Talk:American Psycho/Archive 1

message: Perhaps it would be interesting to include a comparison of Hannah Arendt's concept of the "banality of evil" to Bateman's homocidal approach.  The sheer amount of violence, excess, cruelty, and sexual torture in American Psycho at first shocks the reader (or at least me) and then desensitizes the reader rendering Bateman's acts less horific than they actually are.  Of course, the violence in American Psycho and Arendt's "banality of evil" are not completely superimposable, but it might be interesting.
* I thought this was a great quick summary and analysis of the book/characters
Why don't you complete the comparison on the article?  You obviously know about it.
---
As a second footnote, I would like to thank the authors of this well-reasoned article. I found the section on hypereality very interesting. This would also explain the way that in the movie Patrick looks at his gun in amazement after two police cars explode after just a couple of bullets.
----
"It should be noted that at one point he is captured by a cab driver who recognises Bateman as the murderer of a fellow cabbie, but this character resorts to robbery as compensation only."
I don't seem to be able to find that passage anywhere in the novel. Could you give me some idea where to look for it? <KF> 14:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
* Yes, it's near the end of the book.  An Iranian cabdriver recognizes Bateman from a picture at the taxi depot, as the guy who killed another cabdriver.  He takes Bateman's wallet and watch at gunpoint. - goatasaur 18:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

message: 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)
thread_title: Missing words/paragraphs

message: 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: 
And this one, which I have bought: 
Both of which are written by the same author.
Thanks, 18:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: The cover image in the article was mis-identified as a first edition cover.  The first edition of the 1991 book was the Vintage paperback with the familiar yuppie image who's face is covered in typeface.  The hardcover was cancelled by Simon and Shuster and the book was then published straight to paperback.  The cover image in the article is the first hardcover edition published much later.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.150.22 (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Book covers

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yeah, I went too far. Thanks.--shtove 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Feminist protest of American Psycho 

message: I thought the movie he rented was "Tetsuo"/"Body Hammer" not "Body Double." Does anyone know? Mattnt 20:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Body Hammer movie

message: 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)
thread_title:  release date 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible Themes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Style 

message: How do we upgrade this to GA? Rintrah 15:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By improving the article so that it meets this criteria. Iolakana•T 16:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  B-class 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, the music is important. <B>Troubleshooter</B> 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Agree. Iolakana•T 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Yes, prose is a definite requirement for a good article, as well as a FA too. Iolakana•T 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Most text should be moved to Patrick Bateman. Iolakana•T 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Text Changes 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  To Trivia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ambiguity Theme 

message: 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)
replies: text: There's a Patrick Bateman article - why? - but this matter is probably dealt with there.--Shtove 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I wasn't thinking of that. Rintrah 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Themes and Symbolism 

message: 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 
Rintrah 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title: Rampage section

message: 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)
thread_title: The question of Bateman's reality and whether he really comitted the murders

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  American Psycho in Australia and New Zealand? 

message: The "See Also" section makes no sense to me as I found it.   The Ice Storm is only related to this novel because they're arguably major "gen x" writers.   Cunt may be more thematically linked, but I fear the editor who included these novels may be trying to perform some sort of Amazon.com-esque "readers who liked American Psycho also liked ..." taste guiding/marketing.  I don't think that's what a wikipedia article's "see also" section should be, so have removed the links.  
This leaves the problem of the lonely link to the  Aestheticization of violence article.  I think it would be best to remove the link entirely and, if an editor felt it necessary, include the topic under the "controversy" section.--Martin Boyden 05:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thought so, thanks for the confirmation. Desdinova 11:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Newer editions missing scenes from U2 concert? 

