Talk:American Psycho/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Perhaps it would be interesting to include a comparison of Hannah Arendt's concept of the "banality of evil" to Bateman's homocidal approach. The sheer amount of violence, excess, cruelty, and sexual torture in American Psycho at first shocks the reader (or at least me) and then desensitizes the reader rendering Bateman's acts less horific than they actually are. Of course, the violence in American Psycho and Arendt's "banality of evil" are not completely superimposable, but it might be interesting.

• I thought this was a great quick summary and analysis of the book/characters

Why don't you complete the comparison on the article? You obviously know about it.

---

As a second footnote, I would like to thank the authors of this well-reasoned article. I found the section on hypereality very interesting. This would also explain the way that in the movie Patrick looks at his gun in amazement after two police cars explode after just a couple of bullets.

---

"It should be noted that at one point he is captured by a cab driver who recognises Bateman as the murderer of a fellow cabbie, but this character resorts to robbery as compensation only."

I don't seem to be able to find that passage anywhere in the novel. Could you give me some idea where to look for it? <KF> 14:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, it's near the end of the book. An Iranian cabdriver recognizes Bateman from a picture at the taxi depot, as the guy who killed another cabdriver. He takes Bateman's wallet and watch at gunpoint. - goatasaur 18:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

---

"Some chapters are exclusively dedicated to analyses of the careers of pop groups and singers such as Genesis, Whitney Houston, and Huey Lewis and the News.

What is often missed by reviewers and critics of the book is that while the sections on the respective groups begin accurately, they veer away to wildly innaccurate statements by the end, thus mirroring the innacurate assignations of groups with songs sprinkled liberally throughout the entire book."

Can someone provide examples of this? At the very least this is badly worded, because I have a decent knowledge about the music being discussed and the only inaccuracy I recall is near the end of the book, but it's made obvious it's deliberate... Bateman is going crazy.

But as far as the essay-type chapters on the bands mentioned, they all seem to be accurate. Am I missing something? - goatasaur 18:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Themes and Symbolism

The story is a satire of the upper class. They have a monster in their midst and they do everything they can to cover this truth, both subconciously and when it can't be helped, deliberately. Bateman is simply Ellis's tool to show the upper class's moral character to the reader; these are monstrous people, even the serial killer is surprised.

His fiance is so caught up with her own petty socialite issues that she can't hear his own admissions that he has homicidal fantasies. His friends interpret his statements as that of a harmless prankster trying to get a rise out of them. When the undeniable truth hits the real estate agent or Bateman's lawyer, they abruptly end the conversation: they are more concerned about the potential damage to their reputation or the size of their commission than they are with this homicidal maniac on hte loose.

The private investigator hired by Owens' wife picks up on Bateman's guilt almost immediately and no doubt reports it to the client. So what kind of client would, when told that Bateman probably killed their husband wouldn't call the police? Either an incredibly naive one ("That's impossible! Not Bateman!"), or an incredibly greedy one ("Oh god, think about the damage to my reputation! or the property value!") If Ownes' wife is anything like Bateman's fiance, it makes perfect sense. Isn't it telling that she hired a classy PI instead of calling the police? She wasn't looking for justice and its messy social ramifications.

On the other hand, people with much less to lose see him very clearly: the people at McDonalds note his similarity to the man in the wanted posters, the cab driver is suspicious of him, etc. His secretary is horrified by what she learns about him. I haven't read the book in awhile, but I'm sure there's more. Mbac 18:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Bateman, the serial killer you mention in your first paragraph, is surprised at anything. He recognizes that he has problems, even suggests that people like him are better off not existing, but he also will not stop of his own accord. Though he acknowledges that his behavior is a problem, we're never entirely sure which behavior is causing him trouble: the fact that he is having increasing difficulty keeping up his "boy next door" mask or the fact that he's a brutal killer, even if only in his head. Worse, if all of his murders are in his head, he may be troubled that he is going to begin acting out his fantasies. Is he troubled by the notion that he has to fight to keep those fantasies unreal? Would he rather that he live in a world where he wouldn't have to do such a thing?

And what does his secretary learn about him? Bateman is "touched by her ignorance of evil" in their last encounter. She doesn't know anything about his dark side. I just finished the book and she's smitten with him; he's somewhat satisfied by the love she attempts to offer him. Her final appearance is in the chapter called "End of the 1980s" and the two of them leave the reader with a possibly hopeful last image. Tsguitar 07:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The most plausible explanation is that the private investigator is another one of Bateman's delusions. Paul Owen is the only character "killed" in the story that the other characters know. His relocation to London allows this in Bateman's head because it causes Owen to "go missing" from his and his friends' daily lives. No one else is questioned by the detective. He meets with Bateman alone with no witnesses. He simply doesn't exist. He's another flight of fancy created in Bateman's mind to support his own delusions. The same goes for the wanted posters. No one Patrick knows notices them because they aren't there. Bateman imagines himself as a wanted killer, and imagines anonymous strangers (cab drivers, McDonald's cashiers) looking at him suspiciously. It's all imagination and delusion, just like the Cheerio, the park bench, the bone, the ATM, and of course the outrageous murders. AE Logan (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing words/paragraphs

I noticed in the book that I have read, that on pages 136 and 147 (end of chapters) that the grammar and the flow of the paragraph seems to abruptly stop. Is this a writing device that I havn't come across before? Is there any literature out there about its usefulness in conveying what was happening in this book?

• Yes, I noticed this, too. It is all part of Bret Easton Ellis's way of showing that Patrick is completly crazed that he doesn't even use punctuation correctly. For example, Bret writes, "oh my god", when it really should be "Oh, my God". Noticed the failed comma use and capitalisation. Hope this helps. PS: Please sign your comments using four tildes, ~~~~. ^KILO-_LIMA 14:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and the grammar is often colloqiual, not formal. I think it is deliberate because it seems to mirror his rhythm of thought. The change in his grammar is analogous, in my opinion, to Shakespeare switching from refined metre to continuous prose. Rintrah 09:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Book covers

Hi, Can someone please tell em what the difference from the following book covers are? Both of which are form the UK version of Amazon.

This on, which is on the American Psycho article: [1]

And this one, which I have bought: [2]

Both of which are written by the same author.

Thanks, 18:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What exactly seems to be the problem? Lots of popular books have seen more than just one edition. [2], I think, is the film tie-in. Generally, the covers are irrelevant as the text is exactly the same. <KF> 13:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The cover image in the article was mis-identified as a first edition cover. The first edition of the 1991 book was the Vintage paperback with the familiar yuppie image who's face is covered in typeface. The hardcover was cancelled by Simon and Shuster and the book was then published straight to paperback. The cover image in the article is the first hardcover edition published much later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.150.22 (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bateman's Character / Music

I removed this part of the article:

What is often missed by reviewers and critics of the book is that while the sections on the respective groups begin accurately, they veer away to wildly innaccurate statements by the end, thus mirroring the inaccurate pairings of groups with songs sprinkled liberally throughout the entire book.

