Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, maybe it was a few years too late but I recently read this book. Found the first half a bit of a yawn (vacuous club guy name-checking loads of mid-90s celebs) but things certainly perked up in the second half although some of the graphic descriptions of torture have stayed with me longer than I would have liked...!

 

Don't know it I'd recommend it: one of its reviews stated that it was a satire on celebrity culture. I wouldn't go that far, but if you can get through the first part (maybe by playing a game of 'which of these celebs aren't particularly celebs anymore') and like a book that makes you go 'eouuuw' now and then, AND you've got a long train journey coming upm then go for it. Otherwise... nah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

This is actually the only Easton Ellis I haven't read. I liked all his other books to varying degrees, even the much misunderstood "American Psycho". People don't see past the gore to the deeply moral satire that book really is.

 

I can see how he wouldn't be to everybody's taste, in some ways he's a cold, even misanthropic writer, but I think you can equally argue he is only holding up a mirror to certain groups in modern American society and the vacuums that exist in the centre of their lives. In that sense, you could see him as an American J.G. Ballard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great, though some might say narrow in its targets. I don't identify with any of the people he's after in Glamorama but he writes so well. I loved the way he lambasts the club people, and even now when I read a review of newly opened "celebrity" restaurant I think of Glam.

 

And kudos to Grammath for the Ballard reference. I never realised before how similar they are. It's uncanny. I'd add Chuck Palanuik, even though I doubt I spelled his name right. Choke is right on the button.

 

I won't say much about American Psycho. If ever a book deserved a topic of its own, that's the one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, thank you, Chris, you are most kind.

 

I think its spelt Palahniuk. Not read "Choke", but devoured "Fight Club" in the wake of the film and "Invisible Monsters".

 

I hadn't thought of Chuck in relation to the mighty JG, but now you mention it, there is that same element of surrealism running through both their work.

 

However, one of the things I find appealing about Ballard's writing, if I can be a bit pseudy for a minute, is his dispassionate authorial voice, the way he writes about the weirdest things as if they were perfectly normal and makes no judgement on the actions of his characters, however perverse. Its that which I think he shares most strongly with Easton Ellis.

 

Palahniuk, on the other hand, seems to me to postively revel in being bizarre and grotesque and reminds me more of another favourite American of mine, Tom Robbins.

 

Its a long time since I read "American Psycho" but its certainly one of the most, um, memorable novels I've ever read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 years later...

GLAMORAMA (my top 5 favorite books) -Brett Easton Ellis:

The book is divided into 2 sections:

1st Part:Victor Ward, "the It boy of the moment" is a Male model trying to organize a MTV party and to keep his club running.

And

2nd Part: Victor Ward, goes to Europe to becomes involved in Terrorist.

 

Brett Easton Ellis took 8 years to write this book:

My review:

The first half, is brilliant, and when I say Brilliant, I mean: brilliant, From page 10/15 onwards, there isn't one page that didn't make me laugh out loud.

Every sentence is pregnant with pungent satire. It's like Sting album-there are no fill-the-album songs(fillers)

Each page, each sentence took extreme amount of thinking. You can tell where most of the 8 years went.

Everytime, I'd put the book down, and went out to a cafè to meet some friends-There wasn't one discussion that I'd initiate that didn't start with "You gotta read Glamorama, this guy is a genius" 

I obsessivly thanked god Brett Easton Ellis existed. Even while reading it, I'd just stop the book, look up at the sky and silently say "Thank you for excisting".

Second half: Something went terribly wrong. Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's cause Brett Easton, finished it in L.A rather than N.Y.  But the book all of a sudden wanted to have a real plot.

Mind you, there are some excellent experts of satire in it, but the first part was loaded.

The second part, becomes, or tries to become a noir of sorts.  I didn't know it at first, so the whole time, I'm praying it would go back to being just a satire...it doesn't. Well, it does..but with a convulted story about terrorists, and blood and extremely graphic violence, that frankly could have been avoided.

Brett Easton Ellis always claimed his books have no plot. I wish this one didn't either.

But, alas, his first part is sooo brilliant, it's soo perfect, it's so "Thank you god for creating Brett Easton Ellis" That, I'd still recommend it to people.

But with a warming, the second Victor goes to Europe it's another book. The fun stops.

Maybe if had someone warned me before, this might have been my favorite book, instead of a top 5.

Edited by AvidReader
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Similar Content

    • By Ade
      I threatened in another thread (on Patrick McGrath) to start something on American Psycho because I do think it's an amazing book. I started it first in the 1980s and couldn't actually finish it as I found it so disturbing. However, I returned to it again a few years ago (after, it has to be said, seeing the excellent film version with Christian Bale) and I do think it has so much to say about the hollowness of modern society. The satire on the consumer world and its obsession with designer clothers and exotic food is very clever and the fact that the narrative comes from Patrick Bateman's viewpoint does create a sense of collusion. The book itself, though, is very unpleasant. I do wonder whether Ellis needed to make the violence so graphically nauseating to make his point. The film manages to avoid some of the more disturbing scenes eg the murder of the child in the Central Park zoo, yet still keeps the sense of black comedy and satire. Yet, to gain a sense of Bateman's cold sadism, perhaps the violence does need to be this graphic? Does anyone have a view on this?
    • By Keenomanjaro
      Ellis' first novel follows a group of rich Californian teenagers, neglected by their parents (Hollywood stars and producers, rich lawyers) and left to their own devices over the Christmas period. Whilst there is no specific plot, the story focuses on the exploits of the narrator (Clay) who moves from one party to another trying to search for the 'worst possible thing'.
       
      Clay's nihilism has deadened him (and his friends) to all but the most shocking things he encounters and Ellis conveys the sense that in spite of all their money, these kids have no idea what they want from life and have no real desire or means of expressing themselves.
       
      Ellis develops some of these themes further in 'Rules of Attraction' and some of the characters in this book seem like they could have been younger versions of Patrick Bateman from 'American Psycho'. This is a pretty good introduction to Ellis' work and gives you an idea of his distintive writing style.
×
×
  • Create New...