| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Then imagine having a second chance ten years later, as the Bret Easton Ellis of this remarkable novel is given, with a wife, children, and suburban sobriety--only to watch this new life shatter beyond recognition in a matter of days. At a fateful Halloween party he glimpses a disturbing (fictional) character driving a car identical to his late father's, his stepdaughter's doll violently "malfunctions," and their house undergoes bizarre transformations both within and without. Connecting these aberrations to graver events--a series of grotesque murders that no longer seem random and the epidemic disappearance of boys his sons age--Ellis struggles to defend his family against this escalating menace even as his wife, their therapists, and the police insist that his apprehensions are rooted instead in substance abuse and egomania.
Lunar Park confounds one expectation after another, passing through comedy and mounting horror, both psychological and supernatural, toward an astonishing resolution--about love and loss, fathers and sons--in what is surely the most powerfully original and deeply moving novel of an extraordinary career.
In his novel Lunar Park, Bret Easton Ellis takes first-person narrative to an extreme, inserting himself (and a host of real characters from the publishing world) into the haunting story of a drugged-out famous writer living in the suburbs trying to reconnect with his wife and son and reconcile his damaged past. Ellis is at the top of his game in Lunar Park, his first novel since 1999's Glamorama, delivering a disturbing and delirious novel about celebrity, writers, and fathers and sons (not to mention a cameo from notorious Ellis creation, Patrick Bateman). Amazon.com senior editor Brad Thomas Parsons spoke with Ellis in a Seattle to Los Angeles phone call to talk about the fact and fiction behind Lunar Park, New York versus LA, '80s music, and the whole "American Psycho thing." 
Ellis on Ellis: "I don't think it's a perfect book by any means, but it's valid. I get where it comes from. I get what it is. There's a lot of it that I wish was slightly more elegantly written. Overall, I was pretty shocked. It was pretty good writing for someone who was 19."
A line-up of Camden College students share the narrating duties in The Rules of Attraction, Ellis' sex-fueled, drug-baked second novel. There's Lauren (who's in the midst of losing her virginity as the book opens), who longs for her boyfriend Victor, currently traveling through Europe; Lauren's ex, Paul, a bisexual party boy who hooks up with hard-drinking closet-case Sean (surname Bateman--that's right, younger brother of Patrick), who also has the hots for Lauren. Less than Zero's Clay makes a cameo appearance as well as a passing glimpse of Ellis' Bennington classmate Donna Tartt's murderous Classics majors from The Secret History. Ellis on Ellis: "It might be my favorite book of mine. I was writing that book while I was at college. Sort of like the best of times, the worst of times. There was a lot of elation, there was a lot of despair. It was just a really fun book to write. I loved mimicking all the different voices. The stream of conscious does get a little out of hand. I kind of like that about the book. It's kind of all over the place. It's casual. It's scruffy. That's the one book of mine that I have a very, very soft spot for."
Shopaholic sociopath Patrick Bateman's killer grip drags readers into a bloody, brand-name, urban nightmare as the 26-year-old Wall Street yuppie executes his grooming habits and eviscerates strangers with equal élan. Simon & Schuster dropped the too-hot-to-handle American Psycho which was then published as a paperback original by Vintage Books. Ellis received death threats while the book was boycotted, sliced up by reviewers, and went on to become a bestseller. Mary Harron's 2000 film version starred then little-known British actor Christian Bale, who would later suit up as the Dark Knight in 2005's Batman Begins. Ellis on Ellis: "It was good. It was fun. It was not nearly as pretentious as I remember I wanted it to be when I was writing it. I found it really fast-moving. I found it really funny. And I liked it a lot. The violence was... it made my toes curl. I really freaked out. I couldn't believe how violent it was. It was truly upsetting. I had to steel myself to re-read those passages."
Ellis returns to early '80s Los Angeles ennui with The Informers, a loosely connected collection of stories of the bored, rich, and morally depraved, written around the same time as Less than Zero. Sex, drugs, and gratuitous violence take center stage, with characters including an aging, predatory anchorwoman, a debauched rock star tearing through Japan, and a pick-up artist vampire. While some of the vignettes echo better Ellis works, ultimately the stories don't add to much as a whole. Book critics are less than receptive to Ellis' post-American Psycho offering. Ellis on Ellis: "Those were written while I was at Bennington. I wrote a lot of short stories between 1981 or 1982 or so... The Informers more or less kind of represented probably the best of those stories. I wrote a lot of really bad ones, but those are the ones that worked the best together."
Actor-model Victor Ward (who first made an appearance in the Ellis oeuvre in The Rules of Attraction) is the narrator of Glamorama, Ellis longest novel yet. Ellis offers bold-faced names and celebrity skewering in the first half of the book as Victor tries to open a Manhattan club while cheating on his supermodel girlfriend and double-crossing his partner, but the second half takes a violent, paranoid turn as Victor is sent to England and unwittingly lured into a sadistic ring of international terrorists (posing as supermodels) leaving a bloody trail across the globe. Ellis on Ellis: "[T]he book wasn't necessarily about terrorism to me. It was about a whole bunch of other stuff. It's definitely the book that I can tell--I don't know if other people can tell but I can tell as a writer--is probably the most divisive that I've written. It has an equal number of detractors as it does fans. It doesn't really hold true with the other books. It was the one that took the longest to write, and the one that seemed the most important at the time. It's an unwieldy book... I like it."
![]() American Psycho | ![]() The Rules of Attraction |
--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
82 of 95 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Mea Maxima Culpa,
By
This review is from: Lunar Park (Hardcover)
"Lunar Park" is probably Ellis' best, most readable novel since "Less Than Zero." The influences you can spot are many. The writer using his own public persona as the protagonist surely comes from Philip Roth, most notably his classic "Operation Shylock." Ellis provides some pungent satire on contemporary suburbia, so the title probably hearkens back to John Cheever's Bullet Park. (The revelation after his death of Cheever's ambiguous sexuality no doubt also interested Ellis.) But the main thing Ellis does is offer up an homage to Stephen King (Ellis' fictional wife even calls him "Jack Torrance" at one point, who of course is the protagonist of "The Shining", a book to which this novel owes a whole lot.)
The first chapter of "Lunar Park" may be the most clever thing Ellis has ever written. It's an autobiography that agrees with every bad review, every unflattering press article ever written about the guy. He says he wrote all his books under the influence of drugs, quickly and for the money; he's a monster of sexual promiscuity and excess who incidentally sired a son out of wedlock more than 10 years before. He recounts his tortured relationship with his late father (to whom "Lunar Park" is dedicated). You get the feeling here that Ellis is burning down the edifice of his public career, burning all the bridges to his past. It's hilarious and horriying, and must have taken a lot of courage to write. The first half of "Lunar Park" is mesmerizing (I managed to finish the book in one night.) He paints an alarming picture of Parenthood In The Suburbs; eveyone, including the very young children, is on some sort of mood-stabilizing medication; the children are scheduled, dieted, and psychoanalyzed to within inches of their lives; the main focus of eveyone's life is money, possessions, and how to get them. It's a society full of living corpses, which is where I suppose Ellis got the idea to turn his book into a horror novel. This proves to be a mistake. The second half of the novel wobbles badly because he simply doesn't have the storytelling chops to make it work. Elite critics can sneer at Stephen King all they like, but he is a master of his craft, and Ellis suffers badly by comparison. Ellis just piles up one horrific incident after another and hopes they cohere into some kind of organic whole, which they really don't. The imagery in the climactic "attack" of the demons seems to have been inspired by the dog scenes in John Carpenter's masterpiece "The Thing." The most striking thing about this book is how, depending on how literally you take it, Bret Ellis hates himself. The demons attack because they want to force him to confront the "disaster" of his life. The ghost of his father ("Hamlet" is also a big influence) wants to warn Ellis of an impending loss, as well as to force Bret into dealing with his memory. These metaphors are powerful and true and overcome much of the technical messiness of the book. As a man enters middle age the past screams at him for resolution, and Ellis does his best to meet the challenge in this flawed, interesting book
