What are you currently reading?

[mozartsneighbor]

[Bunny]

The difference being that a satire about World War 2 would be tasteless with or without involving a Nazi officer obsessed with his looks. When it is about the 80s, a time period which is not remembered with particularly strong negative feelings, let alone personal accounts of misery and destruction, a satire would be very well placed.

Also, please remember that the murder scenes do not involve women alone. What about the beggars, the guy with the bow tie and the most graphic of all, of Paul Owen (small font size for disclaimer purposes)
That is not to say the book is not purposefully misogynistic. But it bothers me much more when it is done in a concealed manner, such as in Auto Da Fe -a book that I could not go through 

A satire about a serial killer living it up in the 1980s is as tasteless as a satire about a Nazi guard at Buchenwald when the killing is described in such detail. 

For satire, merely suggesting the gore would have more than sufficient.  The inclusion of explicit detail of the kill scenes is repugnant and unnecessary.   I haven't allowed myself to become so desensitized to violence that I can read something like American Psycho without vomiting.  I tend to avoid movies where the blood flow is heavy as well.  I don't need to learn how not to be shocked by killing and death.

[PSmith08]

A satire about a serial killer living it up in the 1980s is as tasteless as a satire about a Nazi guard at Buchenwald when the killing is described in such detail. 

For satire, merely suggesting the gore would have more than sufficient.  The inclusion of explicit detail of the kill scenes is repugnant and unnecessary.   I haven't allowed myself to become so desensitized to violence that I can read something like American Psycho without vomiting.  I tend to avoid movies where the blood flow is heavy as well.  I don't need to learn how not to be shocked by killing and death.

Is it possible that the reaction you have was supposed to be the reaction to the violence? That Patrick Bateman is not particularly sympathetic, and, in fact, is downright evil? Perhaps Easton Ellis is making the point that, as a society, we have become so desensitized and numbed that a novel about disconnection and modern alienation would not have any impact without the sign and symbol of that disconnection and alienation being -- at the very least -- fantasized violence. Even assuming that isn't the point, the author is making a powerful statement when he shows us a character whose only real connection with his fellow men and women is brutal, sadistic violence -- real or imagined. Maybe you need only to change "repugnant and unnecessary" to "repugnant and necessary."

I'm still wondering, of course, what the relationship is between Ellis' bedroom practices and the attitudes you see in the book. You did allude to some sort of connection.

[Renfield]

the author is making a powerful statement when he shows us a character whose only real connection with his fellow men and women is brutal, sadistic violence -- real or imagined.
[my emphasis]

Exactly. Thank you, that's quite better than I probably could have put it.

Patrick Bateman is not a serial killer; he is the twisted offspring of a dead-end culture exaggerated to the extreme. To him (qua his culture's offspring) the killing is natural, and it is exactly because Bateman is so nonchalant about acts this cruel that the novel acquires its edge.

I'll repeat my earlier comment on the ending: if you've finished the book, you might remember Bateman's feelings about the exit.


Edit: I am refraining from going into specific examples, partly so as not to rob people who might be interested in reading American Psycho of its full impact, and partly because I do understand many people might find the contents disturbing. But this does not invalidate the book.

[PSmith08]

Exactly. Thank you, that's quite better than I probably could have put it.

Patrick Bateman is not a serial killer; he is the twisted offspring of a dead-end culture exaggerated to the extreme. To him (qua his culture's offspring) the killing is natural, and it is exactly because Bateman is so nonchalant about acts this cruel that the novel acquires its edge.

I'll repeat my earlier comment on the ending: if you've finished the book, you might remember Bateman's feelings about the exit.

I spent a summer reading and rereading American Psycho, largely because I found the book to be compelling as a cry in the wilderness. Easton Ellis is not glamorizing or lionizing the acts of insane brutality that Bateman commits, either in "reality" or in his imagination, he is using them to illustrate his point about then-contemporary American culture. As a commentary on violence, the book is fairly successful; as a commentary on a society that has pretty much broken down, the book is without peer. Taking a step into the meta-narrative, Easton Ellis is forcing us to look at ourselves and our culture -- as he did with The Rules of Attraction -- and his judgment is harsh and bleak. I think that it must be remembered that American Psycho, taken in the whole, is not particularly amusing or funny. When you're not queasy from the violence, you're utterly turned off by the characters. No one is sympathetic. It is not pleasant to look at the products of a disconnected, alienated culture that has the "value system" that Bateman's New York does.

[Renfield]

I spent a summer reading and rereading American Psycho, largely because I found the book to be compelling as a cry in the wilderness. Easton Ellis is not glamorizing or lionizing the acts of insane brutality that Bateman commits, either in "reality" or in his imagination, he is using them to illustrate his point about then-contemporary American culture. As a commentary on violence, the book is fairly successful; as a commentary on a society that has pretty much broken down, the book is without peer. Taking a step into the meta-narrative, Easton Ellis is forcing us to look at ourselves and our culture -- as he did with The Rules of Attraction -- and his judgment is harsh and bleak. I think that it must be remembered that American Psycho, taken in the whole, is not particularly amusing or funny. When you're not queasy from the violence, you're utterly turned off by the characters. No one is sympathetic. It is not pleasant to look at the products of a disconnected, alienated culture that has the "value system" that Bateman's New York does.

Indeed, which is why Kafka was the first person that came to mind when I looked for writers of similar goals to Ellis that I could use as examples, above. Although, like Kafka, I'm not at all convinced that Ellis' powerful irony could not be labelled "funny".

It's tragic, and part of the novel's success in my estimate, but Bateman's murders, Carruthers' homosexual advances and all the rest of it do acquire an almost embarrassingly amusing tint; which, of course, the ending (I still drone about that, but it struck me as particularly right and necessary a way to wrap the novel) serves to establish in its proper place in the general scheme of things. It really is a place with no escape.

