Comedy requires some simplification, but to be honest with you, although the characters are caricatures, how far from the truth are they really? There is quite enough reality in their doings and obsessions to make them still believable. In fact, considering that the book was penned in the late 80s, it is incredible how relevant it still is. It could just as easily have been written last year. Moronic bankers with obscene bonuses are even more prevalent today; there is the same obsession with materialism, power and prestige and the cult of the self.

I find it ironic that you should choose to quote an author lambasting a dark and nihilistic world view, when that same author committed suicide due to chronic depression. Whereas BEE seems to be a fairly cheerful soul who doesn’t take himself too seriously. I’m not familar with David Foster Wallace’s work. Is it entertaining? In am also wary of authors’ views on other authors. The literary world is awash with feuds and jealousies.

I decided in the end not to post a review of the book on my blog, as it seems to be covering very old ground. I read a lot of reviews and looked at BEE video interviews. I came to the conclusion that some people wouldn’t know satire if it hit them in the face. I do think he overdid the violence aspect, but I don’t think this makes it a bad book and I think that the writing is excellent. This is not Dan Brown.

I have only seen excerpts from the film, but it would appear that the tone of the book is faithfully rendered. Perhaps those who criticise the latter just needed it spelt out for them.

“You’re just displaying the sort of cynicism that lets readers be manipulated by bad writing. I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporary condition is hopelessly shitty, insipid, materialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic, and stupid, then I (or any writer) can get away with slapping together stories with characters who are stupid, vapid, emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no development. With descriptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where stupid people say insipid stuff to each other. If what’s always distinguished bad writing—flat characters, a narrative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also a description of today’s world, then bad writing becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can write a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentary on the badness of everything. Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how dark and stupid everything is? In dark times, the definition of good art would seem to be art that locates and applies CPR to those elements of what’s human and magical that still live and glow despite the times’ darkness. Really good fiction could have as dark a worldview as it wished, but it’d find a way both to depict this world and to illuminate the possibilities for being alive and human in it. You can defend “Psycho” as being a sort of performative digest of late-eighties social problems, but it’s no more than that.”

I am enjoying it hugely, even if the violence is somewhat stomach churning. But this is a book that is about a lot more than violence. The violence in Stephen King’s novels is pretty graphic, from the very few I have read. But then King is all about frightening you. Ellis has a lot more to say – so why should he be lambasted for his gory descriptions? The book is more about a culture or a strata of society than it is about murder. In fact, murder just appears to be the ultimate manifestation of Patrick Bateman’s dysfunctional personality.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, naturally. But just saying that you don’t like it because it is hateful is not a very trenchant piece of criticism. Your PS is quite enlightening: ” The movie of American Psycho is actually quite good, but it is satirical and has some funny moments.” Er, the novel is already satirical and is stuffed with funny moments. Why is this so hard to see?

I do think, however, that Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner’s adaptation hit the nail on the head; I’m not usually a fan of adaptations, but the underlying message carried through so clearly without the explicit content and Bale’s turn as Patrick Bateman was excellent.

Oh, and it’s nice to see some more Hunter S. Thompson fans around. (: