Squee Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I've decided that I'm going to interpret American Psycho for my final and BIG paper, and though I absolutely love the book I've got a few questions - and no this is not about if the killings are real or just a part of his imagination. Throughout the novel Patrick Bateman sees Les Miserables posters allover the place in New York and what does this mean? I've always been told that if things get repeated over and over and over then it must mean something. The way I see it is that all that Patrick Bateman sees are things that refer to horrible things such as Les Miserables plus something else that gets mentioned in the beginning of the book when all the pals are in the limo. Is it refering to his friends whom he actually hates because they're the kind of people he also feels disgust for even though he in some ways is similiar to them? Is this all fucked up or do you think I'm on the right track? Is Patrick Bateman's brother Sean the same Sean as in Rules of Attraction? He's an upperclass drugdealer and he seems to be just like Patrick in so many ways - both in Rules of Attraction and American Psycho... I had a couple of other questions but in my urge to make my first question as precisely as possible I forgot what the hell I wanted to ask? Oh well... I'll probably remember it sooner or later EDIT: If you feel like it, then be my guest to give your oppinion on Patrick Bateman imagining things or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 patrick bateman's brother is, in fact, sean from rules of attraction (ellis said this in an interview). as for the les miserables posters ... perhaps he feels pursued by his psychosis? lol i dunno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest subway Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Read 'Lunar Park'. Bateman comes back and it explains a lot of Ellis' feelings towards American Psycho. It's mainly the first half that you should concentrate on - the second half of Lunar Park goes all batty like.....but it's still fantastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 I just read that Ellis is bisexual... that came unexpected... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I read an interview with Ellis a few weeks ago when the new book came out. He came across as a twat. I wish I had something more meaningful to contribute, but I just woke up. And it's 11pm. WTF!? edit: actually I'll contribute this, I remember you bringing the book up a few weeks ago Squee (although I think you were cliff huxtable then ;) ) and it inspired me to get it out and read it again. And I came to the conclusion that it is in fact pornographic trash. So I wouldn't bother yourself too much trying to analyse it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 But I've already got about 17 pages of interpretation... I can always just talk about Patrick Bateman being one of Nietzsche's 'superman' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Maybe you should watch Les Miserables or something to see if there's any similarities in charactarisation/plots/situations etc., might be an interesting angle to look at it from. I've never seen it, in fact I find musicals fairly repellant. Then again, so's Patrick Bateman. Maybe that's the connection :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 Hehe - maaaaaaybe I will... Maaaaaayyyyybe I will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest subway Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Ellis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 this is all too high-browed for me i feel so stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 ellis is a giant twat, yes, as someone said above; watching him in an interview just makes you want to kill him. basically he's written the same novel six or seven times; i get the sense that he doesn't write in that monotone style as a choice, but more because he's a shitty writer, and can't write anything better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Bret Easton Ellis is a phenomenon. Whether you want to kiss him or stab him with a knife – a serrated 12-inch Swiss Army is recommended - This interview is pure jive - who the fuck has a 12-inch SWISS ARMY knife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest endangered betche Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Read 'Lunar Park'. Bateman comes back and it explains a lot of Ellis' feelings towards American Psycho. It's mainly the first half that you should concentrate on - the second half of Lunar Park goes all batty like.....but it's still fantasticActually, virtually none of Lunar Park makes any sense unless you've memorized all of his other books. I just read that Ellis is bisexual... that came unexpected... Uh ... it actually makes a lot of sense. ellis is a giant twat, yes, as someone said above; watching him in an interview just makes you want to kill him. basically he's written the same novel six or seven times; i get the sense that he doesn't write in that monotone style as a choice, but more because he's a shitty writer, and can't write anything betterI agree with most of this - he's talented, but just has tunnel vision, and it doesn't help that he's insane. For me, his best book is still Rules of Attraction. Someone else mentioned the same characters popping up in different books - I actually wish he did more of this, as it seems to connect the dots in his very random universe. EDIT: If you feel like it, then be my guest to give your oppinion on Patrick Bateman imagining things or not... That's the whole point of the book - where reality ends and fantasy begins. Patrick Bateman is the imaginary line between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 i can name alot of writers who write the same kind of thing with every book. the question is whether or not he's gotten better and evolved his style. the answer is i have no idea because i've only read american psycho, which i thought was something akin to reading an essay about the dangers of materialism and excess and then being paper cut by the essay twenty thousand times before finally succumbing to blood loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 