message: 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 Halberstam. 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)
replies: text: You're right: the passage is wrong. In the narrative, Bateman has dinner with Owen and assumes the guise Halberstam. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mistaken man for Paul Owen

message: I think it should be noted in the article somewhere how the book's chapters include large and strange lapses in time. For instance, the chapter after the Christmas party chapter takes place in May. Also, in the Sandstone chapter, when he sees his mother, he says it's April, yet him and his mother are discussing Christmas gifts. Gold Stur 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lapses in time 

message: In the book, when Patrick steals the Taxi and has the shootout with the police, he mentions that he has a .357 magnum.  Later, he claims he reloads by slipping the clip out.  I was under the impression that a .357 was a round for revolvers. Is this a mistake on Ellis' part?
VendettaCouncil 04:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's most likely another clue left by Ellis to hint at what is eventually revealed by the end of the novel: that Bateman's murders are figments of his imagination. If there's no gun in his hand, then the details of that gun don't have to be accurate. This is not an obscure detail to be noticed only by "gun nuts"; the .357 Magnum is a commonly known round to anyone who watches cop shows, and it's known that it's a revolver round, just like the .38 Special. To reference it being used in a semi-auto is another clue that Bateman is a madman who is imagining things that are not only outlandish, but inaccurate and impossible.AE Logan (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

text: You get clips for revolvers. Not magazines, but clips
222.154.232.126 (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  .357 Magnum? 

message: If you want the archive box above the TOC, you need to remove this line  or find out what in that template is causing the archive box to go below the TOC. I figured this out by removing that line and doing a preview. I was asked to look at this by someone.Rlevse 13:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GEEZ. Figured it out. The template has it's own TOC line, forcing some boxes below the TOC. I rm'd the template TOC line and it makes the TOC showup inside the template--bad template design. I left a note on the template talk page. I've removed the template. Put it back if you want. Rlevse 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive box

message: If I may elaborate on Gold Stur's earlier point, there are some serious timing problems in this book. From what I can determine, the book begins on April 1st, 1987. The chapter near the end, "End of the 1980s", takes place in September, after summer, a summer which Bateman describes as having included Madonna's Like a Prayer, which came out in March 1989. The next chapter takes places "four days before Christmas", presumably December 21, 1989. Then there's a chapter on Valentine's Day, presumably February 14th, 1990. The last chapter in the book refers to the "President Bush's inauguration early this year", which was in January 1989. What's more, later in the last chapter, Bateman refers to himself as twenty-seven years old, when he was twenty-six at the beginning of the book. This chronology can almost make sense if we assume the Valentine's Day scene took place before the September scene. Of course, then we're left with the supposition that the December 21st scene is late 1989, which doesn't work when the last chapter takes place in the same year as Bush's inauguration. And I don't think we can assume the December 21st scene takes place after the last chapter. Whatever. Any opinions? Should any of this be noted in the article? Maybe a footnote after the claim that the book spans "two years" in Bateman's life? VolatileChemical (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing problems 

message: I tagged the article because of this passage from the plot section:
What does this mean? What does Owen's apartment reveal about itself? Was Paul the killer all along? In what way is Patrick not a murderer? And what does the next sentence about describing his psychopathy to others have to do with it, or his vomiting? And what does the final sentence mean? Manifested as what? Manifested how? Can someone familiar with the plot clarify this passage? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So the question that begs to be answered if you accept the "Bateman is a real serial killer" argument is, how do you explain his delusions? Do you assume the novel takes place in a supernatural reality where ATMs give personal and macabre instructions, where breakfast cereals are interviewed on TV, and where park benches chase people? If you accept these anomalies as delusions, how do you then assign truth to the other actions? And which ones? And why? What is the "textual evidence" you refer to that any of the murders take place in reality? The story is told in the first person, and the narrator is delusional. Therefore, how is anything he says to be accepted as valid? You're right that one has to "write off" much of the novel as fantasy. That's the point. The story is entirely about Bateman's delusions. It IS a fantasy. It's NOT a slasher story. It's the portrait of the workings of an insane mind. AE Logan (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing/Unclear Tag

message: I think someone must've misspelled "satirical" and had spell check fill in the wrong word. In the 4th paragraph the sentence goes: "His passion for blandness sits alongside his attention to sartorial detail, his desire to appear normal and the lurid detailing of sex and violence." Was the author of this part of the article specifically meaning that the character had a "attention to the detail of his clothes"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.222.4 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: sartorial?

