People who did not like this book simply did not understand it. While this book has the ability to stand on it's on, the real genius is how it acts ad a platform that allows ellis's characters (from all other works) to interact with one another outside the narcissism that confines their own stories. Those who complain that this book lacks plot or character growth, have failed to ask why that is. This book is an introspective account, told in first person narrative, from various (mainly three) perspectives. The setting is not Camden college, but in the minds of these young characters. Ellis brilliantly depicts how the events that take place over a few months time, are perceived and interpreted by those involved. The book begins and ends in the middle of a sentence, symbolically stating that perhaps the reader should interpret the work as a whole in the same way. This book is about the here and now, the present moments of these peoples lives. Any beginning or end would provide a context that might and most likely would

I absolutely tore through this!!! Countless irredeemable characters and irresistible pacing. My favourite moment was the first miscommunication between Paul and Sean, “do you want to get a quesadilla?” / “do you want to get a case of beer?”. Bret Easton Ellis is a funny guy and I’ll be reading more of him!

This novel was just as entertaining now as it was in the late 80's. The desperate search for meaning without really trying, staying within the same gravitational circles and going nowhere. These kids won't learn. But it sure is fun watching black holes implode.

Secondo romanzo di Ellis, pubblicato a 23 anni (…), immerso nel suo classico universo disilluso, cinico, vuoto, cupo, a tratti struggente. Inanella narrazioni in prima persona che spesso si contraddicono a vicenda, con frasi brevi e dialoghi che giocano col nonsense, o solo col fatto che a nessuno qui interessa davvero ascoltare cosa hanno da dire gli altri. Apatia e disinteresse a profusione che fanno pensare al vecchio Meursault catapultato tra sesso, droghe, sbronze, manipolazioni emotive, stupri, suicidi (o tentativi di).
Cameo di Clay, già in Meno di zero, e di Patrick Bateman, idolo nel fondamentale American Psycho. Si ascoltano molto i Talking Heads.
Ha una sua indiscutibile epocalità, ma richiede pure il giusto mood.

[79/100]


Frasario minimo/

°Tutte le voci sono diventate indistinguibili l’una dall’altra, compresa la mia
°Voglio scoparmi Sara di nuovo. Fa dei pompini da favola, mi ricordo. O era un’altra?
°Vedo alcuni graffiti sul mio conto nel bagno e faccio uno sforzo per ricordarmi se è vero
°Dove vai una volta che sei venuto? La disillusione ti colpisce
°A quella del consultorio psichiatrico ho detto che sento avvicinarsi l’apocalisse. Lei mi ha domandato come procedono le lezioni di flauto
°Ma cos’era poi la poesia, o qualunque altra cosa, al paragone di quelle tette?
°Ho imparato più dai Black Flag di quanto abbia mai imparato da Stevens o Cummings o Yeats o anche Lowell
°Si gela

Tôi thề là quyển này tôi chỉ cố đọc cho xong các bác ạ, không thích nổi một cái gì hết :)))

1. Cốt truyện, cách kể chuyện
Tác giả lồng ghép ngôi kể "tôi" ở từng nhân vật khác nhau. Nhưng theo mình đó là một sự thất bại. Mình cảm thấy nó như một mớ bòng bong, không có sự liên kết.

2. Nhân vật
Thật sự mình thấy các nhân vật rất nông cạn, không có chiều sâu, lúc nào cũng chỉ nghĩ về tình dục, ma túy các thứ :))) Mình còn chả care đến kết cục nhân vật ý :)))

3. Văn phong
Không biết do người dịch hay do ông tác giả, nhg mình đọc thấy rất khó chịu :)))

4. Chủ đề
Mình k hề có ác cảm với chủ đề tác giả muốn khai thác. Đó là sự lạc lõng, xuống cấp của xã hội Mỹ, điển hình là bọn thanh niên ở những năm 80. Nhưng cách kể của tác giả mình thấy rất có vấn đề, thậm chí là "rẻ tiền". Mình đã đọc rất nhiều các tác phẩm có yếu tố sex (Murakami chẳng hạn) nhưng riêng quyển này mình thấy tình dục rỗng tuếch :)))

Ôi nói chung đây là quyển sách tệ nhất 2020 tính đến giờ của mình. Đọc xong mừng hú hồn :)))

I'm probably in the minority that hated this book. Why, you may ask. You could say that one reason is that I'm a middle-aged guy who's been removed from the college partying/sex/drugs/rock'n'roll scene for many years.

