American Psycho

[The Risen Ghost of Hitler]

I'm sure this book has been discussed before, but I just finished it and I'm interested on your opinions on what's actually going on in Patrick Bateman's world. Was he really a depraved blood crazed prostitute killer, or just very bored and angry and liked to pass his time in a fantasy world?

[Cytosine]

*shrugs* Does it matter? The book's not about a murderer so much as it's about the 80's and corporate yuppies.

[Blunderfail]

Fuck. Sick of this question being asked.

YES it all really happened - Except for the final scene when he was obviously hallucainating (The ATM saying "feed me a cat"). It was a comment on how in the 80s, nobody paid attention to anyone else, and they only cared about themselves. That's why nobody noticed the murders, etc. The end. Fuck.

[Paragon]

The story worked until the ending. Bret Ellis got overly ambitious and totally lost track of the points his book was making. There's no sense in having Bateman hallucinate if you want to show that a man with his position in society can get away with anything, no matter how bad he is at covering up his crimes (that's kind of the theme of 90% of the story). It's as if Ellis had two completely separate ideas on what his serial killer novel was supposed to be about, and he just couldn't choose. If the story would have ended with the detective "figuring out" that Bateman was innocent of Paul Owen's (Paul Allen, in the movie) murder. All that shit about the park bench stalking him and all ultimately just derailed from what would have been an otherwise solid theme.

[Dog]

Well, it's definitely ambiguous, no matter how you cut it. I think the book suggests that it's real, but that his world and the people in it are so shallow that no one even cares.

The movie seemed to lean toward the idea that it was all in his head, and that he was so bored and disgusted with everything around him that he spent most of his time imagining killing people.

There's evidence for both interpretations, and as someone above pointed out, it doesn't really matter since that's not the point of the book. In fact, the point of the book (society's shallowness) comes across in both interpretations of the ending, so it doesn't matter.

[Toothlessjoe]

The book is deliberately left open to create uncertainty in the reader as to what is real and what isn't. If there was a clear cut ending it'd weaken the books point about modern society being selfish, uninterested and shallow.

Part of the reason why mistaken identity is such a strong theme throughout the book.

[Erorr]

ITT: People that know alot about the psyche of a murderer

[Dog]

The story worked until the ending. Bret Ellis got overly ambitious and totally lost track of the points his book was making. There's no sense in having Bateman hallucinate if you want to show that a man with his position in society can get away with anything, no matter how bad he is at covering up his crimes (that's kind of the theme of 90% of the story). It's as if Ellis had two completely separate ideas on what his serial killer novel was supposed to be about, and he just couldn't choose. If the story would have ended with the detective "figuring out" that Bateman was innocent of Paul Owen's (Paul Allen, in the movie) murder. All that shit about the park bench stalking him and all ultimately just derailed from what would have been an otherwise solid theme.

I don't think that's the right point. The book was about how shallow and self-absorbed society was during that era, such that it could drive someone insane, and that people might not even notice something going on right in front of them. It wasn't meant to be taken literally, in the sense that a serial killer like Bateman would literally go unnoticed.

The ending works in two ways, as I mentioned above. If you think he was really killing people, then everyone's non-reaction highlights just how self-absorbed people were. If he wasn't really killing people, it highlights just how crazy he had gone, perhaps as a result of how shallow and self-absorbed those around him were.

In any case, I'm 100% certain that the book isn't meant to be taken only in the literal sense that you took it. It's a bit deeper...

[The Risen Ghost of Hitler]

Fuck. Sick of this question being asked.

YES it all really happened - Except for the final scene when he was obviously hallucinating (The ATM saying "feed me a cat"). It was a comment on how in the 80s, nobody paid attention to anyone else, and they only cared about themselves. That's why nobody noticed the murders, etc. The end. Fuck.

I'm just asking for peoples opinions, I know there's no definitive answer. Judging by your answer my guess is you haven't actually read the book, just seen the film.

Any way, I loved this book. I found myself going a little bit Patrick Bateman while reading it. :)

[Blunderfail]

I'm just asking for peoples opinions, I know there's no definitive answer. Judging by your answer my guess is you haven't actually read the book, just seen the film.

Any way, I loved this book. I found myself going a little bit Patrick Bateman while reading it. :)

Fuck, you're right, I haven't okay? Whatever... But that was the answer to the movie. Oh, but the book isn't "open ended". Fuck you, toothlessjoe. TSoJ, don't listen to that cunt, okay? There's websites out there that give you the real answer... Trust me. Google it. Goddamnit, I hate toothlessjoe so much... :facepalm: Sorry for going off topic, but his reply to this thread pissed me off so much.

[Sookie]

I used to be obsessed with this book... I read it when I was quite young and at that time, I didn't even realize it was supposed to be satirical and just took it word for word. Then, over the years, I realized how ridiculous and over the top it is... I know it's open to interpretation, but I honestly believe all the murders were fake. Patrick Bateman is obviously very fucked in the head, insecure as hell, and everyone thinks he's a loser (I remember either in the book or in the movie, or both, that some other people were talking about him and how much he sucked). He lives in a retarded, deluded, shallow world, and he can't make any sense of it, besides that he has "urges" and "needs" but rarely are either fulfilled (sex, destruction, power, pain), so he just lives in his head, while doing normal day-to-day activities. In the end, the main theme of the novel is self-absorption, whether in yourself or in your fantasies.

I do agree with VladieShark that Ellis kind of seemed to lose steam by the end of the book, as far as what he intended the message to be (thriller or just plain fiction), so he ended up doing the nice little "I'll leave it up to my readers" trick.

EDIT:
Anyone gonna call me out on my horrific run-on sentences? :facepalm:

[Erorr]

I used to be obsessed with this book... I read it when I was quite young and at that time, I didn't even realize it was supposed to be satirical and just took it word for word. Then, over the years, I realized how ridiculous and over the top it is... I know it's open to interpretation, but I honestly believe all the murders were fake. Patrick Bateman is obviously very fucked in the head, insecure as hell, and everyone thinks he's a loser (I remember either in the book or in the movie, or both, that some other people were talking about him and how much he sucked). He lives in a retarded, deluded, shallow world, and he can't make any sense of it, besides that he has "urges" and "needs" but rarely are either fulfilled (sex, destruction, power, pain), so he just lives in his head, while doing normal day-to-day activities. In the end, the main theme of the novel is self-absorption, whether in yourself or in your fantasies.

I do agree with VladieShark that Ellis kind of seemed to lose steam by the end of the book, as far as what he intended the message to be (thriller or just plain fiction), so he ended up doing the nice little "I'll leave it up to my readers" trick.

EDIT:
Anyone gonna call me out on my horrific run-on sentences? :facepalm:

JESUS CHRIST MAN! talk about a run on sentence!