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.
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?