I thumbed through my copy just to make sure, and the only inaccuracy I could find was near the end when Bateman is going crazy (even crazier?) and someone on the street asks him what his favorite songs are. He just rattles off two totally wrong song and artist combinations, something anyone would know isn't right. This is in contrast to the earlier chapters written by the character Bateman about Whitney Houston et al. They are cogent and accurate, and display a pretty deep musical understanding. -- goatasaur 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also thinking that the music reviews are rather ridiculous. Though they show a fine understanding of the language music reviewers use, they are all surface-level reviews despite that fact. Like much of the rest of the novel, those reviews sound like someone trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about, like someone trying to write with accepted jargon (that "nameless dread" that overcomes Bateman several times reads like a phrase lifted and used because he feels like he should use it). Would a serious music reviewer hold up Genesis's "Invisible Touch" album as highly as Bateman does? And would such a serious critic categorize Genesis's earlier work as "too artsy, too intellectual" or throw away Gabriel's solo career as Bateman does? I always thought it universally believed that Genesis with Phil Collins, "ABACAB," and their self-titled Hugh Padgham collaboration "Genesis" among these, churned out mostly vapid and shallow tunes. Genesis with Peter Gabriel worked on pushing limits and experimentation, producing much more thought-provoking music in the process. Tsguitar 06:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: In the Genesis-Chapter, Bateman says "Mike Banks and Tony Rutherford", mixing up the names of Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford. It's obviously a joke of Ellis, since most people associate Genesis only with Phil Collins and forget about the rest. I'm not familiar with Withney Houston or Huey Lewis and the News, but their might be other such "mistakes". (Henrie Schnee)

Bateman also confuses the Genesis chronology. He says that Peter Gabriel's departure was followed by the album "And Then There Were Three". Peter Gabriel had already left the band in 1975 and it was the departure of guitarist Steve Hackett two years later, after two post-Gabriel albums, that left the band as a trio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.233.95 (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I see during the Huey Lewis section is the first-person account given in that final paragraph. That style of writing about an album using personal experience to support a claim isn't seen in the other "reviews." Tsguitar 06:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone should removing the reference to Bateman's jealousy over the watermark on the business card: that's only in the movie. The book has Bateman jealous over the fact that his buddy, Tim Price, likes David Van Patten's card better than his own (since Van Patten's card is "eggshell with Romalian type"), admiring Price's card with "raised lettering, pale nimbus white," and breathless over "the classy coloring, the thickness, the lettering, the print" of Scott Montgomery's card. I don't see a single reference to a watermark in this 2-page scene. That reference comes in the movie. Tsguitar 06:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Make the passage refer to the book instead, and add a parenthetical note that the book has this scene—so random editors do not remove this because they haven't seen it in the movie.

I agree, the musical reviews are shallow, as is every acceptable thing Bateman likes. I do not know anything about Genesis, so I have no opinion on whether the reviews are accurate; it has never bothered me whether they are. But one lyric which did strike me in the beginning of the book is the Crowded House? one; it summarised the book best for me. Rintrah 10:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The book has which scene? I'm just saying that the watermark reference is only in the movie.

Which lyric are you talking about that best summarizes the book for you? "And as things fell apart / Nobody paid much attention"? Talking Heads, of course. All 3 of the opening quotations hit the mark for me, they all do a great job of setting the reader up for what this story is all about. Tsguitar 15:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of the music reviews is just to show that Bateman has shite taste in music. He is as superficial in this as he is in everything else. Really who would prefer Phil Collins' version of 'You Can't Hurry Love' to the Supremes original? SmokeyTheCat 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Huey Lewis review is also innaccurate, I think the paragrpah removed could be replaced? Edcoomber 14:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessarily important how quickly the apartment was cleaned and renovated in the scene with the real estate agent. I think she is fully aware of the apartment's history and recognized that Bateman was the killer but does not want her sale or real estate value jeopardized. It emphasizes the societal indifference, a theme that recurs throughout the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.5.201 (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it make more sense that Bateman imagined the murders and that she sees Patrick as an intruder (or a competing agent)? What kind of human being would cover up for a known killer? For that matter, how would a crime scene piled with bodies and the adherent stench get cleaned up for sale so quickly? Is every yuppie in Manhanttan in on the conspiracy to keep a serial killer at large? Clearly Patrick Bateman is an unreliable narrator and murdered no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.150.22 (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That logic doesn't really work well. "How can superman defy gravity? He's clearly not weightless, in fact he should have more mass than an average human so he shouldn't be able to fly. Clearly Clark Cent is an unreliable narrator with delusional fantasies about being a superhero." It doesn't matter if it seems odd that an innocent looking old woman would cover up a murder for money, there have been even older more innocent looking women who have murdered people for money. All the murders being fake wouldn't make very much sense either. So patrick bateman has a very vivid fantasy about killing paul owen at the same time he just happens to disappear? The reason he never gets caught has nothing to do with a conspiracy or his family paying to keep it quiet, he gets away with it because his world is narcissistic and uncaring. Nobody cares enough about the missing hookers or the dead yuppies to go hunt the killer down. The big shootout was probably all fake or at least some of it had to be but he committed most of the murders described. Otherwise the book is just a lame twist ending story. 174.42.144.242 (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you honestly comparing American Psycho to Superman? You clearly don't understand the literary device of the unreliable narrator. Superman is fantasy. The unreliable narrator exists in stories that take place in a realistic, but fictional, milieu. Lolita, The Catcher in the Rye, Fight Club... these are all examples. You can't compare them to, e.g., Lord of the Rings. It's apples and oranges. There are cases where the unreliable narrator is never revealed in a moment of epiphany or self-realization, such as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or The Catcher in the Rye. It is merely assumed by the narrator's mental state that he may not be a reliable source of accurate information. There are other cases where there is a moment of clarity in the story's conclusion, either to the audience alone or to the narrator himself, that shocks the reader back into reality and reveals the delusion that was occurring all along. This is the case in Lolita, Fight Club, and American Psycho.

So, in this case, it becomes abundantly clear that Bateman is utterly delusional. The reader can't be expected to believe that a Cheerio talks to him, that he's stalked by a park bench, or that an ATM is demanding him to feed it stray cats. Other than Owen, all of his "victims" are anonymous and unknown to his peers. His antics attract no attention from real people. Whether the scene in Owen's apartment is completely imagined (was the real estate agent even there at all?) or warped (she may have existed and asked Bateman to leave, but this is easily explained by the likelihood that he was there without an appointment and was acting creepily unstable) is ambiguous. But, the other events in the story have to lead the reader to question whether Bateman's version of it is at all accurate.