[PSmith08]

Indeed, which is why Kafka was the first person that came to mind when I looked for writers of similar goals to Ellis that I could use as examples, above. Although, like Kafka, I'm not at all convinced that Ellis' powerful irony could not be labelled "funny".

It's tragic, and part of the novel's success in my estimate, but Bateman's murders, Carruthers' homosexual advances and all the rest of it do acquire an almost embarrassingly amusing tint; which, of course, the ending (I still drone about that, but it struck me as particularly right and necessary a way to wrap the novel) serves to establish in its proper place in the general scheme of things. It really is a place with no escape.

All of those things can be "funny," but they're not funny in any traditional sense. They're funny in context and because Easton Ellis has a profound sense of irony and is no mean wit. Of course, the irony and wit are only covers for the bleak, almost cruel, message of the novel. The ending, as you have noted, is a key scene. The nihilism of the narrative is made manifest: Bateman, the ostensible narrator, has failed to make the connection with the reader. Our window into his psyche has not created a bond. He is tragic at best and revolting at worst, but he is never sympathetic. Absent that connection, Bateman is trapped in the loop, doomed to a meaningless existence. That's why I say the book isn't amusing or funny. Society, at its most fundamental level, has broken down in Patrick Bateman's world, and the inhabitants are forced to do the same things with essentially the same people over and over without any connection, any shared values or ideals. That is why I find that American Psycho is so compelling.

That, to throw a last minute wrench in the discussion, and it is a Nietzschean drama on the order of Mann's Der Tod in Venedig, though I think Mann's approach is ultimately more successful.

[orbital]

For satire, merely suggesting the gore would have more than sufficient.  The inclusion of explicit detail of the kill scenes is repugnant and unnecessary.  

But Bunny, that would kill the whole point. The book is continuously drenched in details: about what people around Bateman wear, what their business cards look like, gossip columns, morning TV shows, Phil Collins' latest album, exercise routines, nouvelle cuisines on the edge of absurdity, etc. things that Bateman cares about and on the other side, senseless, brutal violence -things that to him come very naturally. Bateman, in that sense, is the exaggerated epitome of the times (and places) he lives in. One particular scene that emphasizes this point is when he says he is "just trying to fit in."

I haven't allowed myself to become so desensitized to violence that I can read something like American Psycho without vomiting. 

which does not necessarily mean the ones who did like the book have. It all depends on what purpose violence is there to serve. I don't think you've seen the movie version  but the violence in the film was mostly used to comedic effect which was unfortunate.

[val]

PLATO:      Laches

One of Plato's early Dialogues, and not one of the best.

The Socratic technique is already there: to destroy the believes of the others, by forcing them to use general definitions. I think he was wrong. In fact Wittgenstein shows the fallacy of such perspective.

[Bogey]

Under way:

[Joe_Campbell]

Under way:

I read that one. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts when you're finished.

[Joe_Campbell]

Also, just picked up Everything is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer and the complete Dexter (in a similar vein to American Psycho, though probably not as sadistic, if the tv show is any indication) series, although those three are for a friend. I might end up reading them before they're gifted anyways!

[Bogey]

I read that one. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts when you're finished.

A group of us are reading it at the same time JC.  If you remember at the start of the book he interviewed Dr. Craig Blomberg.  Someone in our group actually knows Blomberg and he agreed to come and discuss the book with us in Feb.  Only 50 or so pages in.  Will let you know after I finish up.

[Bunny]

But Bunny, that would kill the whole point.

That point was beaten (or electrocuted or slashed) to death.

The book is continuously drenched in details: about what people around Bateman wear, what their business cards look like, gossip columns, morning TV shows, Phil Collins' latest album, exercise routines, nouvelle cuisines on the edge of absurdity, etc. things that Bateman cares about and on the other side, senseless, brutal violence -things that to him come very naturally. Bateman, in that sense, is the exaggerated epitome of the times (and places) he lives in. One particular scene that emphasizes this point is when he says he is "just trying to fit in."
which does not necessarily mean the ones who did like the book have. It all depends on what purpose violence is there to serve. I don't think you've seen the movie version  but the violence in the film was mostly used to comedic effect which was unfortunate.

Edith Wharton's Age of Innocence, for example, is all about sex; and filled with meticulously recorded details of life lived with extravagance.  The sex survived very well without even one sex scene (explicit or otherwise).  It's all about great writing skills -- some have them, and those lacking need explicit sex and violence to sell their books.

[rockerreds]

Philip K. Dick-Now Wait For Last Year

[val]

G.K. CHESTERTON:   Orthodoxy


An apology of Christianism. But above all the unique style of Chesterton. A delightful book even if, like me, we disagree with all its conclusions.

[Herman]

I think Brett Easton Ellis is a very sick individual. 

The two times I met him he seemed a very sweet and gentle person. True, he's got a macabre sense of humor, but you're like the guy who angrily waits at the stage door for the actor who played the villain.

Somebody had to write American Psycho, after all, and looking at cases like the Madoff scandal I think the culture needs a sequel.

[Renfield]

Somebody had to write American Psycho, after all

Indeed, I agree. But it's not necessarily outdated (alas). At least from my point of view, that of someone who wasn't old enough in the 80's to have any sort of proper direct awareness of them, American Psycho resonates with more than just that culture.

And it is extreme; as, in my opinion, it should be to make the point it's making, rather than a similar-but-not-equivalent one.

[Dr. Dread]

I'm reading a Phil Spector bio. Forget the title.

[mozartsneighbor]