Reviews with content warning for Pedophilia - American Psycho

I hated this book so much. This book was so gross. Fucking sick. My two most written annotations were ew and no. My other two most written annotations were Jesus Christ and stop. I had to skim the s3xual parts because it was so gross, and the only pages I had the skip completely were from the

RAT SCENE.

I had to go home from school after reading even just the first parts of the

rat scene.

I felt quite ill from it. I just kept finding out more and more horrible things about him. Worst book I've ever read, while still being the best book I've ever read (because it completely accomplished it's goal). 5 stars. Loved it.
Tldr: he is really an american psycho.

Content Warnings

saint_eleanor's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark funny tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

Ok so TLDR: really great book, will really piss you off, super gorey (lots of torture), wonderfully written, anti-capitalist anti-yuppie, really hard to get thru so don't let any ppl tell you its 'essential reading'.

I'll start off by saying this book gets 5 stars bc it deserves nothing less but that doesn't mean I enjoyed reading it 100% of the time, in fact i actively hated reading a lot of it lmao.
There are like 2 main camps when it comes to American Psycho: one camp says it should be banned bc its misogynistic, horrible, far-right, etc. The other camp says that it's the alpha male handbook, and that patrick bateman is peak male performance. Both are really off-mark imo.

In the first place, misogynistic characters do not make a misogynistic book. Pretending misogynists don't exist in our writing is completely counter productive. Additionally, this is literally the most anti-masculine, anti-capitalist, anti-yuppie, anti-1% book I have read in a long time. The author paints Patrick Bateman as the most pathetic, bootlicking, bandwagoning, whiny, narcissistic P.O.S. and I really don't understand how you could come away with any other impression.

Ellis repeatedly makes the point that Bateman is in love with Donald Trump and will do/say anything Trump does/says (80's NYC remember), including switching up arbitrary opinions. He is a self-proclaimed pedophile, rapist, racist, and necrophiliac. Additionally he is completely materialistic, lost in a Kafka-esque nightmare ruled by sound systems and skincare products and is totally obsessed with 'having the best thing'. Not to mention his obsession with every single person's outfits throughout the whole book. I hated him so much i was actually seething half the time. This book is especially terrifying because Bateman is as real as any real-life wall street psychopath, there are so many men like him IRL.

Some of this book was hilarious actually, the monkey TV thing, the 'kill all yuppies' napkin that struck fear into the heart of poor pathetic patrick, and the 5-men-choosing-where-to-eat thing was hilarious. Additionally, Patrick keeps telling everyone over and over that he's homocidal (if we believe his narration, not sure i do) , but his handsomeness and his wealth overshadow his obvious lack of a soul and social skills. He is the opposite of charming, he is actively unsettling, and yet the environment that he's in completely pushes men like him to the top of social circles. When people tell you who they are, LISTEN!! Also I personally think that his absolute hatred of women paired with his love of men is evidence of internalized homophobia and that Bateman is in fact, gay. I think is is especially plausible due to the fact that Ellis has said that he based parts of Bateman on himself when he was in a really bad place (Ellis is gay & talked about how he used to sleep with women and hated it, which would translate well to this point in Patrick's character), which seems like a really complex and maybe overlooked aspect of this that the Sigma Males don't want to acknowledge. Additionally the only character in the whole book that really freaks him out is

Luis, who comes onto him, yet is one of the only characters that escapes his wrath.

Anyway, loved this book. I really couldn't put it down even when the gore was almost too much for me and I wanted to rip Patrick's head off. You can also tell it's good bc of how long this review is. Fuck Patrick, fuck wall street, fuck yuppies, and fuck the guys co-opting Christian Bale's photo for their dumbass Alpha Male grindcore instagram accounts, yall did not pay attention.

Content Warnings

michaelion's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark mysterious slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

1.75

Maybe the real Psychos were the Americans we made along the way...

A book is bad when I have to question what purpose it served humanity. I am a person who fundamentally believes that all art can be made with no reason or goal in mind; art for art's sake; art because the person who made it felt something, felt they had to get it out, felt they had something to share with the world. I read this book because I wanted to watch the movie, yes I'm that kind of person, and I wish I could unread it. What purpose did this book serve to the greater good of humanity? Fuck the greater good, what contribution to humanity does this book give? It has no analysis, no deeper introspection into the era, the mindset of the people. There's no meat on the bone that is this book.

It has its moments and its beauty, for sure. I love the stream of consciousness and unreliable narration, I love the speaking to the audience, the break rom reality and seeing things in the perspective of a movie, sure. Those elements are great. But as a whole? I never question why art is made. There's art I like and art I don't like. It's easy for me to spot art I like, It's easy for me to spot art I don't like, and there are definitely things that lie in a middle grey area, but for all three of those things I almost never question why it was made. It's an inherently fascist idea to say art should have a purpose else it is a waste of time or attention but this is one of the few exceptions I've encountered. The movie better be good after the shit I just read.

And to be clear, I'm not just mad at the content of the book. It was very upsetting sure, but

about a quarter in is when you get to the first kill and it's mentioned nonchalant. So you read almost 100 pages and finally get to the part you came for.

Most of this book is a whole lot of nothing. It works, only because that's the style of this particular type of writing, but once the kills start to ramp up it's like Oh, you wasted my time, and now this is TOO intense. And I'm sure the whiplash was also purposeful, and I'm starting to get a little too nitpicky, but there are things that are more important / could have been more central to the plot that were not given any spotlight.

I tried to find it in my heart to give it a higher rating, I really did, but I can't lie to my future self who will reread this review and go "damn, the book was that bad?" Hi, future self. To answer your question: No. The book was much worse.

Content Warnings

ashsparrow's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.5

I have really mixed feelings about this book. It’s a good book but I hate gore so obviously not a good choice on my part. It was really well done though.

Content Warnings

lynxpardinus's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark reflective tense

4.0

Content Warnings

belladonnashrike's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character

3.75

well that's the MOST disturbing book i've ever read! and probably will ever read!

content warning for literally everything but also for excessive mentions of ~~donald trump~~

ramble incoming:

something that started to bug me about 3/4 of the way through was how gratuitous the murders of women were...i don't typically read anything that depicts such brutal treatment of women but i read this because i love the film and because i know that at its core, this is a satire, so i ignored my discomfort for most of the book. bateman doesn't necessarily target women and i would say that to generalize his killing patterns, he's mostly opportunistic. he kills easy targets - the unhoused, sex workers, random women he meets at bars, random kids and animals who aren't with a guardian/owner, etc. occasionally he does kill someone he knows personally (such as his ex from college and paul owen), but i wouldn't say he just operates on misogyny. but the only murders that are memorable are those of women. this surprised me because i didn't feel this way when watching the movie and i would say that it's mostly because of the treatment of paul owen/allen: in the film, his death is a spectacle. it's such an iconic scene and is just as over-the-top and lengthy as the rest of bateman's murders. in the book, it's over and done with within a page or two and isn't as memorable as what he did to, say, christie. the only murders (and by association, rapes) that are lengthy and disgustingly descriptive are of women. at first this didn't feel like any bias on the author's part but the more i read the more uncomfortable i became because it just feels like the author was sort of playing out fantasies with some of those heinous acts. maybe it's just because i am automatically suspicious of any man who writes about gender violence in general, but it just felt so off to me at that 3/4 point. in the film, we see him kill men and it doesn't seem like he simply enjoys killing women - the messaging there is that he enjoys murdering people in general. if paul's book death was as gory and over-the-top (and just, so fucking disgusting) like his female victims, i wouldn't think this. if the deaths of other men, such as the homeless man with the dog, were just as descriptive, again, i wouldn't think this. but when the only murders that are written in such a way are that of women victims... it makes one think. the fact that i can't really tell if this is commentary on misogyny or not troubles me.

i think that the book depicts bateman's descent into madness, along with his excessive drug usage (which certainly contributes to his hallucinations and skewed view of reality), much better than the film does. it is also obvious from the first twenty or so pages that these men are constantly being mistaken for someone else, when in the film it's not really blatant until the end scene where bateman is confessing face-to-face with his lawyer discussing paul. i do enjoy the added humor in the film, which i will mostly attribute to christian bale -- he was perfect for this role. so perfect that i did read the book in his voice.

also, i've heard that people think this book is really boring and complain about it but i think it's obvious that that's the point. bateman and his colleagues live an incredibly boring life, so boring that the specifics of his work are never mentioned. everything is superficial. it's the same reason why everyone is described based on what they're wearing. even when describing attractive women, the most bateman says is "nice tits" and "blonde." everything is pointless! everything is meaningless! the critique that is given on businessmen in the 80s, as well as american consumerism, is perfect. just absolutely on the nose. it's supposed to be a little boring!

i did like this and i am glad i read the source material for the film. i need to think about it some more. but i am uncomfortable with the treatment of women because i just can't decipher the tone there.

Content Warnings

lish_e's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.25

Content Warnings

jakeaboi's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark funny tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.0

This book was painful to read, for both good and bad, both intentional and unintentional. The book's depictions of murder are extremely graphic and horrifically realistic. This level of detail is great to represent Bateman's violent outbursts. However, this same level of detail can also get pretty annoying when it comes to descriptions of clothing and music. Bateman's ramblings about these things are supposed to show his comedic, intense obsessions, and to juxtapose these against the graphic killings. But, they end up getting stale and rather annoying to read as the book goes on. For the most part, the book was an entertaining, gruesome, and fascinating look into the mind of a serial killer. But, don't expect the book to cut out the unnecessary, minute details about Patrick's life.

Content Warnings

More...