In short, unless one is willing to believe that ALL of American Psycho is accurate and takes place in the reality that exists within the story – that is, you believe that Bateman REALLY DID find a bone in his soap and that inanimate objects really do converse with him – one has to question everything that takes place in his narrative. One can't simply choose evidence à la carte and choose to believe what Bateman says in one case as being verifiable proof of something and dismiss other things as imagined. He's either sane or insane, truthful or unreliable. If he's the latter of either case, one has to take anything he might offer with a pinch of salt and can't be offered as evidence of anything.AE Logan (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I put a cleanup tag on the novel section of the page. This is because it currently reads like a eng-lit essay, the repetition of "some people think" etc. The section, in my opinion, needs to be cleaned up to a more encyclopedic style. Leithp 14:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Some people" occurs twice in the article so I guess technically it is repetition but I don't think it detracts from the quality of the article. How does this article read like an eng-lit essay, and what should be changed? -- goatasaur 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It appeared four times in the version I tagged, but as you say the article only has it twice now. My point was that things like "Bateman is simply an extreme example of Kant's dictum that the world is highly cultivated and civilized but not yet moralized ¹. Kant clearly sees that there is a dichotomy between culture and civilization on the one hand and morality on the other." (edited since) reads more like original research than an encylopedia article. In fact, much of the Themes and Symbolism section reads like original research to me. So what I'm saying, really, is I'd like all the opinions and theories expressed to be removed or sourced. Leithp 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out some of the sections I thought may be original research, if anyone would like to comment (diff). Leithp 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Section on Symbolism seems pretty problematic at the moment. The end of the second paragraph "They may be incompetent or just too busy due to the soaring crime rate in New York City." provides no depth of analysis. The need for a more contextual understanding is clear but this seems far to simple an explanation. The edit on the 13th of March (129.215.13.83) provided a deeper understanding. 23.11, 17th March 2006 (UTC)

Feminist protest of American Psycho

This article is missing a section about the feminist protests against the publishing of American Psycho, including Gloria Steinem, and the fact that 70% (according to the DVD commentary) of American book stores still self ban it. Easterlingman 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The external-link reviews are shit: two snot-wanks pretending their superiority over both the author and the literal-minded critics who never get anything. Hammers and Acid! Feminist protests should be dismissed - but only until most book-stores, libraries and publishers' marketing departments are NOT run by women.--shtove 00:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Be nice, even if it only is an external link. Why don't you add the information, Easterlingman? Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I went too far. Thanks.--shtove 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you edited Wikipedia with your real name, that little outburst would probably have got you sacked from wherever you work. Watch it. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sir. But no credit for expressing regret? I don't understand how I could be sacked. By the way - all names on WP should be just screen names, without revealing identity. Otherwise, you find strangers coming to your home pages with unwelcome, sometimes threatening, advice. With experience you'll come across some admins who have given too many personal details and suffered unpleasant consequences.--Shtove 15:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Shtove. The express purpose of wikipedia is to put together an encyclopedia, not to commune in such a way that everyone knows everyone else on a first name basis, as in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Rintrah 07:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Humour

As disturbing as it is to (re-)read, the novel is very funny - but the article doesn't reflect this.--shtove 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What parts do you find funny in it! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The entire story is hillarious once you figure out that it's not a suspense psycho thriller, but a satire. 24.90.108.178 17:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree: The book is very funny if you read it in the right mindset. There are scenes where the group of guys or some of the girls are talking but never about the same thing. There are scenes where even Bateman confuses other characters, and (its hard to tell but I think there is) a scene where Bateman and another yuppie are talking, but they've both mistaken each other for someone. And then during or after the bloody scenes, Bateman still sometimes rambles off some brand names. And you get to see Bateman conflict with other types of people of the times, such as his brother. Theres no stand out knee slappers, but the character of Pat Bateman and everything he does can turn out very funny. Mike Flynn 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As best I can remember without the book handy (I have only read it once): "I want to get high off this, not sprinkle this on my all bran"- "you could put it on your cafe au lait" - "fuck yourself!"

"No, I mean I am leaving, Bateman... Goodbye fuckheads!"

"Your girlfriend is a bitch." - "Why are you laughing? Defend her!" - "You know, he's right."... "I am leaving, Daniel" - "Good. More for moi."

"No bleachy!"

He gives an authoritive answer to someone on brand tags then says "and take those fucking antlers off your head!"

I agree that it is a powerful satire, but it is very sardonic. The opening and closing scenes are grim. I laughed hysterically while I read it, but when I put it down, I felt a powerful sense of foreboding. I don't think the author just intended the reader to laugh. Rintrah 09:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Body Hammer movie

I thought the movie he rented was "Tetsuo"/"Body Hammer" not "Body Double." Does anyone know? Mattnt 20:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's Body Double. Jwwil 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

release date

Is it known when the book was written, and when it was release? At the bottom of the article a hardcover and a paperback version from 1991 are listed. Those are the first ones? Wouldn't it be common to stated the release date within the first paragraph? JanCK 12:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible Themes

On my reading of the book, it seemed the author made Bateman's world so bland and vacuous that the murders and confessions stress the insanity of his world, in which no one seems to care about his open, psychopathic impulses. So the fantastic scenes of the book, especially, in my opinion, the protracted police chase, marry the unreality of the yuppie world of material excess to the protagonist's internal, barbarous pyschopathic world. He is desperate to be acknowledged by his friends and co-workers as a psychopath, but they only superficially register his intent on evil, because of their own empty worldview. Their obliviousness eventually drives him to desperation, in which the world seems to lose all meaning because he is unacknowledged. Only his secretary Jean sees him as misunderstood, but mistakes his feelings.

I think Ellis has deliberately made the veracity of the murders ambiguous, and allowed for both interpretations. They either occur in his head, or externally in the real world with its surreal reality.

The author's voice seems to emerge roughly in the last 100 pages, in which he decries and laments the pointlessness of the yuppy world. Jean also seems to reflect the author's opinions on the yuppy world, but makes her innocent and naive.

I should need to read the book again to assess these themes more accurately. These ideas are meant as suggestions.

Rintrah 12:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. But what reaction did you get from reading it? The first time, I had to put it down several times for ... various reasons. On rereading, it's just very funny.--Shtove 00:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was unnerved in the first 50 pages, because the people seemed so vicious, and Bateman's exhaustive cataloguing was disturbing. But, after I had crossed some threshold in the narrative, it became gripping, and I was delighted with the sardonic humour. The brutality didn't disturb me at all because it was in context with the satire. I thought the conversations so clever with their many ironies. I laughed very hard when my friend read selected passages to me — the business card comparison, the antler christmas party, the cafe au lait quip in the bathroom, Brice's comical declamation before jumping into the tunnel, etc. Though, by the end of it, I was unsettled by the disjointed monologues and the futility of his life, which is evoked as a dominant theme. Rintrah 09:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Style

I changed the style of the prose, and often syntax, substantially, to hopefully make it more direct and concise. I tried to change the content of it as little as possible. I also made a few small contributions. Rintrah 06:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

B-class

How do we upgrade this to GA? Rintrah 15:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

By improving the article so that it meets this criteria. Iolakana•T 16:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is lacking on 1 .a), b), and 2. a) (mostly because of the Themes and Symbolism section). Bateman's Victims section needs to be rendered into paragraphs. Something of Bateman's homicidal tendencies should be said in Bateman's Personality. I wrote much of the synopsis hastily, so I would appreciate someone checking that and revising or adding information where appropriate. Finally, the Themes and Symbolism section has to be written with a more logical structure, better style, more citations, and compelling arguments. Some of it can be excised. When all of that is done, will this article qualify for GA? Rintrah 18:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone write a better introduction and clean up the Themes and Symbolism section so the article can be upgraded? Rintrah 04:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Text Changes

I suggest these paragraphs be removed, changed, or compressed:

Bateman is a music fan: though he disdains rap music as too 'niggerish', he otherwise closely follows the pop and rock scene of his time. Some chapters are exclusively dedicated to analysis of the careers of pop groups and singers such as Genesis, Whitney Houston, and Huey Lewis and The News. Throughout the book, he insists his favorite band is Talking Heads, who released a song entitled "Psycho Killer" - although it is not obvious that Bateman is aware of this. - His music taste is not an important part of the plot or his character profile. I suggest this be moved to Trivia or references to popular culture.

I think the music is important. I feel that it is what seems to calm him in the film, often listening to it when times appear to be "rough" - and, as the paragraph says, entire chapters are dedicated to the music taste. Iolakana•T 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the music is important. Troubleshooter 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike many real-life serial killers, Bateman lacks a particular or consistent method. He tortures and kills his victims in a variety of often outrageous ways, using a wide variety of implements, ranging from guns and knives to power tools and live rats, among others. It is interesting to consider those whom Bateman chooses to spare when presented with the opportunity to kill. Three prominent examples are his secretary Jean, his fiancée Evelyn Richards, and a gay friend and co-worker, Luis Carruthers; perhaps he is not able to kill them because they are all in love with him — doubts are allowed, concerning his fiancée. - This seems to describe his character profile more than the plot. Either the style of language should be changed, or this paragraph should be moved to Bateman's personality.

Psychologically, most serial killers are like robots and do not change their ways. Bateman is odd this way because he does change his ways. I do agree that this is more about the character, and so should be in Patrick Bateman. Iolakana•T 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Greed, envy, and disgust, along with his murderous rage and the sadistic pleasure he takes in killing, dominate Bateman's emotions. He shows some facile sympathy in his nostalgia for sentimental love and appreciation of pop music — the latter to which the narrator devotes whole chapters. He also has a wicked sense of humour, and often feels an ironic, sometimes determined, awareness of the misery and futility of his life. - as above.

I think that there is no hope left for the paragraph, unfortunately, and so I think that it should be removed. Iolakana•T 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Bateman loathes male homosexuality, and rejects any advance (real or imagined) by 'faggots'. Luis Carruthers especially offends him, who confesses his love for him but ends up marrying a woman out of convenience and peer pressure; Luis' homosexual revelation occurs when Bateman attempts to strangle him, but loses his will when Luis gestures affection for him. In contrast to this aversion, Bateman describes his arousal at Bono during a U2 concert. On three occasions, Bateman coerces two women into having sex with each another, in two cases torturing or killing them afterwards — lesbianism appears to be one of Bateman's recurring fantasies, and on several occasions he rents 'shemale' pornography. - some of this at least should be moved to the synopsis.

Agree. Iolakana•T 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

His lifestyle and attitude to health are inconsistent: on the one hand, he is a health conscious, militant non-smoker (except for an occasional cigar), who works out, drinks diet soda, detests high sodium products, and orders decaffeinated espresso — he accidentally refers to it once as decapitated —; while, on the other hand, he excessively consumes alcohol and drugs. Other characters share his inconsistency. Bateman's vanity is paramount, and is masked as a concern for health and well-being: obesity and tobacco-stink excite his disgust, while his cocaine abuse leaves few physical tell-tale signs. He is also deeply concerned about his hair; any suggestion of imperfection causes enduring panic, until he is reassured by friends. His vanity predominates reflections on his own image, mostly concerning how good he looks, for which his clothes, skin-care products, manicures, gym work-outs, and his hair-care products are essential. Often the story's narrative focuses on Bateman's attempts to 'score' cocaine, yet he is judgmental of his brother's use of the drug, and of several other freebasers. - Either the style should be improved to make this seem less like a list of arbitrary comments, or it should be compressed.

Should be moved to Patrick Bateman. I cannot remember when he referes a decaffeinated espresso as a decapitated espresso. Most of this refers to his character, not the plot of the book itself.

• That reference to a "decapitated coffee" comes about 1 page into "End of the 1980s," the 7th to last chapter. Tsguitar 07:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The bullet points in the synopsis section should be made into proper paragraphs to improve the style.

Yes, prose is a definite requirement for a good article, as well as a FA too. Iolakana•T 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There need to be much more references in the Themes and Symbolism section. Some of the sentences therein describe incidents which should be in the plot section — e.g., the detective's investigation, details about Paul Owen, and the conversation at the end. This section should be written with more attention to the formal aspects of criticism, rather than just to the interpretations — someone with a good background in this work should do it. It is also in need of improvement to its style, so it flows better and is more coherent. It can probably be broken up to address the different aspects of the subject, so it will at least give a better framework for revision.

Because there are no real answers to symbolism, it often means introducing unverifired information. However, with carefully supported arguements (from the book, educational (!) websites etc.), the point can be upheld. Iolakana•T 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The featured articles of literature have much less text in the sections; therefore, I suggest the least important sentences should be culled — or if people are too timid, moved to another version of the article. Then with this removed, the style of the existing text should be improved and the gaps should be filled. With less bulk, the text will be much easier to revise.

Most text should be moved to Patrick Bateman. Iolakana•T 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are my tentative suggestions for now — made rather hastily. I won't do all of this myself because I prefer a consensus. If anyone is interested in this task, or part of it, I suggest reading featured articles in literature for inspiration. Rintrah 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, "the novel's graphically violent and sexual content was widely commented on at the time of its release." is only slightly expanded upon in the trivia section. This should be further elaborated, or it should be removed from the lead. Rintrah 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am moving some of the information on the plot to the Summary section. Other parts will have to be deleted to avoid repeating the information. Unfortunately, my paperback has been loaned to a friend, so I don't have the book for reference at the moment.

It is a tentative start.

The issue of length of the various section desperately needs to be addressed. The sentences by themselves are good, but badly organised.

Isn't anyone going to help me??? Come on, you slugs! Rintrah 08:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The intro does not properly introduce all the sections. Rintrah 08:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To Trivia

I am moving this Notably, Pierce & Pierce is also the firm of another fictional banker of the late eighties, Sherman McCoy, of the Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe. to the trivia section; it is not important to the synopsis, which is where it was inserted. Rintrah 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Also- is it mere coincidence that Bateman and Batman are a single letter away from being the same and Christian Bale has played them both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.126.157 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity Theme

The paragraphs starting with By the end of the novel and ending in Bateman is unsure whether he killed Solly all discuss the same theme — ambiguity over the murder's reality. This section is too long: there are too many examples and the whole thing should be summarised. It should not be written like a comprehensive essay, with numerous examples and discussion of the various points; rather, it should be a summary of the theme and one or two examples for illustration. It focuses too much on the examples and does not describe the abstract meaning enough — which is how I assume it should be written. Rintrah 12:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Personality

Can someone write a paragraph of Bateman's pyschopathic behaviour (in the real world or his fantasies)? It is a glaring omission of the Personality section. Rintrah 10:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a Patrick Bateman article - why? - but this matter is probably dealt with there.--Shtove 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I wasn't thinking of that. Rintrah 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Themes and Symbolism

There is too much narration in the Themes and Symbolism section, which should have, at most, concise examples so the themes themselves are emphasised. If this section is confined to the most prominent and least controvertible examples, the sceptre of "original research" will no longer hang over it. Rintrah 09:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

lesbianism appears to be one of Bateman's recurring fantasies, and on several occasions he rents 'shemale' pornography. This should be in the Themes and Symbolism section. Someone else can incorporate it. Rintrah 10:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

References

If anyone can be bothered, these could be used for references:

• Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho by Julian Murphet (Continuum Contemporaries) ISBN: 0826452450
• enotes Bret Easton Ellis Criticism [3]

Rintrah 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Upon reading this book, I assumed that Bateman is a closet homosexual. When he loses control, he usually kills. Yet with Luis Carruthers, Bateman is embracing him in a washroom stall. When he regains his level of consciousness, Bateman attempts to avoid him. Yet throughout the remainder of the novel, Luis is in the same category of his two other love interests. If Bateman were truly as anti-homosexual as he professes, wouldn't he had killed Luis? He looks down upon the lower classes and, accordingly, kills a nightwatchman, a taxi driver, several prostitutes and mutiliates a couple beggars... so why doesn't he kill Luis? I think Bateman's homosexuality is derived from his love of himself, because he wants to dress better than everyone else, but he constantly resembles the men he goes to restaurants and nightclubs with. How do people feel about incorporating homosexuality as a major theme of Bateman's personality (I also remember how he knew that the maitre d' to one of the restaurants was gay... perhaps alluding to Bateman's bisexualism in school) just a thought Lincoln187 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've also added this to the Pat Bateman discussion page.Lincoln187 22:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Some points of your conjecture are speculative. I myself think Ellis made the ambiguity of Bateman's sexuality a joke, thus making his hatred of homosexuals more comical. I will address each point:

Bateman is embracing him in a washroom stall

As I remember the story, Bateman has his hands around Luis' throat. His sudden weakness after him originally intending to throttle Luis to death occurs as he is set on by confusion. He spends the remainder of the book avoiding Luis. Whether or not your homosexual conjecture is correct, Bateman certainly does not embrace Luis in the stall.

Luis is in the same category of his two other love interests.

He seems to be, although there are distinct differences.

If Bateman were truly as anti-homosexual as he professes, wouldn't he had killed Luis?

As far as I remember, he does not kill anyone who loves him. Whether this inaction makes him a homosexual or not, I cannot say. But he does commit acts of violence spurred on by hatred of homosexuality. For instance, he kills the dog of a flamboyently homosexual man, and he kills puppies to vent his disgust at a gay parade. It is possible he is a latent homosexual but hates homosexuals, though this is also speculative.

I think Bateman's homosexuality is derived from his love of himself, because he wants to dress better than everyone else, but he constantly resembles the men he goes to restaurants and nightclubs with.

Bateman's self-love is one of the big jokes of the book. It is an apparent autosexuality, though whether it is homosexual depends on one's interpretation of the book.

How do people feel about incorporating homosexuality as a major theme of Bateman's personality

Not good, becuase it is based on original research. You might be right, but the article would deteriorate unless you made your contributions conform fully with encyclopedic standards. There are already too few sources, and other parts of the article need improvement. I think those issues should be dealth with first. Rintrah 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe ebough is made of the theme of materialism. What made this bok so unique was a writing style which itself reflected the materialist theme to closely. A brief mention of the exhaustive details of characters attire should be expanded, possibly with an example.

163.1.42.170 21:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Tom H, Dec 3rd 2006

I don't think that is necessary. Materialism is mentioned or alluded to in the synopsis, personality, and themes and symbolism section. You're right, the materialist theme was incorporated heavily into the writing style. Ellis dedicates whole pages to cataloguing fashion attire which emphasise trivial detail. This is part of a larger theme, which, in my opinion, comes out most strongly when Bateman and another character debate types of mineral water. He gets very annoyed and is very proud of himself during the debate. His exhaustive descriptions seem monomaniacal, and make the serial killer theme more interesting. The exhaustive details, however, are already mentioned in one sentence; there are no succinct examples of them (since they are truly exhuastive) found in the book, to my knowledge. If you want to emphasise it more, you can alter the language to make the reference stronger; but, otherwise, I think the article should remain as it is. Thanks for your interest in the article! It is discouraging how few people post comments on the talk page and suggest improvements. I get lonely. Rintrah 14:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that such examples are left out to keep the article succinct. Look at the article as of, say, 17 August to see how many examples and descriptions have been taken out to make the article less cluttered. Rintrah 14:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this paranthetical clause: "(the former occasionally implied to reflect his own sexual insecurity)". We cannot assume this point, which is a speculative interpretation of the novel. Whatever its veracity, it is an unsupported statement. Rintrah 07:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rampage section

I cleaned up the section somewhat. I will return later to make it better (and clear up any errors I might have introduced). Rintrah 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The question of Bateman's reality and whether he really comitted the murders

Can someone please summarise this new section? It is too long. The analysis in it really belongs to the Themes and Symbolism section. I am pleased, though, someone has found another reference. Rintrah 07:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

American Psycho in Australia and New Zealand?

The trivia section says: "In Australia and New Zealand, the book is sold shrink-wrapped and is classified R18 under Censorship law and may not be sold to those under 18 years of age."

This is not true, not anymore anyway. I bought myself a copy of the book from the book chain Dymocks, and it was not shrink-wrapped or classified under '18 years only'....I also looked in Angus and Robertson for a copy, and it was not the same case there either, also my local library carries copies of the book, and they are not shrink-wrapped. So I think its safe to say we can remove Australia from that section about the book....it may still be the case in New Zealand, but it isn't sold like that in Australia, this must have been when it was first released in Aus and NZ. RaptorRobot 07:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it used to be. Although I do not know if it was true in every case, I did see it a few times in shrink wrap with a R-rating warning. (I was not responsible for that entry though.) I myself bought it at a market second hand without the shrink wrap. I agree, you should delete it or modify it. Rintrah 08:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove Themes and Symbolism?

I know this is a recurring problem, but I think this section should be either removed, or completely rewritten. It is mostly opinion, such as calling yuppies "the miserable ones", and I'm not convinced the article needs the section at all - especially as this is one of the main things holding the page from GA status. Themes and symbolism can be read about on various other sources on the internet, some of which are already listed. Desdinova 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Parts of it can be retained with referencess attached, but the rest can go. Too many examples from the book are grafted onto to it, and it reads like someone's personal essay. If there are internet sites which cover the Themes and Symbolism, use them to write a succinct version, say two paragraphs long. I agree, the section is holding the article back from GA status, as are the slugs who refuse to do work on the article.

Sources are exactly what this page needs; bring in the sources, sources, sources! Rintrah 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I should add some of the content is important. I have deleted the silliest stuff, hopefully. To anyone out there: please review and comment on anything important. This is really the wrong time of the day (sort of) for me to do any more. Rintrah 17:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It reads a lot better - but the only problem is (as you mention above) it's still totally unsourced. I took a look at the link you posted [4] in the hope of getting some good references, but apparently you need to be a member? If you have found any other worthwhile pages please link them either here or on my talk page and I will either source what we have or rewrite as necessary (trying to keep your good work intact). Thanks! Desdinova 16:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone added an entire section based on copyrighted material some time ago. There was a linked reference. It was soon deleted. Perhaps we could use it to reference a couple of sentences. I might do this after Christmas. Rintrah 09:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Here: [5]. It's a boring read, but it probably has something useful. Rintrah 05:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See also section?

The "See Also" section makes no sense to me as I found it. The Ice Storm is only related to this novel because they're arguably major "gen x" writers. Cunt may be more thematically linked, but I fear the editor who included these novels may be trying to perform some sort of Amazon.com-esque "readers who liked American Psycho also liked ..." taste guiding/marketing. I don't think that's what a wikipedia article's "see also" section should be, so have removed the links.

This leaves the problem of the lonely link to the Aestheticization of violence article. I think it would be best to remove the link entirely and, if an editor felt it necessary, include the topic under the "controversy" section.--Martin Boyden 05:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As big as a fan I am of both The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde / American Psycho, I think the connection is tenuous at best, as with Hannibal Lecter. I removed them from the "See Also" section of the article. Desdinova 23:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I also highly enjoyed The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and agree the link is tenuous—only that in each, the protagonist leads a "double life". Hannibal Lecter has more in common, but is not useful as a link. You are right to remove them. Rintrah 09:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thought so, thanks for the confirmation. Desdinova 11:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Newer editions missing scenes from U2 concert?

In every recent (post-movie) pocket edition of the book that I've come across, the description of Bateman's reaction to the U2 concert has been altered. In the first edition, it read:

It hits me that we have something in common, that we share a bond, and it's not impossible to believe that an invisible cord attached to Bono has now encircled me and now the audience disappears and the music slows down, gets softer, and it's just Bono onstage--the stadium's deserted, the band fades away--and the message, his message, once vague, now gets more powerful and he's nodding at me and I'm nodding back, everything getting clearer, my body alive and burning, on fire, and from nowhere a flash of white and blinding light envelopes me and I hear it, can actually feel, can even make out the letters of the message hovering above Bono's head in orange wavy letters: "I . . . am . . . the . . . devil . . . and I am . . . just . . . like . . . you . . ."

This whole sequence seems to have been omitted from recent editions. Can anyone else confirm this? Is there a reason for it, and if so, is that reason worth mentioning in the Wiki?

Yes, I think it is. If you can find a source, you ought to add this to the controversy section—I presume it was deleted for its controversial content. Rintrah 13:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just bought 70 brand-new Vintage copies for my students at a Canadian university, and the U2 scene is intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.175.37 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken man for Paul Owen

The article claims that Bateman has dinner with a man who he subsequently murders that he mistakes for Paul Owen. This seems entirely illogical as the book does not ever suggest that it was some sort of random encounter. They agreed to meet for dinner at the restaurant under the guise of Bateman being Halberstam. I have not edited the passage to reflect such given the amount of interpretation this book has. I am looking for other opinions on this matter. Abacab 05:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right: the passage is wrong. In the narrative, Bateman has dinner with Owen and assumes the guise Halberstam. The only open question is whether this narrative is true, for there is the recurring theme of mistaken identity and the increasing unreality, culminating in the fantastical scenes at the end. But I don't think we're supposed to look at anything as pure reality in opposition to Bateman's fictions. So we can say Bateman had dinner with Owen, despite the ambiguity. Rintrah 06:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the passage to indicate that it is indeed Paul Owen he has dinner with yet leaving open the interpretation that the dinner was a fantasy. Any objection? Feel free to change it if you do object. Abacab 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lapses in time

I think it should be noted in the article somewhere how the book's chapters include large and strange lapses in time. For instance, the chapter after the Christmas party chapter takes place in May. Also, in the Sandstone chapter, when he sees his mother, he says it's April, yet him and his mother are discussing Christmas gifts. Gold Stur 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another possible lapse: it says in the article here that he is 27 when the novel begins (I do not know where that comes from, maybe it is a mistake?) and the novel spans two years - he is still 27 (at least he says so) on the last page of the book.--89.51.93.188 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

.357 Magnum?

In the book, when Patrick steals the Taxi and has the shootout with the police, he mentions that he has a .357 magnum. Later, he claims he reloads by slipping the clip out. I was under the impression that a .357 was a round for revolvers. Is this a mistake on Ellis' part?

VendettaCouncil 04:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

.357 magnum is just the bullet size. Most .357 guns are revolvers, that I can think of but I am pretty sure the Desert Eagle comes in a .357 magnum caliber and that is a semi-automatic.

Yes a .357 maganum would most likely be a revolver as the .357 magnum is a rimmed revolver round created for use in revolvers. It could be a semi-auto, but in that case we can say that Bateman was using one of only two possible pistols. The Desert Eagle or the Coonan. We can mostly rule out the Desert Eagle as in the 1980's the Desert Eagle was not yet offered for sale. Bateman would have to have acquired one the test guns which is unlikely. No matter which he was using the correct item would be a magazine not a clip to slip out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.154.52 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's most likely another clue left by Ellis to hint at what is eventually revealed by the end of the novel: that Bateman's murders are figments of his imagination. If there's no gun in his hand, then the details of that gun don't have to be accurate. This is not an obscure detail to be noticed only by "gun nuts"; the .357 Magnum is a commonly known round to anyone who watches cop shows, and it's known that it's a revolver round, just like the .38 Special. To reference it being used in a semi-auto is another clue that Bateman is a madman who is imagining things that are not only outlandish, but inaccurate and impossible.AE Logan (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You get clips for revolvers. Not magazines, but clips

222.154.232.126 (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Review?

How do I go about instigating a review for this page? RedRabbit 11:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's form 21-A P sub 4, to be filled out in triplicate, signed by both supplicant and immediate next of kin where appropriate, except on Thursdays and where prohibited by local legislation (viz. states of Maryland, Ohio and West Virginia, and the county of Cambridgeshire), pursuant to international copyright law, the statutes of Greenpeace and the Marquess of Queensberry rules of boxing.

Or, you could try WP:RFC. But really, just editing the page and raising issues on the talk page is usually a lot more productive. 82.95.254.249 22:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

this could be part of a recurring theme of mistaken identity possibly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.114.68 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive box

If you want the archive box above the TOC, you need to remove this line {{cleanup taskforce notice}} or find out what in that template is causing the archive box to go below the TOC. I figured this out by removing that line and doing a preview. I was asked to look at this by someone.Rlevse 13:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

GEEZ. Figured it out. The template has it's own TOC line, forcing some boxes below the TOC. I rm'd the template TOC line and it makes the TOC showup inside the template--bad template design. I left a note on the template talk page. I've removed the template. Put it back if you want. Rlevse 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Timing problems

If I may elaborate on Gold Stur's earlier point, there are some serious timing problems in this book. From what I can determine, the book begins on April 1st, 1987. The chapter near the end, "End of the 1980s", takes place in September, after summer, a summer which Bateman describes as having included Madonna's Like a Prayer, which came out in March 1989. The next chapter takes places "four days before Christmas", presumably December 21, 1989. Then there's a chapter on Valentine's Day, presumably February 14th, 1990. The last chapter in the book refers to the "President Bush's inauguration early this year", which was in January 1989. What's more, later in the last chapter, Bateman refers to himself as twenty-seven years old, when he was twenty-six at the beginning of the book. This chronology can almost make sense if we assume the Valentine's Day scene took place before the September scene. Of course, then we're left with the supposition that the December 21st scene is late 1989, which doesn't work when the last chapter takes place in the same year as Bush's inauguration. And I don't think we can assume the December 21st scene takes place after the last chapter. Whatever. Any opinions? Should any of this be noted in the article? Maybe a footnote after the claim that the book spans "two years" in Bateman's life? VolatileChemical (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing/Unclear Tag

