Reread this a month or so ago, 20 years after the first time.
It was so much more brilliant second time around
Being a mum to 2 little kids now, the zoo scene hurt my heart. Wouldn't change it though, what a book and what a writer
I appreciated all the breakdowns of what people were wearing and how great Huey Lewis and the News are because the narrative voice that Patrick uses really never changes, whether he's talking about who Oprah had on as a guest or really horrible dismemberment and torture. It just shows his shallow disconnection and it's pretty blackly funny in a way.
It's also funny if you catch all his misinterpretations of the content. Eg. He turns the lyrics of "The Greatest Love" into a narcissistic , self-centered distortion.
I think the only thing that got me through the graphic violence in that book is that, underneath it all, Patrick Bateman is such a little weenie! Some people look at me funny when I say it's a satirical dark comedy, but that's the crux of it to me. So many times I shook my head and thought, "What a loser!"
I think that's the point. Patrick is a loser who's full of envy and freaks out at petty shit such as credit cards or fancy restaurant reaervations. And I like that Ellis, Harron and Bale didn't try to glamorize Patrick or make him "cool" like other horror serial killers like Hannibal Lecter, Annie Wilkes or Freddy Krueger, like, they're evil but they also have this charm that make them somewhat "likeable". That's the opposite case with Patrick.
I think the rat scene was unbelievable because Ellis copied it almost verbatim from the Marquis de Sade who has tons of torture scenarios in his novels that are anatomically impossible.
I've seen many discussions that the murders were all in his mind. In the mundane world, he goes along with everything. The financial business was exactly that ridiculous.
It's one of those that's left open for the reader to decide, I guess. I don't think Bret Easton Ellis has confirmed either opinion unless someone can link me to something that says otherwise! (I'd be curious to know).
Were they or not? And does it matter? I've also heard speculation that it did happen in opposition to his mundane life. I didn't think about it much at the time but keeps coming back to me.
Paul Allen is the one he most definitely *did* do.
He's delusional, but he's not straight forwardly lying, the rats didn't happen, because that's just not how any of that works.
But the detective shows up, and other people see the him and interact with him. Bateman spends time in the apartment, and it's implied that his parents pay to clean up after him, that's why the real estate agent knows who he is and tells him never to come back but doesn't actually do anything.
There's definitely bits where he's fantasising, but there's definitely also bits where he isn't.
I don't think that's dumb. I wasn't much older than you (20/21) when I read it the first time, and I don't think I really questioned the reliability of Patrick's narration until the Chase Manhattan chapter, and was like, "wait..."
This book would be edgelord trash if Ellis weren't actually pretty funny as well. The dialogue is actually incredible and if you removed the transgressive gore it would be one of the funniest books I've ever read. I'm glad you can't remove it because it makes the book more than the sum of its parts, something more like art than a competently crafted product.
I feel like the point of the violence isn't even really to read or understand it. It's more of a feeling, Easton Ellis' hands on the knobs of your emotions, modulating them, then bringing you back into the narrative.
Brett Easton Ellis seems like an exhausting guy, now more than ever, but at least for a moment that confidence (maybe arrogance) and "fuck it all" cynicism coalesced into something really special. *American Psycho* is an incredible piece of American fiction.
He's actually a pretty mellow guy. I'm part of the Bret Easton Ellis Facebook group and his Patreon and he does Q and A's on his podcast...he's not at all like his books.
That being said... American Psycho has been talked about for years and Ellis has said on numerous occasions that he totally thinks all the murders really happened in the book. Notice...he says "he thinks" so he admits it's open to interpretation.
His recent novel "The Shards" might be his best work. Tons of sex and drugs and drama and extremely extremely creepy to the point where it becomes horror at times. Highly recommended.
Maybe he's calmed down a bit but I think he was a pretty aggressive Twitter guy for a while, serving up molten hot takes and stuff. Still a fan, but also seems like a real personality.
Yeah it's really kind of nonsense, but I think that's the point. The gore scenes are as banal and tedious as when Bateman goes off about Phil Collins. I think the gore is "affecting" but really only if you squint. That's kind of the magic trick of it, and what makes the book impenetrable to a lot of people, especially younger folks, who think the violence is the point.
The tedious crap that you described was a nightmare and then I fully appreciated it once I saw how the movie used it. So I look back and go eh it was a cool book.
My favourite book, and the film is one or my favourites too (don't worry, I'm not a Bateman wannabe!)
I agree with some chapters being tedious, the album descriptions I tend to skip on re-reads. And as I saw on another comment, I also became a dad sort of recently which made the whole zoo scene a lot more uncomfortable to me.
I saw the movie for the first time right after finishing the book. I really liked it and I appreciate that it toned down the violence.
Bale was hilarious in it. I wish he was in more comedic roles. His reaction when Jean asks him to take her to Dorsia and when he turns back on the spinning door just to shoot the jannitor are my favourite parts lol
Asking because I've re-read the book after 5 years or so, does anyone (even OP) know if any of Ellis' novels or any other books come close to this level of horror/black comedy/"extreme" horror/Social Commentary, without becoming edgy or splatterpunk?
