AMERICAN PSYCHO

????

ooooh, i'm stupid and ignorant. i get it now

[Edited on Nov 12, 2004 by courtland_17]

Hahahaa

No, you still don't.

See, your stupidity and ignorance are irrelevant. What your profile clarified for me, and to which I referred, was why you act like anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid and ignorant, and "not get it."

sorry guys, but BEE is the shit. although American Psycho is not his best book by far. i much prefer Less Than Zero.

Technically, he wasn't a lawyer. He went to business school, and the only reason he got a job at Pierce and Pierce law firm was because his grandpa was on the board of trustees.

so i didn't agree with estrada or rickets, or even ada initially? apparently they're all stupid and ignorant, "in my opinion"


do you feel attacked by me individualy or something? get over it, sally.

[Edited on Nov 12, 2004 by courtland_17]

Very clever.


I was, however, referring to your arrogant statements that anyone whose interpretation might include the idea that the murders were figments of Bateman's psychotic imagination "doesn't understand" or "doesn't get it."

These are direct quotations from your posts.

I, personally, think both viewpoints are plausible, and am not arrogant enough to assert that I know beyond doubt which one is "correct." I think the fact that it is open to interpretation speaks to the power of the work. And I think you calling me "sally" speaks to your intellectual vacuity and inability to formulate a cogent argument.

I think it was all in his head. All Americans are psychos. Events like that play out in people's heads all the time. Right? Right?

On a side note, does anyone know what print that is Patrick has on his living room wall? I recall it's a black and white of a man jumping and with an umbrella in his hand. I could just be making up the umbrella part, though (I tend to do this often). This is one of the very few things I've never been able to google.

ha ha ha ha ha ha hA HA HA HA.

Ah, yes. I see I was mistaken. Way to prove me wrong.

note to self, i must utilize prodigious words, were I to insinuate my endemic intelligence.

It would also help to use them correctly.

wax on




wax off

for what it's worth -- after reading the book a few years back i too came to the conclusion alot of it was in his head.

loved 'glamorama' too. can't wait for his next novel, lunar park, due out next year.

I think the ambiguity between facts as presented in the story and possibility of them being imagined is what gives the story its third dimension. In the book you don't even need any of the violence to understand Ellis's social commentary. For that all you need to read are the long drawn out and obviously overdone descriptions of what a given person was wearing and yet those same characters can't describe what the same person actually looks like.

And in regard to the ambiguity of whether or not he's actually committing these acts, something an instructor I had in college said makes a lot more sense in that context:

"What's the difference between a cereal killer and a high power Wallstreet broker? Not fucking much."





edited for clarity

[Edited on Nov 13, 2004 by billybillybilly]