I tagged the article because of this passage from the plot section:

“ Paul Owen's apartment, where he's been stockpiling the bodies he's mutilated throughout the novel reveals itself for what it was. Patrick Bateman is not a murderer. Throughout the novel he describes telling people that he's a psychopath, at one point he even vomits on someone and they pretend it never happened. Everything involving psychosis was manifested. ”

What does this mean? What does Owen's apartment reveal about itself? Was Paul the killer all along? In what way is Patrick not a murderer? And what does the next sentence about describing his psychopathy to others have to do with it, or his vomiting? And what does the final sentence mean? Manifested as what? Manifested how? Can someone familiar with the plot clarify this passage? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find the section unclear... what happened is that Patrick has been describing all these gruesome murders and then he walks in to where he's stashed the bodies and they're not there. In fact, it looks like they've never been there. Its a clue that a huge portion of the book may be nothing but a delusion... or maybe only part of it is. 68.249.239.102 (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But it could also just be another facet of the society - it would truly benefit the real estate agent Bateman encounters to cover up any crime she finds in that apartment. A police investigation would cost her months and the release of information that a serial killing took place in an apartment would truly plummet the value. Once again, greed wins out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.188.2 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I know the "Bateman never killed anyone" interpretation is a popular one (I'm not sure why, as there's so little to support it and a great deal of textual evidence against it) but the real estate agent's attitude towards Bateman makes no sense at all unless the muders and bodies were real. She tests him with a fake ad reference, is afraid of him and doesn't treat him as a potential customer, but as a dangerous person to be warned away as fast as possible. If you decide that Bateman is not a killer, then you have to write off half the novel as fantasy (the Taxi Driver chapter? the Detective?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.175.37 (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So the question that begs to be answered if you accept the "Bateman is a real serial killer" argument is, how do you explain his delusions? Do you assume the novel takes place in a supernatural reality where ATMs give personal and macabre instructions, where breakfast cereals are interviewed on TV, and where park benches chase people? If you accept these anomalies as delusions, how do you then assign truth to the other actions? And which ones? And why? What is the "textual evidence" you refer to that any of the murders take place in reality? The story is told in the first person, and the narrator is delusional. Therefore, how is anything he says to be accepted as valid? You're right that one has to "write off" much of the novel as fantasy. That's the point. The story is entirely about Bateman's delusions. It IS a fantasy. It's NOT a slasher story. It's the portrait of the workings of an insane mind. AE Logan (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

sartorial?

I think someone must've misspelled "satirical" and had spell check fill in the wrong word. In the 4th paragraph the sentence goes: "His passion for blandness sits alongside his attention to sartorial detail, his desire to appear normal and the lurid detailing of sex and violence." Was the author of this part of the article specifically meaning that the character had a "attention to the detail of his clothes"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.222.4 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It would seem "attention to the detail of his clothes" fits this thought. Bateman is sartorial, Ellis is satirical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.154.52 (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Sartre

"The incipit of the book has Bateman staring at graffiti on a Chemical Bank building, reading Abandon all hope ye who enter here, a reference to the gates of hell portrayed in Dante's Divine Comedy. The book ends with a similar scene, as Bateman sits in a bar, staring at a sign that reads "This is not an exit," a reference to Jean-Paul Sartre's play No Exit. The opening and closing phrases summarize Bateman's life as a living hell he cannot escape." Is this an actual/intended reference to No Exit or is this what the wiki author has read into the text? What source verifies it as an actual reference (other than the No Exit wiki entry)? The Dante reference is self-evident as it is such a famous line can be found in the poem itself but "This is not an exit" is neither a line of Sartre's play nor does is it a direct copy of the title. It makes a lot of sense (Especially given that a book by Sartre appears in the actual story) but I was just wondering if it could be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meepwon (talk • contribs) 11:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just deleted the unsourced claim that the film's concluding words are an allusion to Sartre's classic play, No Exit. In fact the author of American Psycho has not acknowledged this, and it is exactly the sort of vague allusion whose inspiration or significance probably can never be determined for certain. Here is at least one intellectual who interprets it as NOT being an allusion to Sartre's play. Söderlind, Sylvia. 2008. Branding the Body American: Violence and Self-fashioning from The Scarlet Letter to American Psycho. Canadian Review of American Studies, 38(1): 63-82. "Critics tend to read the sign as an allusion to Sartre while sometimes overlooking the crucial difference in phrasing. Why does the sign not say simply NO EXIT—as both Sartre and verisimilitude would lead one to expect? . . . ." [73] Hurmata (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Table of contents

tried to remove this, was reverted, it seems unnecessary. can we discuss it here before re-introducing it. what is its justification?--Mongreilf (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I too nominate removing this. It's unnecessary but more importantly only pertains to one edition of the book.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary needs to be cleaned up (too much original research)

The plot summary needs to be cleaned up primarily because it includes way too much original research. We can not interpret any part of the text ourselves. The plot summary should only state the events that happen in the novel, not any personal interpretations. The only time an interpretation can be added to the article is if it is from a reliable secondary source and properly cited.Flygongengar (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Availability at the University of Queensland

Removed the section stating that the book is available at UQ. I can confirm that they don't stock, or plan on stocking, any item from this author, as of June 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.133.147 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Guardian blog review

A blog post in the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/feb/11/easton-ellis-generation states "Personally I think it's one of the key novels of the last century", this personal view does not represent a consensus or even a widely held view of this book. Including a one liner like this misrepresents the general views and lends more weight to this book that just one blog post should give. Uptowner679 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If it is included, it should be worded as "Stuart Evers of The Guardian described it as..." Nymf _hideliho! 15:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sartre again

I've deleted the reference to No Exit (and also Dante) from the synopsis. Interesting theory n'all, but smacks of O/R to me and at the very least belongs in an 'Interpretations' section, should anyone care to add one (properly sourced mind!!) Bluebloodyhero (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers for the explanation. Nymf _hideliho! 23:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing process / Controversy

Back in 09, a user changed the Controversy section to reflect that when Vintage picked up the book from Simon and Schuster, it went through the "customary editing process".

However the citation is this article: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,318714,00.html

The problem is here, this was written before the edits were done. It talks about the "anticipated" edits:

"Will Mehta edit out some of the more offensive passages? Psycho will go through the customary editing process at Vintage, says spokesman William Loverd. Both Mr. Ellis and Mr. Mehta have indicated that they don't anticipate significant changes. And the two versions are sure to be compared. Whatever the alterations, Ellis has cause to celebrate, having already picked up prepublication profits of rather more than zero. "

It might be better to find a source that mentions what edits were made AFTER they were done. The article here is, as you can see, not the de facto source on the differences (if any) between the original manuscript and the print version, which may be of some interest if any other "controversial" sections were excised. It's likely the above is correct - God knows the book was choc-full of offensive scenes! - but we're citing what is essentially outdated speculation as proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.127.199 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: I found this. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/18/books/editorial-adjustments-in-american-psycho.html?src=pm

"The version of "American Psycho" to be published next month by Vintage Books will include many changes from Bret Easton Ellis's original manuscript, whose publication was abruptly canceled by Simon & Schuster three months ago.

