American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis

This week we had to read American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis. A book about a crazy 1980's style sycophantic yuppie who may or may not have killed a bunch of people. The thing about this book is it's ambiguous enough and leaves room for some pretty heavy interpretation. After dragging you through some pretty depraved stuff, it then drops the hint that none of it may have happened at all. Either way this is a book about a bat-shit crazy (possibly homicidal), money and label-obsessed quintessential 80's jerk.

I'm going to start this post of by saying something that probably will not be popular...in my program or out of it. I prefer the movie. While it's equally fractured, and believe me, the narrative in this book is fractured as hell, the film is easier to follow than the book. I get why it was written the way it was. It's written in first person. and the narrator is a highly unreliable one, who is deeply disturbed (at best. I think he's probably in the deep end of schizophrenic, but that's just my humble Psychology degree having background talking.). And I understand why it was written this way. I had to be...but reading it was a chore. The film is a ton easier to track. Visually this stuff makes sense in print it's a giant pain in the ass to try and sort out. I just prefer the movie. While it's still convoluted, I think that this story is easier to pull off in film. It also helps that Christian Bale sort of has the look that may as well have 'serial killer tattooed' on his forehead. He's probably a lovely man in real life...I mean he's British so he probably is lovely in real life. . .but it is what is. He fit the role and did a good job. Plus he was easier to follow than the prose in this book for me.

I feel like this book was way longer than it needed to be. My copy was 436 pages....and half of it could have easily been cut without hurting the story. There were so many needless chapters,  one on Genesis, one on Whitney Houston, and one on Hewie Lewis and the News. . .Really?  Then there is the incessant obsession off every teeny tiny detail, and of every single action that gets old fast. It actually reminded me of when I was an aide working in the school system. The teacher told the first graders to "write every teeny tiny bit (when writing a story)." And for first graders that's a great plan. For adult genre fiction. . .That's a great way to bore your reader and lose their interest. Leave some of it to their imagination. I mean, if I had turned in chapters like those I mentioned above for my WIP I would have been told (even though my mentor is the shit) to drop them, cut them clean out because they have no purpose. And I'm not sure why they were included. They just dragged for me.

This scene works in the film because it's layered over action. It's not layered over action in the book. (Also, that moment when the last real Batman killed the next Joker. . . perfection. XD)

. . .and the Phil Collins scene. Again it's the action that makes it work here where it didn't in the book. 

Also, it's worth mentioning that story itself doesn't really even pick up until page 140. . .That's a problem. In fiction, we are told start as close to the story as possible. And this book does not by any means do that. I had a damn hard time getting into this book because it took 140 pages to really get going. That's not ideal for fiction. Most readers won't wait that long.

I think you could also very easily cut all the lists of what everyone is wearing, as well as the obsession with labels and designers in this book. I get why it was done...I mean it's first person so if the character is obsessed with it, it's an easy way to show it. . . It just strikes me as over used. I went into skim mode whenever a new character entered the room becuase I knew we were going to be told, in nauseating detail, every fiber and nuance of thier dress and where they bought it. . . As if the narrator could even know that unless he's stalking them as they shop. And I honestly just didn't care enough to want to read so much over description.

There was also several times when I got the distinct impression it wanted to be a screenplay and not a book.  It used a lot of script/screenplay words that just don't work well in genre fiction. I mean we get "panning down the sidewalk, " (Ellis, 10), "A slow dissolve," (Ellis, 12), and "dissolve into my living room," (Ellis, 27), among many others and I'm wondering why those choices were made. It's not the way typical genre fiction is written. Those are screenplay words, and to be honest, it made it kind of strange and unpleasant to read. Not because of the subject matter but because of how it's structured. 

I think it's also worth talking about how the sex scenes seemed like they were ripped straight from porn. It felt like a novelization of a porn. I don't have a problem with sex in books (I read anything. From "they kissed and woke in bed the next morning" to hardcore every detail sort of stuff. The sex stuff doesn't bother me)...It was just in the way these were written that rang as forced and fake. They were also just seemed really unnecessary in my opinion. They were forced filler. And nobody wants that.

