American Psycho

Rating:
Summary: .
Review: This book is really disgusting - I liked it very much

Rating:
Summary: A Climax that Drops you off a cliff.
Review: The book begins and continues to grip the readers imagination of what could really be walking around the streets of New York. Ellis gives vivid imagery of what is going through the killers mind. Yet at times the book can drag as he thoroughly goes through his appearance. The random chapters of Milli Vanilli, and Genesis, are a good addition to relax the reader while preparing him/her for the next brutal attack. The biggest flaw to this book would be it's ending, well actually it has no ending it just drops from the earth as no completion. That kills the reader's momentum, and makes you glad you can close the cover for good. Rating of 7 b/c of the messyness of the novel

Rating:
Summary: A gory, fantastic trip into the mind of a serial killer...
Review: This is a book to read over and over. A fabulous piece of work by Bret Easton Ellis that I can't help but read more than once. A trip into the mind os a serial killer who in the end never gets caught. A fabulous, yet shocking novel that questions our own society and our limits to what we can put up with... and what we believe in.

Rating:
Summary: The Giorgio Armani of Gore novels
Review: Since his debut with Less than Zero in 1985, Bret Easton Ellis has been America's literary authority on the lives of the infinitely wealthy. His novels are moralizing satires mixed with a great deal of autobiography. His landscape is populated by fashion aficionados that are bookish enough to read the pages of GQ, but show little recognition of the works of Tolstoy. These characters are frequently bisexual, which may or may not be due to the fact that Ellis is bisexual himself. Violence is common to the lives of these fine young gentlemen and beauty queens, and so are cocaine and valium. His prose often drifts into erotica at some points; the New Yorker herald's him as "Jackie Collins plus literary devices." Ellis' third novel, American Psycho, has received both critical attention and vehement attacks. The attacks arise from the violent treatment and murderous behavior that Patrick Batemen, the main character of the novel, exhibits in his interaction with women. Defenders of the novel point out that more men in the novel are killed than women. Besides being misogynistic, and I'm not denying that Patrick Bateman is, he's homophobic, racist, self-righteous, and firmly believes in the division of social classes. In other words, he's the living embodiment of that palidrome that the poet Amiri Baraka observed in the word Love, Evol, or evil to use the correct spelling. In satire, I believe, realism is sacrificed for cariacture. Being a conservative myself, and I'm rather embarrassed to be one, because liberalism is the dominating force in literature, I find that Ellis has formed a stereotype that emerges more out of liberal propaganda than actual reality. Pat Bateman is more of an hallucination than human. Even the name suggests a stereotype when it brings to mind a certain hitchcock psychopath of a similar name. Bateman doesn't seem to harbor any motivation for his killings; it seems that his bizarre executions are for no discernible reason. It has been suggested that Bateman secretly abhors the world he lives in; so his response is to destroy anything of aesthetic value. Evidence to support this theory is not only in his violent actions, but the fact that he has a painting hanging upside down in his apartment (could this have something to do with the death of ST. Peter.....uh...nevermind). Bateman clearly has no sense of aesthetics, or if he does, which is more likely, he did that on purpose to deface and confuse the meaning of the painting. In Bateman's review of the pop group Genesis, he complains that under Peter Gabriel's influence, they were too artsy. Bateman is true to himself, only in these passages where he contemplates popular music, because that world is not of the glamourous landscape that he is trying to get out of. Other critics may disagree with me that popular music is not glamourous, but to me, it's not of the same aesthetic quality as fashion. Apparently Ellis thinks so too, since there is never a scene in the entire novel that Bateman feels like bashing in his stereo. It has always been unclear to me, exactly what Ellis as a novelist actually thinks. On a recent interview with Vanity Fair magazine, he declined to tell what his sexual preference was. With respect to his privacy, this is typical of Ellis. He's a master of moral ambiguity. Other critics may understand his views, like for instance, he comes off as a liberal in various ways, but he doesn't in others. Bateman explains his political views at a dinner party at his girlfriend's house which amounts to a fusion of the platforms of both parties. While most americans don't necessarily agree with all the opinions of their political party, their opinions were more defined that Bateman's. A central