Bret Easton Ellis lays the groundwork for the discussions of "surface aesthetics" in literature: Contrary to the reigning attitude of the dominant litBret Easton Ellis lays the groundwork for the discussions of "surface aesthetics" in literature: Contrary to the reigning attitude of the dominant literary elite in the 60's and 70's, he relentlessly focuses on surfaces, insisting that they are, in fact, deep. Everybody in his debut novel is blond, tan, rich, and on drugs, even male prostitutes drive Ferraris. The soma (hello, Brave New World) that 18-year-old protagonist / narrator Clay and his, ähem, "friends" use has different forms, but much like in Huxley's novel, it's mainly there to numb the senses to the real world where violence has become the new sex.
Clay has returned to L.A. for his winter break from college in New Hampshire. It's the mid-80's, Clay tries to re-connect with the people he knows, tumbles from party to party and searches for his old friend Julian, whom he finds after some one-night stands with men and women and doing lots, and I mean LOTS of cocaine - only to join Julian in a quest to see the worst of the worst. The title of the novel is taken from an Elvis Costello song of the same name, Clay has a poster of the singer on his bedroom wall (as does a character named Bret Easton Ellis in The Shards).
The most prominent feature of Clay is his apathy: When he sees things that he identifies as morally wrong, he either stands by or leaves, he never acts. His life is a repetition of expensive nothingness, which is mirrored in the language, most prominently in the famous sentences of "disappear here", "is he for sale" and "people are afrid to merge" that are repeated again and again throughout the book. The cold, detached language develops a strong pull, mainly because there is almost no emotional judgement, as Clay explicitly declares that he avoids caring about anything to shelter himself. And while the whole thing reads like an over-the-top, cheeky satire to me, it's apparently rooted in Ellis' own experiences, a statement corroborated by some other people who have lived through it.
It's pretty fascinating that this novel inspired a whole genre in German-language writing, pop literature: The book and Ellis feature prominently in Stuckrad-Barre's memoir Panikherz, Kracht's first award-winning reportage was titled after it and his debut novel Faserland inspired by it, and the art project Tristesse Royale. Das popkulturelle Quintett pushed Ellis' recipe for triggering morally upright citizens to its limits.
Is there a moral core in all of this? Ellis and pop literature writers refrain from answering this question unambiguously and direct it back to the audience. This is a postmodern playground that remixes music, culture, and sociology. People who want their writing to send a clear message that is easy to stomach and agree with will hate this. But it's not like Ellis wants these readers, they can disappear elsewhere....more
Brands, bands, bloody demands - welcome to "American Psycho"! You can say a lot of things about this novel, but subtle it is not: It's an over the topBrands, bands, bloody demands - welcome to "American Psycho"! You can say a lot of things about this novel, but subtle it is not: It's an over the top satire on Wall Street capitalism, and it contains extreme violence that is somehow hilarious (yes, I said that). The plot: Our unreliable narrator, young broker Patrick Bateman, enjoys flexing his wealth and his status, pop culture, and killing people - or doesn't he? This thing is a wild romp written by a guy who enjoys expensive items, surface aesthetics, and pop culture, while also seeing potential dangers for society - but a serious critique of capitalism this is not, and it does not intend to be. Easton Ellis' main provocation is that he indulges in ambiguity, that he refuses to take a clear moral stance, and that he demands from his readers to deal with it (case in point: White). And doesn't he have a point, that our lives are contradictions, and that these contradictions tend to drive us mad?
I had a blast reading this insane, surreal, relentless novel, that can probably best be compared with Fight Club: Both play with the growing divide between outside reality and psychological inner worlds, both put their fingers in wounds and draw problematic conclusions. It's punk. And I can't help but marvel at how deeply the protagonists of these books are ingrained in the collective cultural psyche: Everyone knows wealthy Bateman and his hobby (serial killing) as well the first rule of fight club. "American Psycho" also had a huge impact when it comes to questions of popmodern surface aesthetics - which aren't as superficial as you might expect. The attitude that these appearances consist of signs that send signals, as afficionados of semiotics would put it, that presentation and habitus are real, has been perceived as a provocation in some leftists circles (not that they don't have their own codes, mind you). In Germany, Ellis has played a monumental role in the creation of a whole genre: Pop literature. The word "Eurotrash" is mentioned six times in "American Psycho" (hello, Eurotrash - its author Christian Kracht has written a review and a parody on "American Psycho" when he started his career, and his first prize winning text about homelessness was entitled "Less Than Zero" after Ellis' novel from 1985).
Like it or not, this novel is a staple in the postmodern literary canon - while its author won't win a Noble Prize (and to be clear: he schouldn't), he clearly made a bigger impact than some authors who did. And regarding the criticism that the novel is misogynistic: The protagonist is misogynistic, but he's also a serial killer and more of a stock character, a foil of a soulless capitalist. It would be a very hard case to make that this means that the novel promotes hate against women. Does it also promote cocaine and toture after this logic? And was 80's Wall Street a place that promoted feminist empowerment and should be portrayed as such?
Loading...