I actually rather enjoyed the gory bits. I do love a good decapitation in a horror novel (I need therapy. Yes, I'm aware). I like the descriptions that were used. The eyes dribbling out like bloody yokes was a great visual image. . .well it was if you don't have an eye thing (but if you know someone who does have them read it and watch them squirm). But honestly it didn't stand out as special or unique in the way it was presented. Even the rat scene I've read a better variation of. To be honest there's a scene in Kiss the Girls by James Patterson that involves a snake (same premise) that in my opinion is written much better (and I'm not a big James Patterson fan, but I still recommend that book). It just didn't feel new or fresh in how it was presented. That said I still enjoyed the gore for the sake of gore factor. Because my black little heart skips a beat every time someone gets soundly thrashed. What can I say I'm a gore aficionado.

Over all I didn't hate it. . .but I didn't love it. The book was hard to get through because of its fractured to hell narrative and honestly it's faster to just watch the movie. . . And easier to understand/follow. I get why it was done the way it was. It was a style choice the the writer made. And it serves the character. . . It's just a pain in the ass to read. And I don't like it. Good idea, good character. . .but it just felt to fractured for the written word and better served as a film.

Save the time. Watch the movie. 

Works Cited

American Psycho. Dir. Mary Harron. Perf. Christian Bale. 2000. DVD.

Ellis, Bret Easton. American Psycho. New York: Random House LLC, 2010. eBook.

Psycho by Robert Bloch

     

     This week we read Psycho by Robert Bloch. I'm not going to lie my first experience with Psycho was the 1960 movie of the same name. I happen to really love the film, it's sequels (II, III, & IV the last one being my favorite), and even the tv show inspired by it (Bates Motel)...the remake...not so much. But today I want to talk about the movie. But I can't say some comparisons from the book to the film will be forthcoming. That said going into this I pretty much knew what I was getting into. So there were no real surprises.

The infamous shower scene.

     I guess the best place to start for me is how different it was from the film in one key way. And that difference is all in the description. For example how they describe Norman Bates. The author uses terms like ample, plump-faced (Bloch, 4) fat man (Bloch, 19), and multiple other ways to describe how portly Norman is. It stuck me as weird. But mostly because I was more familiar with Anthony Perkins as Norman...and he's closer to willowy than portly.

     Another thing that struck me was how well written it was. For example, the voice totally shifts and sounds completely different when it goes from Norman's POV to someone else's. My favorite shift is to the Private Investigator Arbogast. The way he's written reminds me so much of the typical cops in the films that came out of 1940's. The best example I can think of is the film Double Indemnity. There's also a pretty funny Famil Guy cutaway that pokes fun at this type of character. And the whole time I read anything about or from the POV of Arbogast I was there and I could see that type of character. It was pretty brilliantly done. He was distinct and different fully developed, and his own character. Norman was well written too. I just only wanted to mention Arbogast because it stood out so much to me.

Fast Talking High Trousers from Family Guy. 

     There were a few issues that I had with this book. And honestly it's nitpicky stuff, I'm not going to really touch on word doubles and use of the so-called "forbidden words" because they were aplenty in this text. I only bring it up because as a writing student I'm told to look for them. But as a person and an avid reader...I just can't be moved to care about such trivialities. they weren't enough to make me not like the book. And they surely were not enough to even bother with in my opinion.

     The things that I noticed as possibly problematic were lines that could have been better written. The main line I'm talking about is this one: "...all of us go a little crazy at times," (Bloch, 24). In the film it was handled much better with better effect: "We all go a little mad sometimes," (Hitchcock). For me I just think it's less wordy and more...I don't creepy, and ominous in the film. It kept the idea and lost the odd phrasing. Which goes to show how important.

     There was also the issue of how dated it feels...and I'm not just talking about Norman's house. I realize that his house was supposed to be time warped. And I dug that. I'm talking about the prices of things. Let's take the motel room prices, Seven dollars for a single and twelve for a double. Do I even have to say how old it makes this book sound for me? the last time I looked at cheap motel/hotel rooms they were about forty bucks a night...and that was for a real craphole. It would have been better if that bit had been left out and wouldn't have as obviously that it was that old.

     Those few flaws picked out. And there really were just a few and I really had to stretch to find something, anything that I didn't like about the book. Becuase I really enjoyed this book. I read it all in one sitting over three hours. I tore through it not wanting to put it down. I found it to have a great voice, flow, and character development. I really enjoyed this book as much if not more than the film.

Works Cited 

Bloch, Robert. Psycho. New York: The Overlook Press, 2010. eBook.

Psycho. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. Anthony Perkins. 1960. DVD.