problem that lies in Ellis' work is that he needs to believe in something clearly defined in order to be a satirist. An arguement could be made that nothing is clearly defined; this is exactly why I think satire is a limited genre to work in. With his autobiographical tendencies, Ellis compromises satire too. Social realism cannot be blended with satire because it confuses the reader. It just doesn't make sense. I mean, is Ellis criticizing bisexuality as immoral or is he just reporting what he's seen? That's unclear. I might not be the ideal reader that he wants to have, but it seems to me that an author can't make a satirical character autobiographical because it muddles the purpose of it condemning the evils of society. Professors of literature and highly acclaimed writers say Ellis is a satirist, but it is in social realism that Ellis' talent really lies. In that same article in Vanity Fair, Ellis admits to a friendship with Joan Didion. Her influence upon his work is easily recognizable. Didion, who is from the literary school of New Journalists (Along with Tom Wolfe, who I despise, not on the basis of his intelluectual ideas, but his subject matter, which is not a very good reason at all to dislike an author) that believed journalism would take the place of novels. A certain aspect of this, which Ellis follows, is that he inserts real magazines (GQ and People) and real people such as Tom Cruise in American Psycho into his novels. James Fenimore Cooper got in trouble when he inserted George Washington into one of his novels, and I would say that I cringed when Tom Cruise's name appeared on the page. I got used to the fact that the magazines and reviews of contemporary musicians, but beyond that, I thought Ellis went too far. Certain fiction like that, and the new journalist's nonfiction novel, I fear, are going to ever be lost to posterity, because the names of the celebrities will go unrecognized in the future. But an arguement could be that Tom Cruise was important to understanding the times. Ellis is trying to cram new journalism, social realism, and satire into his work. It doesn't work. Ellis succeeds in the comic vein though. His portrayal of businessmen as heartless boring individuals would make Charles Adams (the brother of Henry) laugh. His prose ignites a manic blur of events, with lively conversation even though his characters, frankly have nothing to talk about(But find no fault with him because businessmen wouldn't). Prose like that, even though I'm in the minority, and I sincerely believe this, is as refreshing as the Evian water the characters consume. Bateman's often excuse for anything is "I have to return some video tapes" and that cracked me up through the whole book. The dirty yarns Bateman's friends spin, one in particular about a Vassar girl (you'll have to read the book to find out what is is; ladies beware) are reminiscent of what my dad tells me of Henry Miller. These guys are morally decadent, that is obvious, but while Ellis achieves cringing which he did with me, especially in the scenes with homeless people, he also makes me chuckle. In other words, I could see Quentin Tarantino making a film out of this. The violent scences in this book are nothing short of creative; picture torturing somebody with a rusted butterknife. Ouch. One scene with lighter fluid and cheese was truely inspired. But I read EC comics along with more literary pursuits so I'm used to this sort of thing. There's no doubt in my mind that Ellis created the Giorgio Armani of gore novels. Ellis is a good writer, he has talent, but he just burst on to the literary scene when he was 20, so he didn't really have time to perfect his craft. He is an engaging read, but he well, has a central problem making characters that I care about, and mixes two different kinds of writing that I can't see merging. There is really no plot to the book, but I can deal with that, because Faulkner was plotless, John Hawkes is plotless, and their both good novelists, so I don't really care. If I didn't think Ellis was important, I wouldn't have written about him, but I give him the perfect ten because even though the novel's flawed, it's dang more exciting than anything I've read in a long time.

Rating:
Summary: You have to read this book!
Review: Disturbing, yet highly seductive! Destined to be a modern day classic, Ellis' insights into the mind of a preppie serial killer leave you horrified, but keep you wanting more. Set in New York City in the decadent '80s, American Psycho captures the greed, egotism and apathy of the Reagan Era. Be forewarned though, this book is not for the weak at heart

Rating:
Summary: Horrific masterpiece
Review: The only book I've ever read that contained passages I could hardly bear to complete! Intelligent, gripping, and very funny, believe it or not. Why not a 10? A. Ending is somewhat unsatisfactory. B. Political message does not ring true, contrary to what others think (I mean I'm materialistic, but that doesn't mean I don't respect human life).

