Why does he find it necessary to specify the maker of every single

>>8356416
To show bateman's absurdity

>>8356416
To show Bateman's obsessive materialism and superficiality. Just like his extensive music review paragraphs are so soulless; read between the lines and you recognise Bateman's clinical approach to fitting in and having the right opinions on popular music. I skipped large sections of the book, though. It must've driven Ellis a little mad to research and write all that filler.

>>8356416
The character is materialistic as fuck. Owning these things determines the worth of the person to him. It's why he freaks about about the guy who has a better business card.

>>8356457
How long do you think the book would be without any filler?

>>8356457

The menswear part probably took little to no research, living in NY in the 80's he probably knew that just by existing in the city.

>>8356416
They're bankers, but first and foremost, fashion victims.

>>8356457
The character is mostly based on him

>>8356416
Christian Bale is fucking perfect.

>>8356416
obsesion, dude

He was Psycho

>>8356416
You're not reading a book, you're literally peering into Bateman's mind. He wouldn't just stop doing all his autistic shit for the benefit of the reader, so you're expected to sit through him rambling about clothes and music so you can get a proper feel for his psyche, instead of it being described to you by Ellis.

>>8356934
This is actually true btw, Ellis has basically stated that he wrote American Psycho as an indictment of certain qualities that he saw in himself.

is it bad that i identify with bateman

>>8356613
It would just be a little less clear what kind of nuts he is. The transition from when things are getting really crazy ("and the sun, a planet on fire, gradually rises over Manhattan, another sunrise, and soon the night turns into day so fast it's like some kind of optical illusion...) straight into a casual, vapid review of Huey Lewis and the News, that kind of demonstrates the duality between his madness and materialism.

>>8356416
Because if you actually KNOW the precise clothes and makers and pay attention to the descriptions, they get more and more absurd: starting with verbatim quotes from GQ and HOMME, and slowly sneaking in crazy shit. My brother worked at men's clothing stores around 1990 and had a subscription to GQ, so I was able to check /knew some of them. By the end he's describing businessmen dressed as fucking peacocks with a straight face. It's like his description of the high-end trendy cuisine, which keeps dipping from accurate to silly or insane, or his music critiques, which are deadpan insanity reflecting Bateman's utter lack of taste (remember how he mentions specifically Genesis' "Silver Rainbow" )"“Silver Rainbow” is the album's most lyrical song. The words are intense, complex and gorgeous)? The lyrics to Silver Rainbow are painfully idiotic and nonsensical:
"but if you're sitting there beside her
and a bear comes in the room
and you keep on going cos you're unaware
Ooh then you know that you are there
Beyond the silver rainbow"

Ellis is funny in so many ways in that novel it's baffling how he pooched most of his others so badly.

I really enjoyed the movie. Is the book worth reading if I've already seen its film adaptation?

>>8361069
Yes. The book is a lot better at depicting Bateman's mind and is also far more violent. Also there are some great parts that didn't make the movie to keep it from being an epic.

The movie captures the aesthetic better though, as it shows everything driectly instead of you having to google how a woolen navy houndstooth dinner jacket by Ermenegildo Zegna looks paired with a yellow paisley Hermès tie.

File: bee.png (65KB, 666x431px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 666x431px

>>8356416
Based Easton Ellis?

>>8356457

yeah i skipped all the music review chapters

Haven't been on here in months, decided to stop in and see how the ol stopping grounds are and see this level of remedial understanding of entry-level teen lit. If there's any serious readers here, get out while you can and join good online spheres for literature discussion (the right circles of Goodreads I've found to be the best),

>>8361303
If they don't use the terms "Patrician" and "pleb" (because they can't spell "Plebeian," I assume) nonstop, I might be interested.

>>8361542
They don't its people who really do just dedicate themselves to reading (once again in the right circles) which I don't want to spam on here but I'm sure you can find your way if you read the right reviews on things and follow people to see what posts they're liking and commenting on