message: "The incipit of the book has Bateman staring at graffiti on a Chemical Bank building, reading Abandon all hope ye who enter here, a reference to the gates of hell portrayed in Dante's Divine Comedy. The book ends with a similar scene, as Bateman sits in a bar, staring at a sign that reads "This is not an exit," a reference to Jean-Paul Sartre's play No Exit. The opening and closing phrases summarize Bateman's life as a living hell he cannot escape."
'''
Is this an actual/intended reference to No Exit or is this what the wiki author has read into the text? What source verifies it as an actual reference (other than the No Exit wiki entry)? The Dante reference is self-evident as it is such a famous line can be found in the poem itself but "This is not an exit" is neither a line of Sartre's play nor does is it a direct copy of the title. It makes a lot of sense (Especially given that a book by Sartre appears in the actual story) but I was just wondering if it could be verified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meepwon (talk • contribs) 11:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just deleted the unsourced claim that the film's concluding words are an allusion to Sartre's classic play, No Exit. In fact the author of American Psycho has not acknowledged this, and it is exactly the sort of vague allusion whose inspiration or significance probably can never be determined for certain. Here is at least one intellectual who interprets it as NOT being an allusion to Sartre's play. Söderlind, Sylvia. 2008. Branding the Body American: Violence and Self-fashioning from The Scarlet Letter to American Psycho. Canadian Review of American Studies, 38(1): 63-82. "Critics tend to read the sign as an allusion to Sartre while sometimes overlooking the crucial difference in phrasing. Why does the sign not say simply NO EXIT—as both Sartre and verisimilitude would lead one to expect? . . . ." [73] Hurmata (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Sartre 

message: tried to remove this, was reverted, it seems unnecessary. can we discuss it here before re-introducing it. what is its justification?--Mongreilf (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I too nominate removing this. It's unnecessary but more importantly only pertains to one edition of the book.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents 

message: The plot summary needs to be cleaned up primarily because it includes way too much original research. We can not interpret any part of the text ourselves. The plot summary should only state the events that happen in the novel, not any personal interpretations. The only time an interpretation can be added to the article is if it is from a reliable secondary source and properly cited.Flygongengar (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The plot summary needs to be cleaned up (too much original research) 

message: Removed the section stating that the book is available at UQ. I can confirm that they don't stock, or plan on stocking, any item from this author, as of June 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.133.147 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Availability at the University of Queensland 

message: A blog post in the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/feb/11/easton-ellis-generation states "Personally I think it's one of the key novels of the last century", this personal view does not represent a consensus or even a widely held view of this book. Including a one liner like this misrepresents the general views and lends more weight to this book that just one blog post should give. Uptowner679 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If it is included, it should be worded as "Stuart Evers of The Guardian described it as..." Nymf hideliho! 15:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian blog review 

message: I've deleted the reference to No Exit (and also Dante) from the synopsis. Interesting theory n'all, but smacks of O/R to me and at the very least belongs in an 'Interpretations' section, should anyone care to add one (properly sourced mind!!)  Bluebloodyhero (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Cheers for the explanation. Nymf hideliho! 23:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sartre again 

message: Back in 09, a user changed the Controversy section to reflect that when Vintage picked up the book from Simon and Schuster, it went through the "customary editing process".
However the citation is this article: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,318714,00.html
The problem is here, this was written before the edits were done. It talks about the "anticipated" edits:
"Will Mehta edit out some of the more offensive passages? Psycho will go through the customary editing process at Vintage, says spokesman William Loverd. Both Mr. Ellis and Mr. Mehta have indicated that they don't anticipate significant changes. And the two versions are sure to be compared. Whatever the alterations, Ellis has cause to celebrate, having already picked up prepublication profits of rather more than zero. "
It might be better to find a source that mentions what edits were made AFTER they were done. The article here is, as you can see, not the de facto source on the differences (if any) between the original manuscript and the print version, which may be of some interest if any other "controversial" sections were excised. It's likely the above is correct - God knows the book was choc-full of offensive scenes! - but we're citing what is essentially outdated speculation as proof.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.127.199 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing process / Controversy 

message: Tim Price is not a major character. He barely appears in the book, and zero plot relates to him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.145.210 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He is in pretty much half of the book. I would say that makes him a major character. Nymf hideliho! 20:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Price 

message: Why did they filmmakers change his name from Price to Bryce while leaving other character names as original? --KpoT (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They also changed Paul Owen to Paul Allen. Probably reads easier in speech, or the screenwriter thought it seemed better, or any number of reasons. GRAPPLE X 18:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price - Bryce? 