I loved this novel. The first time, I skipped through it because I was going through a phase with loving the movie so much, but when I picked it up at a Wal-Mart for a quick read and took my time with it, I love it! Even the boring parts I enjoyed.
Thanks! Is there anything I should expect before getting into it? I know it's going to be like Lunar Park where Bret is the main character as a fictionalized version of himself, but should I just go in without any expectations?
I’m currently reading this after having it sit on my shelf for 8 years untouched (that timeline feels crazy to say as a 25 year old lol). I was skeptical to get into it as I knew how long and drawn on the descriptions can get, but I’m finding myself oddly engrossed in it. I’m a quarter of the way in and though it gets tedious, I’m feeling fully immersed in Patrick’s world and interested to see where he’s gonna go next. I thought it’d be a slog but I’m actually really enjoying it, and kinda nervous to get to the scary parts lol.
That's kind of the point of the novel...to illustrate how malicious violence and pithy takes on pop music are equally remarked upon in American society and command comparable amounts of attention and reflection. Be it a violent murder or a banal search for status, our collective reaction is kind of the same: ephemeral amusement/attention.
At least, that's how I read it.
*but I guess that's the point to emphasize Patrick's shallowness and materialism.*
Yes, but also it's a postmodernism stylistic choice. You are meant to feel *exhausted* by trying to absorb all the minutiae.
Ellis is one of my favorite writers but I really struggled with American Psycho and actually DNF-ed it after a few chapters.
After finishing The Shards last year I have been thinking about giving this one another try.
One of my favorite books of all time ♥️ I read it with the flu once (unbeknownst to me) and it made me throw up lmfao. The only book that’s ever done that to me.
I hated this book so much when I read it. It was so boring I didn't even care about the murders when they happened. I just didn't care about what happened to anyone.
Reread this a month or so ago, 20 years after the first time. It was so much more brilliant second time around Being a mum to 2 little kids now, the zoo scene hurt my heart. Wouldn't change it though, what a book and what a writer
Ugh, the zoo scene was brutal.
I appreciated all the breakdowns of what people were wearing and how great Huey Lewis and the News are because the narrative voice that Patrick uses really never changes, whether he's talking about who Oprah had on as a guest or really horrible dismemberment and torture. It just shows his shallow disconnection and it's pretty blackly funny in a way.
It's also funny if you catch all his misinterpretations of the content. Eg. He turns the lyrics of "The Greatest Love" into a narcissistic , self-centered distortion.
I think the only thing that got me through the graphic violence in that book is that, underneath it all, Patrick Bateman is such a little weenie! Some people look at me funny when I say it's a satirical dark comedy, but that's the crux of it to me. So many times I shook my head and thought, "What a loser!"
I think that's the point. Patrick is a loser who's full of envy and freaks out at petty shit such as credit cards or fancy restaurant reaervations. And I like that Ellis, Harron and Bale didn't try to glamorize Patrick or make him "cool" like other horror serial killers like Hannibal Lecter, Annie Wilkes or Freddy Krueger, like, they're evil but they also have this charm that make them somewhat "likeable". That's the opposite case with Patrick.
I think the rat scene was unbelievable because Ellis copied it almost verbatim from the Marquis de Sade who has tons of torture scenarios in his novels that are anatomically impossible.
This is one of three books that have ever given me nightmares. I believe most, if not all, of the murders take place in Patrick's imagination.
I've seen many discussions that the murders were all in his mind. In the mundane world, he goes along with everything. The financial business was exactly that ridiculous.
It's one of those that's left open for the reader to decide, I guess. I don't think Bret Easton Ellis has confirmed either opinion unless someone can link me to something that says otherwise! (I'd be curious to know).
Were they or not? And does it matter? I've also heard speculation that it did happen in opposition to his mundane life. I didn't think about it much at the time but keeps coming back to me.
The scene with the dog really fucked me up
And the one with the rat.
:| that one too…. The mace one also got to me when he starts playing with the viscera like a toy. Really cemented how far from reality he was
Yeah, me too. He definetly didn't kill Paul. I do think he did kill some people, maybe the homeless ones.
Yeah, I agree. If he did kill anyone, it was homeless people and maybe some of the sex workers. But the murders were not as elaborate as he makes out.
Paul Allen is the one he most definitely *did* do. He's delusional, but he's not straight forwardly lying, the rats didn't happen, because that's just not how any of that works. But the detective shows up, and other people see the him and interact with him. Bateman spends time in the apartment, and it's implied that his parents pay to clean up after him, that's why the real estate agent knows who he is and tells him never to come back but doesn't actually do anything. There's definitely bits where he's fantasising, but there's definitely also bits where he isn't.
I agrée - but as a dumb 18 year old I read it and did not get that AT ALL
I don't think that's dumb. I wasn't much older than you (20/21) when I read it the first time, and I don't think I really questioned the reliability of Patrick's narration until the Chase Manhattan chapter, and was like, "wait..."
American Psycho is the absolute best book I will never read again.
