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.