message: There seems to be some persistent idea that the book starts in 1989, when it is easily established as beginning in April 1987 and ending in October 1989. New York city events and magazine covers are noted in the text and are, in fact, important events to Bateman. The U2 Time magazine cover that Patrick refers to was on 27 April 1987, and he goes to see them in concert a few weeks later. At the end of the book he's going to see Sting in the October 1989 production of "The Threepenny Opera." Please stop reverting edits which correct the year. If one needs further proof of the years of the action, Reagan was still president and giving a press conference in the first section of the book (Bush was president in '89), "Les Miserables" started on Broadway in 1987, not 1989. I could go on, but I that really should be enough. The production of "Les Miz" is actually important ironic subtext in the midst of all this obscene wealth and spending on clothes and shoes, etc., and is unambiguously used to contrast the lives of people who spend hundreds of dollars on food they don't even bother to eat. I think that should be part of the synopsis, but don't know if it would count as "original research." It's not exactly a subtly made point in the book.--TEHodson 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again with the time period being disputed! The book begins on April Fools Day (1st of April) 1987, and ends in October 1989. The author is very, very clear about this. Why should it say "roughly three years" when it's exactly 2 1/2 years from beginning to end? It would make sense to round up if it were 2 yrs 8 mos or something, but saying 2 1/2 years is a common expression (whereas 2 years 8 months is inelegant), and since it is also accurate, why keep changing it? It seems pretty silly to me to revert an accurate edit for a general and by the way, inaccurate one, and then call the correct dates "original research". The time period of the book was important enough for the author to establish concretely; he does so over and over and over. If he thought it was important, shouldn't we treat it as though it is? The economic climate of that period was specific. The action ends when Wall Street life began to shift--it seems that respecting author's intention is imperative if Wikipedia is to be truly an encyclopedia. It would also be sensible for people who want to keep changing the dates to talk about it here, on the Talk page, rather than simply revert repeatedly.--TEHodson 21:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also have to argue that "roughly three years" is not only OR, but also a personal opinion. Can you explain how you keep coming up with this as the time period? It obviously doesn't derive from the book's text, so where is it coming from?--TEHodson 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Using references (magazine covers, concerts etc) from the book, and looking these things up yourself, is most definitely original research. It is the very definition of original research. Please source it! Nymf hideliho! 22:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And when I say source "it", I mean the actual dates -- not the covers. Nymf hideliho! 22:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I've been meaning to re-read the book recently, so I'll keep an eye out for any concrete dates, but implying the years based on a few references here and there which you had to further extrapolate is OR. The best analogue I can think of is actually the film The Terminator, which is set in a different year than some of the references in the film would imply—the day, date and month are given and correspond to a different year than the year stated elsewhere in the film. Similarly, some things mentioned in the book may be put in there deliberately, but may still be anachronistic. Don't specify the year unless it's definitely given, just use the time period (late 80s) instead. If I turn up a definite year, though, I'll be sure to cite it. GRAPPLE X 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought it should just say "the late 80s" but someone else kept putting in "April 1, 1989" (which is wrong), then "roughly three years" which is also wrong. If there are going to be specific dates they should be correct. If you believe there should be no dates, then "late 80s" is best. I'll change it to that now. There are no specific dates written out in the book, but there are specific, non-arguable milestones, many, many, many of them. What we should not do is imply that 1990 is a year of the action. Different Wall Street environment by then, and the run-up to the Gulf War. The background of this book is the Wall Street boom of the late 80s.--TEHodson 02:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Would "several years in the late 1980s" work, then? GRAPPLE X 02:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, I changed it. I think this is better writing in any case. I'm not sure who started the whole thing with the dates--I only corrected the wrong dates that had been there--but it seems wise to avoid the issue entirely, less chance of ongoing dispute. What is important is the economic climate of the late 80s as context for the novel. By using the words "daily life" we don't have to argue over how long a period of daily life is covered. I still don't consider it OR in the usual sense to note the events and therefore grasp the correct dates--a press conference by "President" Reagan cannot have taken place after 1988 so it merely requires logic to exclude certain years from the action, not original research. In any case, the wording as it stands now should satisfy everyone (let's hope).--TEHodson 03:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years the book takes place