Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Has anyone else read this?
have a good evening.
give me a week or so and we can debate it if you like?
Have you read it meow, or are you about to?
I'm not sure what I think of it as its very different to less than zero and I quite liked that.
so bump this in about a year?
the person who recommended it to me isnt normally a BEE (BUZZ!) fan. is it different to his normal sort of thing?
i should read through threads before replying
it takes you a whole year to read 3 books....blimey.
I'm not too sure as I haven't read anything else by him other than these two books which are both kind of different to each other even though imperial bedrooms is supposed to be a sequal so I'm not sure. I've got American Psycho which is on my list so I guess I'll know then. Its quite dark this one so I suppose, yeah.
there's a couple of haruki murakami books i'd like to read too.
i've only read american psycho so far, and whilst i enjoyed it i don't think i'd want to read something too similar.
Everything else of his seems kind of cheap to me in comparison.
Lunar Park is stellar. American Psycho is ordinarily hailed as his masterpiece, but I reckon both Lunar Park and Glamorama are much more engaging.
FAO meo/Jordan: I wouldn't have said that Imperial Bedrooms is really that different style-wise to Less Than Zero, but I guess it's different in the way that his novels from AP on (but esp. in Glamorama and Lunar Park) have a strong anti-mimetic dimension to them.
I just thought it was a bit odd that it was turning into some mystery that we were all trying to solve but then it didn't really get sorted out in the end did it? I may have to re-read it after the book I'm reading now. It was OKAY but I liked Less Than Zero a bit better because it wasn't really trying to have a massive plot line to keep the reader interested.
He was pretty fucked up in this book though.
and arguably a convention of a lot of pomo lit: i.e. taking a "popular genre" and giving it a tweak. Check out Lunar Park (pomo horror) for his best instance of this, imo.
too little too late, cat-lady!
but worth the read if you are a fan. I liked it.
I don't really think he explains it all well enough and theres a lot of questions unanswered at the end.
it's like that at the end of his every book. Especially Glamorama leaves you with a melted face. I guess that's more or less the thing he wants to achieve, that there's no clear conclusion, just a grim confusion. I've never had the patience to read books more than once but maybe should try sometimes.
it was pretty good
Can't believe how twisted Clay is in this one. Actually I can: it's BEE.
Apparently the text-stalking thing actually happened to him. Also apparently Andrew McCarthy is up for the movie sequel. I hope not. The first one was bobbins.
I wasn't sure reality as a concept existed anymore
a bit disappointing in its lack of extraordinariness. Ellis is brilliant, but there was nothing surprising or novel about this one.
Not as good as LTZ but still pretty damn good.
What happened to Clay though :(
thought LTZ was wank
what else should i read?
If you like that, then read Lunar Park. Those two are his best in my opine.
Just finished IB - really enjoyed it. Perhaps I'm a bad person, but I actually find BEE's writing really relaxing, and compelling. I like the sleazy, totally morally neutral tone which is just totally ruptured by the occasionally shocking moments.
Preferred Lunar Park - that was really something else.
Going to pop to Foyle's after work and pick up Glamorama after glancing at this thread. Seems like it comes recommended by you good people.
so so good.
I did like LTZ though, as it's much more of a relaxing read.
If you don't find that funny then you probably wouldn't be amused *SPOILER* by a man wandering around with a severed head balancing on the end of his cock.
You stopped at the right time
<<I think it’s a kind of black cynicism about today’s world that Ellis and certain others depend on for their readership. Look, if the contemporary condition is hopelessly shitty, insipid, materialistic, emotionally retarded, sadomasochistic, and stupid, then I (or any writer) can get away with slapping together stories with characters who are stupid, vapid, emotionally retarded, which is easy, because these sorts of characters require no development. With descriptions that are simply lists of brand-name consumer products. Where stupid people say insipid stuff to each other. If what’s always distinguished bad writing—flat characters, a narrative world that’s cliched and not recognizably human, etc.—is also a description of today’s world, then bad writing becomes an ingenious mimesis of a bad world. If readers simply believe the world is stupid and shallow and mean, then Ellis can write a mean shallow stupid novel that becomes a mordant deadpan commentary on the badness of everything. Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how dark and stupid everything is? In dark times, the definition of good art would seem to be art that locates and applies CPR to those elements of what’s human and magical that still live and glow despite the times’ darkness. Really good fiction could have as dark a worldview as it wished, but it’d find a way both to depict this world and to illuminate the possibilities for being alive and human in it. You can defend “Psycho” as being a sort of performative digest of late-eighties social problems, but it’s no more than that.>>
Love DFW so much.
and moreover I don't think the success or otherwise of his writing is the point. The point is that he at least *tried*, rather than just reveling in the stupidity and banality of it all. Indeed part of the reason so many authors don't want to write the kind of "passionately moral" fiction Wallace wrote is because irony and nihilism afford a kind of insulating shield against embarrassment and failure.
but that's pretty nonsensical to me. With Psycho, Ellis went to tremendously dark places that most other writers didn't (and wouldn't) dare to. His writing is a million miles away from "bad" - he has a clinical poise and utter control of his material. Added to that, he can be hysterically, laugh-out-loud funny.
I don't think anybody has got the right to determine how art should react to the time it is produced in. The quote above is high-handed and patronizing. It's not a million miles away form my Granddad damning Fargo because it had some swearing in it.
Reminds me though i do need to have a crack at Infinite Jest!