Last year I started reading American Psycho, since the movie is one of my favorites. The book is excellent and even more hysterical than the movie. I was almost finished reading last year, but then got busy and stopped reading it for a while. I finally finished it recently. One of the best fiction writing features of this book is the character lens in which it is told. It’s written from the view of a psychopath, so it’s not for those who are easily offended. It’s the contrast between Patrick Bateman's inner world and outward appearance that is satirical. We laugh at the way he tries so hard to fit into 1980’s upper class New York society, all the while showing callous behavior and committing horrific acts that seem to go unnoticed. Or does he? That’s one of the many puzzles of this novel; both the movie and book are enigmas. The book has way more details and parts that the movie doesn’t include. You can turn to the book for more answers, but it will still leave your head spinning.
There are numerous articles and videos on the internet that analyze the symbolism and narrative of this novel. We try to provide a psychoanalysis of Patrick Bateman and evaluate all the characters he’s mistaken for by others. What we’re forgetting is a key fiction component that makes this book such great literary art: the character lens. It’s told from the view of a delusional psychopath, so should we expect it to make perfect sense? I use the word psychopath for lack of a better word. Even though Patrick is implied as a psychopath in the book, I’m not quite sure that’s the correct phrase to use. Throughout the book he mentions being nervous and psychopaths don’t get nervous.
There’s a ton of symbolism in this book, and I think the analyses interpreting it to represent capitalism could be correct. However, there’s a lot of videos and articles on the internet providing you with that; along with psychoanalysis of Patrick Bateman. I can’t say I have some big-picture perspective on the whole novel or a key to the mystery. However, I will share patterns and characteristics of the book that I found interesting:
1. Erratic Shift in Narration: Dissociation?
One thing readers are uncertain of is whether or not Patrick Bateman actually commits the numerous murders that are described throughout the book. The way that he gets no response from the outside world for his behavior gives the appearance that it’s not really happening. I can’t give you a concrete answer to this mystery, but there was one section of the book that stood out to me. On pages 349-350, while Patrick is committing a crime, the narrative abruptly switches from first person to third person. It’s as though Patrick is suddenly watching himself commit the crime, versus describing it from his point of view; an out of body experience. This makes me think there’s some kind of dissociative fantasy aspect to his crimes.
2. Patrick Doesn't Know Who People Are, But He Gets Name Brands Perfectly
A common theme throughout the book is people getting each other mixed up. Patrick sees people out in public and constantly guesses who they are. Other characters call Patrick different names; getting him mixed up with other men in his social circle. Many analyses will say this symbolizes how everyone is desperate to fit in and has no identity of their own, and they might be right.
One thing I noticed is that names of human beings remain ambiguous throughout the book. However, Patrick has designer brand names and fashion choices down to a tee. He remains puzzled about who is sitting across a restaurant from him, but can still zero in on which designer names and fabrics they’re wearing. One of the greatest qualities of this book is the elaborate descriptions, including those of fashion, textiles, designers, and other elements of luxury lifestyle. His contempt toward petty fashion mistakes and one-upmanship is one of the humorous aspects of the novel.
Intense Attention to Fashion Details
Who's who?
3. No Story Arc
This one actually is a big-picture perspective, but I didn’t see much on the internet about this topic. I realized that this book distracts the reader so much with obsessive detail and uncertainty. All the while, we don’t realize it lacks a critical literary element: a story arc. There’s no conflict that Patrick Bateman takes action to solve because he simply doesn’t care. The book is a series of events: Patrick eating at fancy restaurants, having sex, taking drugs, and committing crimes. Some of Patrick’s thoughts could appear as internal conflict, although he doesn’t seem bothered by it and takes no action to change it. His lack of insight is what shows you he’s a narcissistic psychopath, versus just telling you. Brett Eason Ellis does an amazing job with show versus tell in this fiction writing. However, the story arc and character arc appear to be flat lines. The story ends abruptly with no resolution, but I think it admits its flaw to the reader in a subtle way during Patrick’s inner monologue where he states “there is no catharsis… this confession has meant nothing.” The flat story arch aligns with the flat affect of psychopathic emotion.
Patrick's Inner Monologue
I'm curious to hear if you've seen this movie or read the book and what your thoughts are - comment below!
Thanks for reading,
Laura