4chan archive /lit/ (index)
similar threads
2014-03-05 05:44 4631601 Anonymous (Bret-Easton-Ellis-006.jpg 460x276 18kB)
How come Bret Estin Ellis never gets feminist flack from his extreme misogyny? I mean for gods sake, in american psycho he writes about doggy styling a woman whom the protagonist nailed the feet and hands to the floor (or some shit like that, I didn't read it). Fuckin disgusting.

0 min later 4631606 Anonymous
He's gay, you can't criticise gay people.

2 min later 4631609 Anonymous
Because most often his characters are bisexual and all equally degenerate so it removes any kind of gender distinction. Also, American Psycho was obviously satire and critical of misogyny

2 min later 4631611 Anonymous
>>4631601 He is irrelevant. He is like those 60 year old women who go back to college and incessantly contribute her anecdotes to class: she is there, she is vocal, but no one really cares that she exists.

4 min later 4631617 Anonymous
>>4631606 >>4631609 Wait so...if an author takes dick in their ass, he becomes impervious to feminist critique? No wonder Oscar Wilde got away with writing ridiculously stupid women in "The Importance of being Ernest".

6 min later 4631619 Anonymous
>>4631617 I'm the second post you quoted. I didn't say anything like that. Can you read?

6 min later 4631620 Anonymous (s475qtF.gif 500x319 453kB)
>>4631617 >if an author takes dick in their ass, he becomes impervious to feminist critique?

7 min later 4631621 Anonymous
>>4631617 >not realising that America Psycho is satire >also not understanding that the Importance of Being Earnest is too Can you even read anon?

9 min later 4631628 Anonymous (1392513777112.png 312x372 101kB)
>>4631621 Slap "satire" on a piece of work and you can become impervious to feminist flack? Wow, good to know.

9 min later 4631629 Anonymous
>Implying Bret EASTON Ellis never got flack for being a misogynist >(or some shit like that, I didn't read it.) >Obvious troll detected

12 min later 4631640 Anonymous
>>4631601 >>4631601 Also, what's wrong with misogyny?

14 min later 4631648 Anonymous
What I don't understand is why you'd care? I read lots of books written by people whose political and social ideas I don't agree with. Would you whine about 500 days of sodom being misogynist? No, because it's a fucking book.

19 min later 4631664 Anonymous
>>4631628 Uh, yeah. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra3q nLXmJDM Wouldn't you think someone was fucking idiot for calling Tom Lehrer racist?

20 min later 4631665 Anonymous
>>4631601 >reading a book as a manifesto of an author's beliefs I fucking hate when people do this.

25 min later 4631679 Anonymous (1372467931077.png 960x717 500kB)
>>4631665 >Author infests dozens of hours writing about men committing torture, rape, mutilation, humiliation, and necrophilia on women >not indicative of the author's fucken up brain ok there.

28 min later 4631687 Anonymous (Fish-Fig-7.jpg 668x792 58kB)
>>4631601 Why are you under the impression that American Psycho is a legitimate portrayal of the author's beliefs? It's about a psychotic, possibly delusional serial killer. Patrick Bateman is misogynistic, but that doesn't necessarily mean BEE is, and as a fellow anon implied, he has been criticized by particularly stupid feminists for promoting misogyny.

28 min later 4631690 Anonymous
>>4631601 What's with people using the terms "mysogyny" or "sexism" when men are treated in the same way? Oh wait, nvm, we already know. I just wanted to point it out.

29 min later 4631691 Anonymous
>>4631687 >>4631679

30 min later 4631694 Anonymous
>>4631601 he got and still gets plenty not as much as in the past but yeah

31 min later 4631700 Anonymous
>>4631687 That's because fedoras miss the point.

38 min later 4631717 Anonymous
>>4631601 because feminists don't actually use any of the entertainments they criticise themselves. they only jump on the bandwagon of whatever's popular in the mainstream. You think they criticize video games because they're disappointed when a game they really like does something misogynist? NO. They criticize them because they're suddenly really popular, and they're so narcissistic they can't stand the thought of something important that doesn't pay homage to them. Books don't tend to get as much hype, and since they don't actually read them themselves they never find out about how misogynist BEE is.

40 min later 4631720 Anonymous
>>4631717 Is a feminist someone who ever considers anything misogynist at all?

42 min later 4631722 Anonymous
>>4631717 Nice.

43 min later 4631724 Anonymous (1392524817996.jpg 720x537 57kB)
To those who have read American psycho, Is this scene in the book with all the same dialogue? This is like...mamet quality dialogue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ44 0xOiyho

46 min later 4631732 Anonymous
>>4631724 I'm pretty sure the film's dialogue is pretty much taken straight out of the book.

49 min later 4631737 Anonymous
>>4631679 Perhaps, but if you believe Patrick Bateman = Bret Easton Ellis in his entirety then I'd say you're mistaken. The author/narrator/character paradigm is more complex than that.

53 min later 4631745 Anonymous
>>4631737 >if you believe Patrick Bateman = Bret Easton Ellis in his entirety then I'd say you're mistaken. Never said that my good man.

57 min later 4631750 Anonymous (1383856620042.jpg 1020x768 232kB)
OP here, I just realized... Perhaps Ellis is using the gimmick "Sweeney Todd" used, that is, taking old genre/format and adding unnecessary and bombastic gore to make it more appealing. I mean, I think without the excessive gore, American Psycho could be a cannon masterpiece...but it's just too much. Throat fucking a decapitated head...I mean what the fuck. Could it be a subtle critique of the serial killers of Murica? Still, not necessary and soils the merits of the novel.