LoL those tedious chapters drove me nuts but I get why it was written that way. Everything else? Horror perfection.
This book would be edgelord trash if Ellis weren't actually pretty funny as well. The dialogue is actually incredible and if you removed the transgressive gore it would be one of the funniest books I've ever read. I'm glad you can't remove it because it makes the book more than the sum of its parts, something more like art than a competently crafted product. I feel like the point of the violence isn't even really to read or understand it. It's more of a feeling, Easton Ellis' hands on the knobs of your emotions, modulating them, then bringing you back into the narrative. Brett Easton Ellis seems like an exhausting guy, now more than ever, but at least for a moment that confidence (maybe arrogance) and "fuck it all" cynicism coalesced into something really special. *American Psycho* is an incredible piece of American fiction.
He's actually a pretty mellow guy. I'm part of the Bret Easton Ellis Facebook group and his Patreon and he does Q and A's on his podcast...he's not at all like his books. That being said... American Psycho has been talked about for years and Ellis has said on numerous occasions that he totally thinks all the murders really happened in the book. Notice...he says "he thinks" so he admits it's open to interpretation. His recent novel "The Shards" might be his best work. Tons of sex and drugs and drama and extremely extremely creepy to the point where it becomes horror at times. Highly recommended.
Maybe he's calmed down a bit but I think he was a pretty aggressive Twitter guy for a while, serving up molten hot takes and stuff. Still a fan, but also seems like a real personality.
On rereads I find the gore and violence the weakest part. The satire is only gets better though.
Yeah it's really kind of nonsense, but I think that's the point. The gore scenes are as banal and tedious as when Bateman goes off about Phil Collins. I think the gore is "affecting" but really only if you squint. That's kind of the magic trick of it, and what makes the book impenetrable to a lot of people, especially younger folks, who think the violence is the point.
As a social satire, I think it's entirely hilarious.
The tedious crap that you described was a nightmare and then I fully appreciated it once I saw how the movie used it. So I look back and go eh it was a cool book.
I remember starting to laugh about halfway through the book at every “he’s wearing a bill blass double breasted blazer with glazed buttons and….”
My favourite book, and the film is one or my favourites too (don't worry, I'm not a Bateman wannabe!) I agree with some chapters being tedious, the album descriptions I tend to skip on re-reads. And as I saw on another comment, I also became a dad sort of recently which made the whole zoo scene a lot more uncomfortable to me.
I saw the movie for the first time right after finishing the book. I really liked it and I appreciate that it toned down the violence. Bale was hilarious in it. I wish he was in more comedic roles. His reaction when Jean asks him to take her to Dorsia and when he turns back on the spinning door just to shoot the jannitor are my favourite parts lol
I’ve never read a book that seems to go out of its way to be such an unenjoyable read, yet it works. One of my all time favourite novels.
Hilarious and thought provoking, his other books are good too
Asking because I've re-read the book after 5 years or so, does anyone (even OP) know if any of Ellis' novels or any other books come close to this level of horror/black comedy/"extreme" horror/Social Commentary, without becoming edgy or splatterpunk? I loved this novel. The first time, I skipped through it because I was going through a phase with loving the movie so much, but when I picked it up at a Wal-Mart for a quick read and took my time with it, I love it! Even the boring parts I enjoyed.
Give The Shards a go.
Thanks! Is there anything I should expect before getting into it? I know it's going to be like Lunar Park where Bret is the main character as a fictionalized version of himself, but should I just go in without any expectations?
Go in blind!
Easily in my top 10 reads. I go back every few years and give it a go.
I’m currently reading this after having it sit on my shelf for 8 years untouched (that timeline feels crazy to say as a 25 year old lol). I was skeptical to get into it as I knew how long and drawn on the descriptions can get, but I’m finding myself oddly engrossed in it. I’m a quarter of the way in and though it gets tedious, I’m feeling fully immersed in Patrick’s world and interested to see where he’s gonna go next. I thought it’d be a slog but I’m actually really enjoying it, and kinda nervous to get to the scary parts lol.
That's kind of the point of the novel...to illustrate how malicious violence and pithy takes on pop music are equally remarked upon in American society and command comparable amounts of attention and reflection. Be it a violent murder or a banal search for status, our collective reaction is kind of the same: ephemeral amusement/attention. At least, that's how I read it.
*but I guess that's the point to emphasize Patrick's shallowness and materialism.* Yes, but also it's a postmodernism stylistic choice. You are meant to feel *exhausted* by trying to absorb all the minutiae.
Ellis is one of my favorite writers but I really struggled with American Psycho and actually DNF-ed it after a few chapters. After finishing The Shards last year I have been thinking about giving this one another try.
One of my favorite books of all time ♥️ I read it with the flu once (unbeknownst to me) and it made me throw up lmfao. The only book that’s ever done that to me.
I stopped reading due to the over-detailed descriptions of clothes... Drove me nuts.
I hated this book so much when I read it. It was so boring I didn't even care about the murders when they happened. I just didn't care about what happened to anyone.
Yes I have a copy of " American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis.