If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   Bret Easton Ellis is Twitter's lizard troll king and Norm MacDonald is the prince sent by God to slay him   (uproxx.com) divider line 68
    More: Amusing, Bret Easton Ellis, MacDonald, Twitter, Museum of Natural History, lizards, Nobel Prize for Literature, trolls, Alice Munro  
•       •       •

6845 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 15 Oct 2013 at 5:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-15 03:55:57 PM  
So some Canadian has a comeback when another Canadian gets insulted?

I guess he saved her bacon.
 
2013-10-15 04:35:46 PM  
I wish I could laugh, but the only name I actually recognized was Norm MacDonald.

Would anyone be kind enough to explain why that was a sick burn?
 
2013-10-15 04:51:35 PM  

scottydoesntknow: I wish I could laugh, but the only name I actually recognized was Norm MacDonald.

Would anyone be kind enough to explain why that was a sick burn?


You are not supposed to like Brett Easton Ellis because he wrote a movie about a stock broker who fed a cat to an ATM. And Norm MacDonald is beloved by all. It's like -you know popularity and stuff.
 
2013-10-15 05:17:37 PM  
See this is why I don't bother with Twitter. Anything good that comes of it will be posted elsewhere.
 
2013-10-15 05:24:21 PM  
I only click on one out of 20 greens but I click on anything Norm MacDonald related because he is the Emperor of all things comedic. Loved seeing him shred that asshole BEE.

Thanks for finding that subby
 
2013-10-15 05:27:02 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: scottydoesntknow: I wish I could laugh, but the only name I actually recognized was Norm MacDonald.

Would anyone be kind enough to explain why that was a sick burn?

You are not supposed to like Brett Easton Ellis because he wrote a movie about a stock broker who fed a cat to an ATM. And Norm MacDonald is beloved by all. It's like -you know popularity and stuff.



He didn't write the movie. The director of the movie did, thankfully removing a significant amount of the book's gore porn. That was the only book I've read where I felt like I needed a shower afterwards.

Bret Ellis gets slammed because he is ripping on someone else's accomplishment while he himself hasn't put out anything people have given a damn about in 22 years.
 
2013-10-15 05:41:58 PM  
stoli n coke:

Bret Ellis gets slammed because he is ripping on someone else's accomplishment while he himself hasn't put out anything people have given a damn about in 22 years.

In his defense, farkers rip on peoples accomplishments all the time while never even going outside, much less creating anything of import.

/hypocrisy, thy name is Fark.
 
2013-10-15 05:43:54 PM  
Who the f*@% is John Casablanca? I can only find reference to John Casablancas, father of the lead vocalist of The Strokes, who died earlier this year. No idea what that's got to do with Bret Easton Ellis, but then I only know who Bret Easton Ellis is 'cause he wrote that one book that got made into that movie starring Batman.
 
2013-10-15 05:53:03 PM  

stoli n coke: Because People in power are Stupid: scottydoesntknow: I wish I could laugh, but the only name I actually recognized was Norm MacDonald.

Would anyone be kind enough to explain why that was a sick burn?

You are not supposed to like Brett Easton Ellis because he wrote a movie about a stock broker who fed a cat to an ATM. And Norm MacDonald is beloved by all. It's like -you know popularity and stuff.


He didn't write the movie. The director of the movie did, thankfully removing a significant amount of the book's gore porn. That was the only book I've read where I felt like I needed a shower afterwards.

Bret Ellis gets slammed because he is ripping on someone else's accomplishment while he himself hasn't put out anything people have given a damn about in 22 years.


Me too.  I would get to parts, stop and ask myself why in the hell are you reading this?
 
2013-10-15 06:00:14 PM  
Hey Norm, two words: Vampire Dog.
 
2013-10-15 06:01:07 PM  

LeroyBourne: stoli n coke: Because People in power are Stupid: scottydoesntknow: I wish I could laugh, but the only name I actually recognized was Norm MacDonald.

Would anyone be kind enough to explain why that was a sick burn?

You are not supposed to like Brett Easton Ellis because he wrote a movie about a stock broker who fed a cat to an ATM. And Norm MacDonald is beloved by all. It's like -you know popularity and stuff.


He didn't write the movie. The director of the movie did, thankfully removing a significant amount of the book's gore porn. That was the only book I've read where I felt like I needed a shower afterwards.