Darn. Them was good days...but the people I knew were a lot more interesting than the characters portrayed here. While the dialogue sounded real enough, and while the situations were more than plausible, the characters were so unlikable--all of them--that it was hard to muster up any sympathy for anyone. Reading this novel was akin to sticking my face into a bowl of saltwater with my eyes wide open--I could tolerate it, but only for a short time.

Call me out of touch, if you wish. American Psycho had something to say. Less Than Zero, too, even though it was a downbeat read and somewhat disjointed in this reviewer's opinion. This novel, however, left me feeling simply bored and depressed, and that isn't a good combination.

3.5 Stars

The Rules of Attraction is one of those stories that makes you feel slightly uneasy while reading it. It had the feel of both A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting in the sense that it is so over the top and risqué. The Rules of Attraction is unlike anything that I have ever read before.

I had never read anything from Bret Easton Ellis before, although American Psycho has been sitting on my shelf for quite some time now. I came across The Rules of Attraction at a local thrift shop and I recognized the authors name which helped in my decision to pick it up.

The Rules of Attraction tells the intersecting stories of three prominent characters (Sean Bateman, Lauren Hyde & Paul Denton) as they experience their college years in the 1980’s. The story is told by jumping back and forth between short vignettes that showcase each of these characters perspectives. Every now and then, a minor character tells their story from their perspective through their own little mini vignette.

It is definitely no secret that the 80’s were a wild decade, but holy shit does this story ever make that time period sound completely over the top and insane. I have always been slightly disappointed that I didn’t get to experience the 80’s, mainly because the music during that decade contains some of my favourite songs and artists of all time. After reading The Rules of Attraction however, I’m wondering if I would have ever been able to survive going to college during this era.

I loved the idea of hearing the different character’s perspectives, especially when they were describing the same scenes. Rather than have the exact same scene play out repeatedly, each character is so fucked up on either drugs, alcohol or something in between, that their stories are all completely different. For example, when Sean believes that Lauren is in love with him, only to jump to her perspective to find out she just likes to have him around to keep her company while waiting for her “boyfriend” to return from Europe. It’s moments like these that actually make this story more realistic and believable. No two people are going to have the exact same interpretation of a moment. Everyone experiences things differently. I’m still unsure if the relationship between Paul and Sean ever even happened. Not knowing the definite outcome is something that might drive some readers nuts. Hell, it usually drives me nuts, but for whatever reason, it worked perfectly within this story.

The characters were all unique from one another. While a lot of their drug and relationship habits were similar, each character had their own individual voice. I can’t say that I particularly enjoyed Lauren’s moments. I found her a little annoying and not that interesting. There was just something about her that I wasn’t very fond of. I felt a little indifferent when it came to Sean. He started out interesting, but as the story went on he started to feel a little redundant. Paul however, was my absolute favourite. He felt real and relatable. While he seemed the most sane out of the three main characters, I think it may be possible that he was the most insane. Like I mentioned earlier, I still can’t tell if his relationship with Sean ever even really happened.

In terms of the minor character vignettes, I could have done without a lot of them. The random French paragraphs from Bertrand’s perspective felt out of place. I understood bits of it here and there, but I wasn’t about to go google translate the whole thing. The one vignette that I think was rather awesome and beneficial was that of Patrick, Sean’s older brother. Yes…Patrick as in Patrick Bateman…as in THE Patrick Bateman featured in Bret Easton Ellis’ later novel, American Psycho. I didn’t even realize the two books were connected, regardless of how minor, until I put two and two together and realized that the two characters shared the same last name.

One of the main characteristics about The Rules of Attraction that made it so unique was the fact that each character perspective was told using a different writing style. Sean felt very chaotic, Lauren felt very quick and to the point while Paul felt the most sophisticated. The writing was very quick and extremely fast paced to start, however, it kept that steady rhythm throughout the entire novel which started to get old. It was so fast-paced the entire time that there was no peak in the story.

When I first opened my copy of The Rules of Attraction, I thought I was missing a page as the first opening paragraph starts mid-sentence. Once I reached the end of the novel, the same things happens again except it ended mid-sentence. Once again, this is something that might piss off a lot of readers, but I found it to be quite memorable and unique. It felt to me as though this represented the idea that we as the reader are just witnessing a little snippet of these character’s lives. We jumped in and we jumped out, just like that.

I did enjoy The Rules of Attraction for the most part. It was definitely unlike anything I have ever read before. I enjoyed the quick and fast-paced nature of the writing. I’m really eager to read my copy of American Psycho as soon as possible. I’m curious to know if it will make any connections to the Rules of Attraction or if it is even told in the same writing style. If you are looking for something slightly fucked up and over the top, I would say that The Rules of Attraction is definitely for you.

--

Initial Post Reading Thoughts:

This is probably one of the most uniquely written novels I have ever read. The overall tone of the story reminded me a lot of A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting. It's one of those stories that feels a little unsettling for some reason. The Rules of Attraction is definitely very risque and slightly over the top, but that's part of what makes it so alluring.

Too pretentious and pseudo decadent book even for me. I am more than okay with the suffering of the characters and huge amounts of sex but only if these things have some, any kind of meaning for the whole plot. And in The Rules of Attraction there is no such thing as meaning. I get it that Ellis wants to tell us exactly that about the lives of the so-called lost generation of the 80`s but I am sure that story could be told in much more elegant and why not interesting way.

Pure nihilism in the form of middle-class youths taking hedonism to its limits, in drug-fueled, sex-fueled college experiences. The best way I can describe it would be if Holden Caulfield, of Catcher in the Rye, discovered: tits, dick and coke.

One thing that struck me is that, unlike some books where the point is crystal clear, The Rules of Attraction feels like a story without a point—and in many ways, I think that’s the point. At its heart, it’s an incredibly cynical, disaffected, nihilistic piece of literature. The characters are vapid college students whose existence revolves primarily around sex, drugs, more sex, more drugs—like goldfish driven by some primordial impulse. These thoughts are almost constantly on loop—broken only by their disdain for ‘townies’ and their parents—every 5 seconds, en masse. Yet there is something revolutionary about the book—the very fact that these youthful, arguably superficial, preoccupations were allowed to be all-encompassing, indulged, and allowed to matter.

It’s one of those books where a lot happens, and yet nothing really happens. There are numerous moments where I just couldn’t put it down. Whether it was reading something shocking (and usually hilarious), or getting wrapped up in the romantic entanglements of the characters. Yet by the end, despite all the mini roller coasters—make-ups, break-ups, abortions, deaths—it felt like nothing had changed. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the ride—loved it even. And while it was less satisfying in some ways than other books that end with a bow of meaning tied on top, I recognise and appreciate that this novel wasn’t trying to do that—that its nihilism and cynicism were its very essence.

I also need to make a whole point about humour. This book is FUNNY—like cackling on the tube funny, having people look at you in public kind of funny. The humour veers between shock factor and cruelty, both of which feel deeply authentic to not only the characters but the environment and the time in which it was written. Plus, let's be real, listening to a bunch of 20-year-olds talk about girls with their best friends, or vice versa, is not exactly a lesson in empathy. The kind of jokes you can’t help but laugh at, then step back and wonder whether you’re awful for finding them funny—only to laugh again on the next page. I literally scribbled in the margins of one particularly raunchy joke: Bret, you naughty naughty boy—you’re so wrong for this—thank you (because clearly, I enter a parasocial relationship with the authors I enjoy).

Something, and don’t ask me what, feels very Shakespearean about this story—dare I say A Midsummer Night's Dream-esque. The way everyone becomes infatuated or falls in love with people they shouldn’t, the calamity of desire and unrequited love—all of it felt almost mystical, yet deeply ironic. Mix some of that with Catcher in the Rye, then add a lot of drugs, a lot of sex, and voila.

I hate Bret Easton Ellis. This book isn't the only reason, but it was the beginning of my distate for his pretentious observations on terrible people who do terrible things with societies blessing. Whether I'm missing the point or just not the intended audience for his tripe, I ask you why anyone would want to spend the time it takes to read his novels with these characters.

Felt this book was repetitive. Every page was sex, drugs, and half-wit heartbreak. No plot and no climax. The book tries to make up for its lack of narrative by pandering to those seeking a voyeuristic view of horny co-eds. But nothing happens. The story goes on and on. The same thing happening on every page. The characters never come away with anything for the better or worse. What was the point?

Love and masochism. The surreal element of being in love with someone and wondering if it’s all happening in your head. No one ever likes the right person (or maybe they think they do). A satire on staying “cool” even if you’re going a little crazy on the inside. In other words, the gaze of neutrality in the face of horror!