Rating:
Summary: Garbage. Trash. Excrement.
Review: Don't be fooled by the mile-long parade of Ellis fans who think this book is some sort of brilliant satire. Maybe it is, buried beneath the mountains and mountains of filth (...)and horrifying violence. I don't give a rat's behind what Ellis's excuse was for writing this freak show, or for whatever pathetic reasons readers have for justifying this book being on their shelves. Who cares if this yuppie serial killer is supposed to be a metaphor for 80's greed? What good is a metaphor or a satire when, in order to reach it, you have to wade through a few hundred pages of things like a child getting stabbed to death at the zoo? Or call girls being tortured with jumper cables? Or a half-dozen XXX sex scenes? Ellis just wanted to publish the most shocking, offensive, reprehensible novel he possibly could, and see if he could get away with it. He did, because of the desensitized masses who gobbled it up hook, line and sinker. What's worse? Foisting this piece of rubbish onto the citizenry, or swallowing it whole and pretending it's "art"?

Rating:
Summary: A study of evil
Review: I don't think I have ever read a better character portrayal than the one presented in American Psycho. Ellis is so skilled at bringing Patrick Bateman to life that it can be disturbing to read. I wouldn't be surprised if this book has become a standard text for criminologists at FBI training centers. On one level, Bateman is the embodiment of evil, on another, he is representative of a superficial mindset that Ellis obviously knows and has studied very well. Ellis is out to have some fun by forging these two aspects together in one person, explaining homicidal rage as an extension of vanity and pathological materialism. Bateman's crowd is the smart set, not exactly hip, at the top of the social rung of Manhattan; they are young, rich and educated. The conversations Ellis records are very funny. He exaggerates manners and employs a style that approaches slapstick. The conversations are so convincing, so well wrought, that they have a life of their own, echoing those of our own world. It is a powerful satire that strikes at the very core of our being. We have all encountered these people at one time or another and have probably even acted in similar fashion ourselves. It is worth reflecting on to understand why Ellis made the choices he did in writing this book, why he chose a serial killer to analyze this pathology and why he includes several graphic passages of unimaginable cruelty. To say the book is a criticism of 80s Wall Street greed is simplistic; Wall Street is Wall Street, the same then as it is now and always has been. Ellis is making a much larger indictment of society, and the Wall Street characters are merely the most convenient targets, and perhaps the best (worst) exemplars of what he wants to illustrate. The conclusion is obvious: when man worships mammon, he loses his humanity. The extreme case is Patrick Bateman, the American Psycho, and although we may not all become serial killers, the American obsession with brands is a dehumanizing pathology. This is the reason Ellis describes in detail the attire of each character on every occasion in the book (he does this perhaps a hundred times, rattling off the designer or brand name of four or five articles of clothing), as well as going into detail about restaurant names and many, many other objects. The repetition of these pricey brand names is important so as to hammer home his point over, and over, and over. He wants our attention. It is crucial to understanding the book. Where else in the narrative is there this kind of repetition? It is in the brutal murders with the gory details. Draw your own conclusions.

Rating:
Summary: This is not art. This is a novelty. And it gets old.
Review: I watched the movie before reading the book. I liked the premise, and I had hoped the book would do a better job of executing the story. I was wrong.

On the surface, the book is an interesting, and probably necessary statement, on the yuppie culture of the 1980s. If you like reading pages-long, itemized descriptions of clothing and other material possessions, alernating with graphic violence -- fine. I'm glad that's all it takes to entertain you. By all means, buy the book.

But I for one was looking for something more relevatory about this sociopathic character, and interestingly, Ellis made that about impossible to do by telling the story in first person. There's a reason why Sir Arthur Conan Doyle didn't let Holmes tell the story -- because we wouldn't sympathize with Holmes. We'd get annoyed with him being an egomaniac. Plus, there'd be no suspense. We'd already know everything he knew -- and finding out what he knows is supposed to be the treat we get at the end of the story.

That's the problem with Bateman. He's annoyingly vapid (in the way he is telling his own story, anyway) and we always know what he's going to do. Ergo, no suspense.

What might have improved the story about 200 percent is if a slightly more sympathetic, and non-sociopathic, friend was narrating, and slowly discovering that Bateman is a sadistic psycho.

Rating:
Summary: great book
Review: just go out and buy it or check it out at the library what ever just read it