Bret Ellis gets slammed because he is ripping on someone else's accomplishment while he himself hasn't put out anything people have given a damn about in 22 years.

Me too.  I would get to parts, stop and ask myself why in the hell are you reading this?


I don't know what everyone is saying. I bought a habitrail after reading that book. Less than Zero sucked but was written as if the writer was high on coke when he wrote it.
 
2013-10-15 06:02:54 PM  
Hollywood people problems.
 
2013-10-15 06:11:20 PM  

stoli n coke: Bret Ellis gets slammed because he is ripping on someone else's accomplishment while he himself hasn't put out anything people have given a damn about in 22 years.


Tons of people slam the Nobel for exactly the same reasons Bret did.

Heck, tons of people ON FARK were blasting the Nobel just last week:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7967805/No-American-author-should-win-N ob el-prize-for-literature-claims-someone-who-hates-America
 
2013-10-15 06:14:53 PM  
Much like with David Mamet, you find out that Brett Easton Ellis' protagonists aren't agents of dark self-deprecating satire, -- delusions of hamfisted douchebag grandeur, rather--far too late too avoid despising them forever.
 
2013-10-15 06:31:07 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: And Norm MacDonald is beloved by all.


In the same way Lenny on the Simpsons is.
 
2013-10-15 06:31:17 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: LeroyBourne: stoli n coke: Because People in power are Stupid: scottydoesntknow: I wish I could laugh, but the only name I actually recognized was Norm MacDonald.

Would anyone be kind enough to explain why that was a sick burn?

You are not supposed to like Brett Easton Ellis because he wrote a movie about a stock broker who fed a cat to an ATM. And Norm MacDonald is beloved by all. It's like -you know popularity and stuff.


He didn't write the movie. The director of the movie did, thankfully removing a significant amount of the book's gore porn. That was the only book I've read where I felt like I needed a shower afterwards.

Bret Ellis gets slammed because he is ripping on someone else's accomplishment while he himself hasn't put out anything people have given a damn about in 22 years.

Me too.  I would get to parts, stop and ask myself why in the hell are you reading this?

I don't know what everyone is saying. I bought a habitrail after reading that book. Less than Zero sucked but was written as if the writer was high on coke when he wrote it.


You should put a sign on it, 'feed me the gerbil'.  He wrote LTZ in college, so if it was anything like my college experience, yeah, blow was probably involved.
 
2013-10-15 06:33:42 PM  
It's not Fark, it's a mirror of Uproxx.com
 
2013-10-15 06:34:00 PM  

LeroyBourne: stoli n coke: Because People in power are Stupid: scottydoesntknow: I wish I could laugh, but the only name I actually recognized was Norm MacDonald.

Would anyone be kind enough to explain why that was a sick burn?

You are not supposed to like Brett Easton Ellis because he wrote a movie about a stock broker who fed a cat to an ATM. And Norm MacDonald is beloved by all. It's like -you know popularity and stuff.


He didn't write the movie. The director of the movie did, thankfully removing a significant amount of the book's gore porn. That was the only book I've read where I felt like I needed a shower afterwards.

Bret Ellis gets slammed because he is ripping on someone else's accomplishment while he himself hasn't put out anything people have given a damn about in 22 years.

Me too.  I would get to parts, stop and ask myself why in the hell are you reading this?


Same here. I put it down midway through and sat on it for 6 months. Only ended up finishing it because I wanted to be able to say I read it, because I loved the movie.

All the times Bateman gets peoples' names confused...I know it was supposed to mean something, but it just wasn't worth the effort to try and figure out the point.

One of those special cases where the movie is far, far superior to the book.
 
2013-10-15 06:43:39 PM  

goatleggedfellow: One of those special cases where the movie is far, far superior to the book.


Yup. The movie adaptation made the story a focused, sharp satire. Considering how scattershot and ridiculous the actual book is, it only makes me appreciate the film more.
 
2013-10-15 06:50:21 PM  

goatleggedfellow:

Same here. I put it down midway through and sat on it for 6 months. Only ended up finishing it because I wanted to be able to say I read it, because I loved the movie.

All the times Bateman gets peoples' names confused...I know it was supposed to mean something, but it just wasn't worth the effort to try and figure out the point.

One of those special cases where the movie is far, far superior to the book.


You want a tough 4 page read?  Check this chapter in Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk (if you haven't already).



Link
 
2013-10-15 07:03:51 PM  
You have to be so ridiculously buried in pop culture info to even understand that exchange. It's bizarre.
 
2013-10-15 07:25:00 PM  

LeroyBourne: You want a tough 4 page read? Check this chapter in Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk (if you haven't already).


Without even checking I'm going to guess it's the excerpt with the kid sitting on the bottom of the swimming pool.
 
2013-10-15 07:27:29 PM  

LeroyBourne: goatleggedfellow:

Same here. I put it down midway through and sat on it for 6 months. Only ended up finishing it because I wanted to be able to say I read it, because I loved the movie.

All the times Bateman gets peoples' names confused...I know it was supposed to mean something, but it just wasn't worth the effort to try and figure out the point.

One of those special cases where the movie is far, far superior to the book.

You want a tough 4 page read?  Check this chapter in Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk (if you haven't already).

Link


Yerk!

I've read a couple of Palahnuuhwhatever's books. Well, one and a half. He's got an unpleasant openness that is similar to Ellis. They both seem to troll the reader with uncomfortable things, but Ellis is so much more of a jackass about it. I see Palahniuk grinning when his words make you squirm, but I see Ellis just straight jacking off to your discomfort.
 
2013-10-15 07:27:38 PM  
American Psycho the movie is leagues better than the book. In fact, it is one of my very favorite films, even though the novel is garbage.

The book  is pretty much unreadable. Just endless descriptions of clothing and hoyty toyty food. I hated it, and actually bailed after a couple of hundred pages. Imagine how disillusioned I was ....

Seldom will I ditch a book before finishing it, even if I know it sucks.

Even Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged didn't get me to do that. I finished THAT one, even though it was unspeakably tedious.

American Psycho the book sucks, and so does Brett Easton Ellis. He is a hack of the worst order. I'll side with whoever he is opposing at any turn.
 
2013-10-15 07:55:52 PM  

thamike: Much like with David Mamet, you find out that Brett Easton Ellis' protagonists aren't agents of dark self-deprecating satire, -- delusions of hamfisted douchebag grandeur, rather--far too late too avoid despising them forever.


Word language speak read write maybe you learn, hey?
 
2013-10-15 07:57:49 PM  
Isn't there something shameful about getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man?

No, not for Norm MacDonald.  Take that asshole down.
 
2013-10-15 08:15:49 PM  
Everyone has been trolled by Norm because nobody knows who John Casablanca is.
 
2013-10-15 08:22:47 PM  
Im tired of his nihilism.
 
2013-10-15 08:39:09 PM  
I liked less than zero and american psycho. otherwise.....meh

definitely not the american irvine welsh, that's for sure
 
2013-10-15 08:44:02 PM  

goatleggedfellow: LeroyBourne: goatleggedfellow:

Same here. I put it down midway through and sat on it for 6 months. Only ended up finishing it because I wanted to be able to say I read it, because I loved the movie.

All the times Bateman gets peoples' names confused...I know it was supposed to mean something, but it just wasn't worth the effort to try and figure out the point.

One of those special cases where the movie is far, far superior to the book.

You want a tough 4 page read?  Check this chapter in Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk (if you haven't already).

Link

Yerk!

I've read a couple of Palahnuuhwhatever's books. Well, one and a half. He's got an unpleasant openness that is similar to Ellis. They both seem to troll the reader with uncomfortable things, but Ellis is so much more of a jackass about it. I see Palahniuk grinning when his words make you squirm, but I see Ellis just straight jacking off to your discomfort.


Yep.  I read that chapter (which was only a few pages) in ohhh about 45 min.  I felt doozy, short of breath and flat out yelling no! and getting up to pace.  The best part is the epilogue at the end of the book when he talks about going on book tours and reading that chapter to an audience.  Most people had to have a break, some would even head to bathroom to lay down so their faces could touch the cool tiles and some would straight up faint.   It's insane to think that words could have so much power, nonetheless I felt a bit better after reading so many others had problems with that chapter.  And it wasn't just me.
 
kth
2013-10-15 09:09:43 PM  

doczoidberg: American Psycho the movie is leagues better than the book. In fact, it is one of my very favorite films, even though the novel is garbage.


When I was in high school a couple of the boys in my speech class would hold us down and read from that book to torture us. they were kind of assholes.
 
2013-10-15 09:16:55 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thamike: Much like with David Mamet, you find out that Brett Easton Ellis' protagonists aren't agents of dark self-deprecating satire, -- delusions of hamfisted douchebag grandeur, rather--far too late too avoid despising them forever.

Word language speak read write maybe you learn, hey?


Aside from the comma in front of the dash, it's really not that bad of a sentence.
 
2013-10-15 09:39:12 PM  
I've read fight club, choke and invisible monsters. Which I enjoyed but "Guts" just seems so juvenile. I liked the begining, thought it might be going some place a little more profound, alas it just went to the gross out.
 
2013-10-15 09:42:34 PM  

doczoidberg: The book is pretty much unreadable. Just endless descriptions of clothing and hoyty toyty food. I hated it, and actually bailed after a couple of hundred pages. Imagine how disillusioned I was ....


But that's the whole point. The book is supposed to be desensitizing. It was written deliberately like that, in an almost straight-forward, amoral, utterly soulless style to turn you, the reader, into a psychopath. The repetition of what everyone's wearing, the graphic depictions of violence and rape, the lack of any emotion of imagery or color in the writing, and the obsession with minutiae and the details of specific music in the 80s, is intentional. At first it shocks you, then it wears on you, and by the end of the book where every page is just a scathing account of mutulation and carnage, it ceases to have any more effect on you. The book's first-person narrative has turned you into him.

The movie is a good, complimentary companion to the book but conveys none of the book's depth and depravity. The book could never be made in full -- it would literally be 2 hours of x-rated torture porn.
 
2013-10-15 09:50:46 PM  

LeroyBourne: goatleggedfellow: LeroyBourne: goatleggedfellow:

Same here. I put it down midway through and sat on it for 6 months. Only ended up finishing it because I wanted to be able to say I read it, because I loved the movie.

All the times Bateman gets peoples' names confused...I know it was supposed to mean something, but it just wasn't worth the effort to try and figure out the point.

One of those special cases where the movie is far, far superior to the book.

You want a tough 4 page read?  Check this chapter in Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk (if you haven't already).

Link

Yerk!

I've read a couple of Palahnuuhwhatever's books. Well, one and a half. He's got an unpleasant openness that is similar to Ellis. They both seem to troll the reader with uncomfortable things, but Ellis is so much more of a jackass about it. I see Palahniuk grinning when his words make you squirm, but I see Ellis just straight jacking off to your discomfort.

Yep.  I read that chapter (which was only a few pages) in ohhh about 45 min.  I felt doozy, short of breath and flat out yelling no! and getting up to pace.  The best part is the epilogue at the end of the book when he talks about going on book tours and reading that chapter to an audience.  Most people had to have a break, some would even head to bathroom to lay down so their faces could touch the cool tiles and some would straight up faint.   It's insane to think that words could have so much power, nonetheless I felt a bit better after reading so many others had problems with that chapter.  And it wasn't just me.


Sadly, not much can surprise me anymore. I'm just out of surprise. I've been to 4chan and I've seen...I've seen things. No longer do I say "I can't believe someone would do that". Because I can believe it.

I watched Human Centipede because I felt that it was expected of me, but I watched it in snippets because knew it would be a bad movie. It was the realization that it had become boring. I was desensitized and couldn't react the way I wanted to in public (polite company, if you will).

I got the idea that Ellis wanted to mind-fark me and might be winning. He likes to mess with people under the guise of art/literature, but he's really just a small, vicious man.
 
2013-10-15 10:16:01 PM  

Ishkur: doczoidberg: The book is pretty much unreadable. Just endless descriptions of clothing and hoyty toyty food. I hated it, and actually bailed after a couple of hundred pages. Imagine how disillusioned I was ....

But that's the whole point. The book is supposed to be desensitizing. It was written deliberately like that, in an almost straight-forward, amoral, utterly soulless style to turn you, the reader, into a psychopath. The repetition of what everyone's wearing, the graphic depictions of violence and rape, the lack of any emotion of imagery or color in the writing, and the obsession with minutiae and the details of specific music in the 80s, is intentional. At first it shocks you, then it wears on you, and by the end of the book where every page is just a scathing account of mutulation and carnage, it ceases to have any more effect on you. The book's first-person narrative has turned you into him.

