Talk:American Psycho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Kilo-Lima (talk • contribs • email); Rintrah

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Psycho article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

• talk page archive

	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge [edit] American Psycho The introduction needs to cover the whole article—not an onerous job. We also desperately need to find references for this article, especially the Themes and Symbolism section, which looks like a highschool essay without references. The lack of references frustrate those of us who want it to be a GA. Thank you. Rintrah 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 American Psycho 2 If you're reading this, fix the following... 3 Themes and Symbolism 4 Missing words/paragraphs 5 Clarifying a scene 6 Book covers 7 Bateman's Character / Music 8 Cleanup tag 9 Feminist protest of American Psycho 10 Humour 11 Body Hammer movie 12 release date 13 Possible Themes 14 Style 15 B-class 16 Suggested Text Changes 17 Intro 18 To Trivia 19 Ambiguity Theme 20 Personality 21 Themes and Symbolism 22 References 23 B-Class 24 Homosexuality 25 Rampage section 26 The question of Bateman's reality and whether he really comitted the murders 27 American Psycho in Australia and New Zealand? 28 Remove Themes and Symbolism? 29 See also section? 30 Newer editions missing scenes from U2 concert? 31 Copyedit 32 Mistaken man for Paul Owen

---

[edit] If you're reading this, fix the following...

"One question often asked by readers is why Bateman is never caught despite the investigation into Paul Owen's disapearance of a well-dressed detective. However, he is thrown off by what an alibi from someone who claims to have had dinner with Paul Owen during his reported disapparence. However, the satirical theme that yuppies all look the same runs throughout the book and suggests the alibi is false."

In particular: "...he is thrown off by what an alibi from someone who claims to have had dinner with Paul Owen during his reported disapparence."

Also, the "However, he" followed by "However, the"

muchos gracias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.145.238 (talk • contribs) .

De nada.

I agree, two successive howevers does make the paragraph seem scizophrenic. Overuse of however is a symptom of lazy writing. I have changed a couple of the sentences, hopefully in accordance with your request. Let me know if there is anything else. Rintrah 06:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Clarifying a scene

I would really appreciate it if someone could clarify the scene in the movie where Patrick goes back to the apartment the day after he shoots the cops and tries to feed the atm that kitten. I have no idea what that older ladys is talking about when she mentions the article in the times and why she treats him the way she does without even knowing who he is?

• It's intentionally ambiguous. She lied about placing an ad in the Times because she could tell that Bateman was not there to see the apartment, but it's not clarified if she knows about the history of the apartment, which lends itself to the ambiguity concerning if the events in the apartment occurred at all. Gila m0bster 19:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• There's no possible way that apartment could be cleaned up and for sale so quickly, especially given the other events that take place there in the book. That apartment would be a crime scene for sure. And if someone is there without an appointment, I'm betting that she's worried about him, just able to tell that something is wrong with this guy. Tsguitar 07:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Intro

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] B-Class

Fucking B-Class! This article is on par with Sledging (cricket), and if you follow the link, you will find what a wonderful article that is. The contributors of that article are probably supremely proud to have an article of equal standard to this one! I think I might start editing Featured articles to pretend I am responsible for keeping articles at Featured Article status. Rintrah 14:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] See also section?

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in February 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Copyeditor(s): Galena11 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Proofreader: Rintrah?

[edit] 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 Halberstram. 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 Halberstram. 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)