well the thing is though, he's doing the easiest writing style in the history of mankind. even someone like hemingway or stein has to polish their prose; ellis just shits out bland monotone sentences and fills each book with them. he isn't a bad writer, but i think he's only well-known because he tries to be sensational, and as david foster wallace argues somewhere, he appeals to the reader's sadism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 your writing style is one element of a whole. i thought american psycho was a shitty book not because it was badly written but because it had no reason for being. i got the point after page five and then realized there was still a whole book to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 yeah i guess that's what i was vaguely referring to with 'monotone,' though not exactly. the facile nihilism of his books is the most annoying part; this just reemphasizes the fact that he's doing the easiest style of writing imaginable, because he doesn't have to bother creating actual characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ifkardo Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 bret easton ellis is very fucking descriptive. i;ve read all of his books save for lunar park and feel that as a whole, and in a linear order... they are explotative and poke fun at the fact that most people who read often or "well read" desire some slick polished lit shit. anyways,, how about giving some sort of help to the orginal posting instead of quickly bashing an author you do not like, based on what, like the one book most everybody has read of his; american psycho. glamorama owns any of the six. but, yeah, les mis. is curcial to the pysche of the bateman, ,,, his apathy becomes enraged when he sees a call for social order or equallity... how many homeless people does he kill in this book? if you read less than zero, the main characther keeps seeing the same words on the los angeles billboards. ellis also keeps writing the same thoughts, constantly,,, almost aas a reinforcement that the people in his work can n ot escape the filth they fear and resemble. ellis also refrences doytoyevski's Notes from Underground, a book in which the main charecter is sick of all those that surround him, and goes out of his way to make them misirable. luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 bret easton ellis is very fucking descriptive. he's very good at listing things, if that's what you mean they are explotative and poke fun at the fact that most people who read often or "well read" desire some slick polished lit shit.that's idiotic, and doesn't even apply; there's plenty of non-'slick polished lit shit' that's still of very high quality (e.g., bukowski, kerouac). the problem isn't that his writing isn't polished; it's that his writing isn't very good anyways,, how about giving some sort of help to the orginal posting instead of quickly bashing an author you do not like, based on what, like the one book most everybody has read of his; american psycho. i did give help to the original post; that was the first reply in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 i thought american psycho was a shitty book not because it was badly written but because it had no reason for being. This is exactly my reason for classing it as porn on my last read-through (perhaps the 3rd or 4th time I've read it over-all?). Lots of sex and violence with no real purpose beyond repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly making a very redundant point about materialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest subway Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Read 'Lunar Park'. Bateman comes back and it explains a lot of Ellis' feelings towards American Psycho. It's mainly the first half that you should concentrate on - the second half of Lunar Park goes all batty like.....but it's still fantastic Actually, virtually none of Lunar Park makes any sense unless you've memorized all of his other books. I disagree. I have never been able to finish American Psycho because how shallow Patrick Bateman is drives me up the wall. However, seeing as that was the whole point of the book I can only assume that the rest is equally well written. It was therefore impossible for me to memorise a book I haven't read in full yet I still understood Lunar Park. Seeing as I've not read all of his work I also found that Ellis described all of his previous works in enough detail for me to understand the context of them within Lunar Park..... if that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 Sorry to bring this back up, but I just noticed something that I need verified... As far as I remember there's a part of American Psycho where Patrick Bateman imagines himself drowing in blood - right? The reason why I need to know this, is the book opens with the famous quote: "Abandon all hope ye who enters here" and this is of course from Dante's Inferno etc etc... I was just reading about The Devine Comedy and noticed that one of the punishments goes like this: Circle VII, Round 1: Against Neighbors (murders and war-makers) The violent against neighbors are those who shed the blood of their fellow men. They include war-makers and highwaymen. Quote 'But turn your eyes to the valley; there we will find the river of boiling blood in which are steeped all who struck down their fellow men.' Oh Blind! Oh ignorant self-seeking cupidity which spurs us so in the short mortal life and seeps us so through all eternity!' (Canto 12, ll. 46-51) This could easily be used in my assignment - but both my computers are fucked up right now, so I have no chance of checking this at home... So if anyone could varify this for me, then that would be just GREAT! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 i prefered the movie to the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goffer Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 same... i could actually finish the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Moss Acid Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 BEE is a great author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.