1 hours later 4631755 Anonymous
>>4631750 >Could it be a subtle critique of the serial killers of Murica? From my point of view, the excessive gore went hand in hand with the excessive brand masturbation. The whole book was obsessed with decadence in everything. The constant talking about clothes, brands, music, and all that was virtually the same as the gore. It was all viciously unnecessary and book itself was as decadent as the characters portrayed in it.

1 hours later 4631756 Anonymous
>>4631750 I've read things just as bad or worse that actual serial killers did. It's excessively bloody and gore-filled, sure, but so are the lives of many serial killers.

1 hours later 4631757 Anonymous
>>4631750 If you don't feel like a book "goes too far", and it's contemporary, then it's a shit book.

1 hours later 4631762 Anonymous (4616908+_ad7d46c6d9a10ba317a88694fc73789d.png 525x477 238kB)
>>4631757

1 hours later 4631770 Anonymous
>>4631755 So what your saying is that you would have read the whole book, but all those brands and clothing descriptions made it unreadable?

1 hours later 4631771 Anonymous
>>4631724 Yeah, the whole scene is the same, except in the book she asks him what he's drawing and he says "a watermelon" Gotta love Crayons.

1 hours later 4631782 ovarian cancer
>>4631757 plebs discuss literature vol. 5

1 hours later 4631795 Anonymous
>>4631770 Why are you on a board dedicated to literature when you have such poor reading comprehension?

1 hours later 4631801 Anonymous
>>4631720 Absolutely. Who else would seriously uses that word unironically?

1 hours later 4631820 Anonymous
>>4631762 No work aside from perhaps history (and even that only when it is concerned with what shocked), which didn't shock its contemporaries, ever brought about a radically new outlook from a reader.

1 hours later 4631824 Anonymous
>>4631782 Have you ever even read a manifesto?

1 hours later 4631828 ovarian cancer (SCUM_Manifesto_cover.jpg 250x344 9kB)
>>4631824 duh y

1 hours later 4631836 Anonymous
>>4631828 Ever read one that didn't aim to jolt the fuck out of things?

1 hours later 4631839 Anonymous
>>4631820 >I facetiously make shit up on the internet to annoy mature people who value the truth and wish to have engaging intellectual discussions How's that working out for you neckbeardius?

1 hours later 4631844 Anonymous
Untitled #>9000 When Lyotard said, huskily: This is the age of the rejection of metanarratives Christianity fell, and the arts saw a cataclysm like none other before Neitzche And (evryman) america sighed collectively In their art galleries, their tea rooms, their latte shops And no one talked about stream of concsiousness writing or artistic ambiguity When the sun sat sleepily on our wayward age The school of philosophy decided to amend the curriculum Now: history redefined, as art mimicking art, Cut to: Duchamp’s Toilet Fade to: Man Ray’s pearly tears And post structuralist architecture is the catalyst for post modern gas chambers, in which we all fade away, in the name of capitialism. (same faggin like Jeff mangumnn)

1 hours later 4631846 Anonymous
>>4631839 >mature people who value the truth and wish to have engaging intellectual discussions >/lit pick one faggot

1 hours later 4631848 ovarian cancer
>>4631836 are you implying that the only good literature is manifestos

1 hours later 4631849 Anonymous
>>4631820 platitudinous. i would go as far as to say most books considered canon are NOT shocking mere death and violence when used to move the plot are not shocking/transgressive. you seem to be talking about shocking or repulsive to cultural or social standards. even after all that, a book doesn't have to "bring aobut a radically new outlook from a reader" to be good. plenty of great books are simply indulgent exercises in language and scholarship

1 hours later 4631856 Anonymous
>>4631848 No, I'm saying manifestos distill what art should be. Art is a violent struggle between new and old, constantly seeking to transcend itself.

1 hours later 4631860 Anonymous
>>4631849 I'm not talking about mere death or violence, those are merely tools that can be used to shock. For a book to be fresh it must be intense, and I don't mean the intensity of coffee, I mean the intensity of a hard drug.

1 hours later 4631868 Anonymous
>>4631611 This. Total fucking hack

1 hours later 4631874 Anonymous
>>4631860 youve just shifted your argument first you said a book needs to be shocking to bring about a radically new view in the reader. i basically said no thats obviously wrong. now youre saying a book needs to be "intense" to be "fresh." you just dropped your claim about a books relationship to the reader. not only am i not really following your reasoning but your new argument is meaningless. you could at least give examples. as a counter-example, i would point to house of leaves for its novelty value (its very 'fresh' in relation to literature. does lots of new things. i dont think that makes it good but i think it is 'fresh'). i wouldn't say house of leaves has 'the intensity of a hard drug.'

2 hours later 4631879 ovarian cancer
>>4631856 that's a good point but while i agree with you i disagree as well. art doesn't need to strictly be edgy, although there's nothing wrong with that art also needs to aim towards the higher sensibilities in a way that encourages innovation and development, among other things manifestos can do that but so can other things. art isn't mandatorily violent

2 hours later 4631887 Anonymous
>>4631874 I say "shock" because there is no word in English for "epater" The novelty value is the only value it has. "I think that the kind of pleasure I would consider as the real pleasure would be so deep, so intense, so overwhelming that I couldn't survive it. I would die."

2 hours later 4631935 Anonymous
>>4631795 Nice comeback there genius.

4 hours later 4632186 Anonymous
>I mean for gods sake, in american psycho he writes about doggy styling a woman whom the protagonist nailed the feet and hands to the floor (or some shit like that, I didn't read it). >Fuckin disgusting. I see nothing wrong with that, in literature

4 hours later 4632196 Anonymous
>>4631601 >or some shit like that, I didn't read it

4 hours later 4632207 Anonymous
>>4631611 Oh god, there's a woman exactly like this in my creative writing class. She always tells me she should write a book because she has learned so much I indulge her because her delusion is far more entertaining than what most other people have to say

0.737 0.080