The movie is a good, complimentary companion to the book but conveys none of the book's depth and depravity. The book could never be made in full -- it would literally be 2 hours of x-rated torture porn.


So basically it shows that psychopaths are, at their cores, boring people? I already knew that.
 
2013-10-15 10:39:55 PM  

optional: So basically it shows that psychopaths are, at their cores, boring people? I already knew that.


And they fake being interesting people because that's what psychopaths do. They have such an utter lack of empathy that they literally do not understand how to be a functional human, so when they interact with others they fake their way through social discourse by parroting common social conventions, but it doesn't register with them how to do any of those things genuinely. When you read Patrick Bateman's dissertations of Huey Lewis or Whitney Houston, for instance, you get the sense that this is someone who doesn't actually understand the point behind music, he's just regurgitating phrases and tropes that he probably ripped off from magazine articles in an effort to appear more normal. It's also why he's so obsessed with what everybody's wearing and with his own physical appearance -- he similarly doesn't understand the point behind fashion or looking good, but he copies the conventions because he wants to fit in. It's all an act. There's no emotional connection with anything underneath that veneer -- there's simply nothing there at all.
 
2013-10-15 11:04:19 PM  

Ishkur: optional: So basically it shows that psychopaths are, at their cores, boring people? I already knew that.

And they fake being interesting people because that's what psychopaths do. They have such an utter lack of empathy that they literally do not understand how to be a functional human, so when they interact with others they fake their way through social discourse by parroting common social conventions, but it doesn't register with them how to do any of those things genuinely. When you read Patrick Bateman's dissertations of Huey Lewis or Whitney Houston, for instance, you get the sense that this is someone who doesn't actually understand the point behind music, he's just regurgitating phrases and tropes that he probably ripped off from magazine articles in an effort to appear more normal. It's also why he's so obsessed with what everybody's wearing and with his own physical appearance -- he similarly doesn't understand the point behind fashion or looking good, but he copies the conventions because he wants to fit in. It's all an act. There's no emotional connection with anything underneath that veneer -- there's simply nothing there at all.


I guess I can understand the rationale, but it seems like you'd have to be a real masochist to read the entire thing, especially if it's to make a point that's already pretty well-known. Granted, this might be the case of the book being so successful and having so many imitators (in idea if not in precise content) that it ends up being a victim of said success.

Basically, I'm not willing to slog through a novel that long when it's both unpleasant to read and makes a point with which I'm already aware. This is coming from somebody who's read and loved all three of Kafka's novels. Maybe I had to have been there in the '80s.
 
2013-10-15 11:43:18 PM  

Ishkur: optional: So basically it shows that psychopaths are, at their cores, boring people? I already knew that.

And they fake being interesting people because that's what psychopaths do. They have such an utter lack of empathy that they literally do not understand how to be a functional human, so when they interact with others they fake their way through social discourse by parroting common social conventions, but it doesn't register with them how to do any of those things genuinely. When you read Patrick Bateman's dissertations of Huey Lewis or Whitney Houston, for instance, you get the sense that this is someone who doesn't actually understand the point behind music, he's just regurgitating phrases and tropes that he probably ripped off from magazine articles in an effort to appear more normal. It's also why he's so obsessed with what everybody's wearing and with his own physical appearance -- he similarly doesn't understand the point behind fashion or looking good, but he copies the conventions because he wants to fit in. It's all an act. There's no emotional connection with anything underneath that veneer -- there's simply nothing there at all.


So he's like Peter Keating with a chainsaw.

/See how many get that reference
 
2013-10-15 11:53:51 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: So he's like Peter Keating with a chainsaw.


No, Howard Roark with a chainsaw.
 
2013-10-15 11:55:55 PM  

optional: it seems like you'd have to be a real masochist to read the entire thing,


Well, I skipped over the paragraphs where he describes what everyone is wearing, and I skipped over some pages where the gruesome violence just goes on and on and on like a turgid Ayn Rand speech. It makes the book a nice, light read, actually.
 
2013-10-16 12:13:05 AM  

goatleggedfellow: I watched Human Centipede because I felt that it was expected of me, but I watched it in snippets because knew it would be a bad movie.


