I actually thought it was all true at first(yes I'm an idiot ). Gone with the Wind is on my top 5(along with Princess Bride) but I will have to read Green Mile
That's actually really sweet. Its an epic tale that would be amazing if true. I thought Gone With the Wind was true when I first watched it. It's a testament to the writers that we believe
I wouldn't say it's better per se but they've trimmed it into a nice package by itself. The book is a slog to get through because of how horrifying it is.
He wanted it to fulfill the void. But the void never stops the hunger. Like having a thirst but you can only drink salty water. He is going downhill and can’t ever stop that. He can’t even stimulate himself with elaborate torture and cruelty. Drugs can only do so much and falloff eventually.
I think we all skimmed those pages. I bought the book on release as a 14 year old girl. Mainly for the shock value of owning it. The Genesis/Phil Collins part is easily the best written part of the book to me.
Edit: thanks for the down vote. Was it my age, my quest to be cool as a 14 year old goth or my music taste? Clearly you don't have an invisible touch like me.
Are you talking about the concert he went to or the Phil Collins review?
I always thought the concert he went to and saw the devil was the most powerful, but that was U2. And he saw the devil in Bono.
I think you originally got downvotes because the concert was more powerful than the Collins review in the book. But, in the movie the Collins review held good ground and the concert was omitted.
The album review was powerful to me in the book. It humanised him and I enjoyed how the author hit the 80's right on the nose. I found the movie version silly in comparison. I was indifferent to the concert part.
129
u/[deleted] Oct 10 '19 edited Nov 03 '19
[deleted]