But Sonny Mehta, the publisher of Alfred A. Knopf and the man responsible for the purchase of the novel, said that none of the "innumerable adjustments" altered the fundamental thrust or tone of the story, whose graphic descriptions of sexual brutality led Simon & Schuster to cancel publication at the last minute."

This would be much better as a source. 81.97.127.199 (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tim Price

Tim Price is not a major character. He barely appears in the book, and zero plot relates to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.145.210 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He is in pretty much half of the book. I would say that makes him a major character. Nymf _hideliho! 20:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Price - Bryce?

Why did they filmmakers change his name from Price to Bryce while leaving other character names as original? --KpoT (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

They also changed Paul Owen to Paul Allen. Probably reads easier in speech, or the screenwriter thought it seemed better, or any number of reasons. GRAPPLE X 18:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Years the book takes place

There seems to be some persistent idea that the book starts in 1989, when it is easily established as beginning in April 1987 and ending in October 1989. New York city events and magazine covers are noted in the text and are, in fact, important events to Bateman. The U2 Time magazine cover that Patrick refers to was on 27 April 1987, and he goes to see them in concert a few weeks later. At the end of the book he's going to see Sting in the October 1989 production of "The Threepenny Opera." Please stop reverting edits which correct the year. If one needs further proof of the years of the action, Reagan was still president and giving a press conference in the first section of the book (Bush was president in '89), "Les Miserables" started on Broadway in 1987, not 1989. I could go on, but I that really should be enough. The production of "Les Miz" is actually important ironic subtext in the midst of all this obscene wealth and spending on clothes and shoes, etc., and is unambiguously used to contrast the lives of people who spend hundreds of dollars on food they don't even bother to eat. I think that should be part of the synopsis, but don't know if it would count as "original research." It's not exactly a subtly made point in the book.--TEHodson 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Again with the time period being disputed! The book begins on April Fools Day (1st of April) 1987, and ends in October 1989. The author is very, very clear about this. Why should it say "roughly three years" when it's exactly 2 1/2 years from beginning to end? It would make sense to round up if it were 2 yrs 8 mos or something, but saying 2 1/2 years is a common expression (whereas 2 years 8 months is inelegant), and since it is also accurate, why keep changing it? It seems pretty silly to me to revert an accurate edit for a general and by the way, inaccurate one, and then call the correct dates "original research". The time period of the book was important enough for the author to establish concretely; he does so over and over and over. If he thought it was important, shouldn't we treat it as though it is? The economic climate of that period was specific. The action ends when Wall Street life began to shift--it seems that respecting author's intention is imperative if Wikipedia is to be truly an encyclopedia. It would also be sensible for people who want to keep changing the dates to talk about it here, on the Talk page, rather than simply revert repeatedly.--TEHodson 21:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also have to argue that "roughly three years" is not only OR, but also a personal opinion. Can you explain how you keep coming up with this as the time period? It obviously doesn't derive from the book's text, so where is it coming from?--TEHodson 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Using references (magazine covers, concerts etc) from the book, and looking these things up yourself, is most definitely original research. It is the very definition of original research. Please source it! Nymf _hideliho! 22:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And when I say source "it", I mean the actual dates -- not the covers. Nymf _hideliho! 22:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually did put in the details and sources once, but they were removed as being "unnecessary clutter" for a plot summary (this was during the argument re 87 vs. 89 as the start date). In plot summaries the book itself is considered the source. Original research is generally understood to be interpretations of the text, not recognition of self-evident, well-described events. If a book takes place during the Civil War, one can say "It takes place during the Civil War years." You don't have to add a citation for that, even if the characters never use the term "Civil War" (which they wouldn't, since it wasn't named that then--they'd just say "the war"). Does that make sense?

But let me ask you, what is your source for saying "roughly three years"? How did you arrive at that amount of time? Why not "roughly two years" or "roughly four years"? Where are you getting the idea that the book covers "roughly three years"? On what are you basing that? The text itself should be what one relies upon to decide over how long a book takes place, and only if it is unverifiable does one guess or estimate. When an author has gone to such extreme lengths to ground his story in real-world events, it's not necessary to guess--one can, as you say, look it up and then state the time period exactly. To say AP takes place over "roughly three years," is both inaccurate and sloppy, and since there's no need to make a rough guess, why do so? Actually, if you can't handle using the term "2 1/2 years" for some reason, it would be better to say something like "it takes places during the last years of the 80s" as that's more accurate as far as the Wall Street climate is concerned. This book is very carefully placed in time for important reasons. It is misleading for a number of reasons to imply that the story continues into 1990. If you think the text should be returned to "roughly three years" please make a case for why you think so.

Look at it this way--Bateman and his cronies are always, always, always on the cutting edge of what is trendy. If the book were set in the present day and written with the same obsessive attention to detail, it would tell us exactly which telephone, computer, mobile devices, etc., that Bateman owned. We at Wikipedia would be expected not to make a stupid error and state that the book takes place before something had been invented or after it was out of style or obsolete. What Bateman owns and what shows he sees are central to his character; he is made of what he owns, what shows he sees, what music he listens to. Getting that wrong is to miss the point of the book by a very wide mark. The very last thing that Bateman does is go see the just-opened "coolest" show on Broadway--The Threepenny Opera with Sting. That was October 1989. I don't know about you, but when an author goes to all the trouble of writing about something in his book, I make the assumption that it is, you know, important.--TEHodson 01:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been meaning to re-read the book recently, so I'll keep an eye out for any concrete dates, but implying the years based on a few references here and there which you had to further extrapolate is OR. The best analogue I can think of is actually the film The Terminator, which is set in a different year than some of the references in the film would imply—the day, date and month are given and correspond to a different year than the year stated elsewhere in the film. Similarly, some things mentioned in the book may be put in there deliberately, but may still be anachronistic. Don't specify the year unless it's definitely given, just use the time period (late 80s) instead. If I turn up a definite year, though, I'll be sure to cite it. GRAPPLE X 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought it should just say "the late 80s" but someone else kept putting in "April 1, 1989" (which is wrong), then "roughly three years" which is also wrong. If there are going to be specific dates they should be correct. If you believe there should be no dates, then "late 80s" is best. I'll change it to that now. There are no specific dates written out in the book, but there are specific, non-arguable milestones, many, many, many of them. What we should not do is imply that 1990 is a year of the action. Different Wall Street environment by then, and the run-up to the Gulf War. The background of this book is the Wall Street boom of the late 80s.--TEHodson 02:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Would "several years in the late 1980s" work, then? GRAPPLE X 02:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I changed it. I think this is better writing in any case. I'm not sure who started the whole thing with the dates--I only corrected the wrong dates that had been there--but it seems wise to avoid the issue entirely, less chance of ongoing dispute. What is important is the economic climate of the late 80s as context for the novel. By using the words "daily life" we don't have to argue over how long a period of daily life is covered. I still don't consider it OR in the usual sense to note the events and therefore grasp the correct dates--a press conference by "President" Reagan cannot have taken place after 1988 so it merely requires logic to exclude certain years from the action, not original research. In any case, the wording as it stands now should satisfy everyone (let's hope).--TEHodson 03:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)