Unless you're a movie critic and your editor assigned you to do a review, why would you be expected to see Human Centipede? Were all your relatives planning to discuss it over Thanksgiving dinner and you didn't want to be left out of the conversation?
 
2013-10-16 12:13:58 AM  

Ishkur: B.L.Z. Bub: So he's like Peter Keating with a chainsaw.

No, Howard Roark with a chainsaw.


You have your characters mixed up. Keating was the second-hander of the novel.
 
2013-10-16 12:15:32 AM  

B.L.Z. Bub: You have your characters mixed up. Keating was the second-hander of the novel.


Yes, but he wasn't the sociopath. He was just a fraud who was terrible at his job.
 
2013-10-16 12:22:01 AM  

Ishkur: B.L.Z. Bub: You have your characters mixed up. Keating was the second-hander of the novel.

Yes, but he wasn't the sociopath. He was just a fraud who was terrible at his job.


Yours and my definition of sociopath are different to say the least.
 
2013-10-16 12:33:22 AM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Yours and my definition of sociopath are different to say the least.


All of Ayn Rand's heroes are sociopaths, because she was one.

She was an absolutely despicable person according to EVERYONE who ever had the misfortune of working with or even meeting her. She was indomitably defiant, obscenely difficult to talk to -- she interrupted you constantly while you were not permitted to interrupt her once -- and she was known to completely suck the life out of a room. She never smiled or laughed, she abhorred small talk, and she would often approach strangers with random questions like "Tell me about your premises." She just didn't get people -- she was a pure autistic in every sense of the meaning. And her problem with her philosophy was, like all philosophers, she self-righteously asserted that everyone ought to think just like her.
 
2013-10-16 12:34:46 AM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Yours and my definition of sociopath are different to say the least.


You don't think blowing up a housing project or raping women as a token of divine selfishness isn't sociopathic behavior?
 
2013-10-16 01:15:08 AM  

Ishkur: B.L.Z. Bub: Yours and my definition of sociopath are different to say the least.

All of Ayn Rand's heroes are sociopaths, because she was one.

She was an absolutely despicable person according to EVERYONE who ever had the misfortune of working with or even meeting her. She was indomitably defiant, obscenely difficult to talk to -- she interrupted you constantly while you were not permitted to interrupt her once -- and she was known to completely suck the life out of a room. She never smiled or laughed, she abhorred small talk, and she would often approach strangers with random questions like "Tell me about your premises." She just didn't get people -- she was a pure autistic in every sense of the meaning. And her problem with her philosophy was, like all philosophers, she self-righteously asserted that everyone ought to think just like her.


To be fair, that sounds more massive sperglord than sociopath.
 
2013-10-16 02:09:04 AM  

LeroyBourne: goatleggedfellow:

Same here. I put it down midway through and sat on it for 6 months. Only ended up finishing it because I wanted to be able to say I read it, because I loved the movie.

All the times Bateman gets peoples' names confused...I know it was supposed to mean something, but it just wasn't worth the effort to try and figure out the point.

One of those special cases where the movie is far, far superior to the book.

You want a tough 4 page read?  Check this chapter in Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk (if you haven't already).

Link


I have nothing against you personally. Having said that, that story is awful, that BOOK is awful (REALLY awful) and you are awful for posting that stupid fricking excerpt from it.

//HATE that book. Just.......just..........HATE!
 
2013-10-16 02:35:37 AM  
Ellis is an OK writer, but not a great one. He always kind of struck me as the type of guy who wanted to be the type of writer that Chuck Palahniuk is, the one who puts out stuff along the lines of Choke or Diary, stuff that comments on how dark and deep society can get while looking normal on the surface. It's about the best comparison I can make as far as writing styles go.  Not thatPalahniuk's work has been all that consistent lately. He's still fun, but some of his most recent works have felt a little meh in comparison to how he used to write.

I think that most of Ellis's anger is because he's essentially been passed over and ignored for the most part. His work hasn't been universally ignored, but he's not getting the attention he did with American Psycho. If not for his behavior on social media, he'd probably be more of a footnote than anything else. He'd be somewhat more known than the average writer out there, but just a brief mention here and there. And he can't stand not being the center of attention.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report