20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A surprising progression for Ellis,
By 2Deep (San Francisco, CA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Lunar Park (Hardcover)
This really surprised me. Despite what some of the major reviews have implied, this book has very little of the sort of druggy debauchery, and none of the sex, that Ellis' earlier books are known for, despite a plot which forces us to travel back through those same books. What it does have - and have in spades - is a sense of underlying dread that, while present in much of his previous writing, has never been brought to life quite this well. It's horror, but a dreamy horror, more like Lovecraft or Poe than Thomas Harris. Another reviewer here likened `Lunar Park' to Stephen King, and while that reviewer meant it as an insult (I think) it's not a bad comparison. This is a book filled with ghouls and hallucinations, but also real-world horrors: alcoholism, self-hatred, and `antagonism', which, as we learn from a well-drawn exorcist towards the end of the novel, can literally turn a man to ash. There is also the horror of children. In `Lunar Park' we are both afraid FOR them, and afraid OF them - one minute they're having nightmares and need protecting, the next minute they're keeping secrets from us and possibly faking their own abductions. The parents in the book all medicate their kids mercilessly, which only serves to underscore the separation between parents and children, between our lives as we would like to see them, and our lives as they really are.
And then there's the writing. It's wonderful. There's a passage on p.55 - "The newspapers kept stroking my fear. New surveys provided awful statistics on just about everything..." - that offers one of the better descriptions of the post-9/11 mindset I've come across. And the last few pages, in which Ellis makes a shaky truce with the ghost of his father, are heartbreaking (my eyes filled up - I'm not kidding). The only weak scene in the book is the Halloween party that kicks off the whole story - the dialogue between Ellis and Jay McInerney (who makes a cameo appearance) seems so empty that one wonders why Ellis bothered writing it down (then again, maybe he was making a point about those brat-pack days of yore). But this is nitpicking - on the whole Ellis is terrific here. **On a side note, one book that `Lunar Park' seems to echo, and not just in its title, is John Cheever's classic "Bullet Park." Cheever's book was another story of suburban horror, drenched in alcohol and general despair, with an ending that Ellis could only admire: a guy uses a chainsaw to cut through the doors of a church to save his son from being burned to death by a cold-blooded sadist. Ellis' book does for our generation what Cheever's did for his, and they make great tandem reading (I went back and reread Cheever right after `Lunar Park.')
13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Time for retirement?,
By Harley (Australia) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Lunar Park (Paperback)
Like many, I was so impressed by Bret Easton Ellis's first three novels that I was prepared to read anything with his name attached to it. I stuck by him after the tediousness of The Informers and the absurd and overlong Glamorama because, for the most part, his writing was as good as ever - he was just losing his thematic edge. Unfortunately, Lunar Park represents a further step into banality as not only is its plot ludicrous and its theme largely irrelevant to society at large, but for the first time Ellis's writing appears awkward.
Lunar Park tells the story of a celebrity novelist making a tentative attempt at fatherhood and a life in the suburbs. As the novel progresses it becomes apparent that his house is haunted by the ghost of his father, his daughter's doll is possessed by an evil spirit, a string of murders copycatting American Psycho are being committed, his son may or may not be kidnapping his classmates, the oil leaking from his BMW is the blood of JFK, the nuts in Snickers bars hatch into the things from the Alien movies, he eats an undercooked Whopper blah blah blah who cares. Terrifying, right? It is ironic that there is so much that can be said about Lunar Park while the book itself says so little. Ellis zig-zags haphazard through the themes of father-and-son, overmedicated society, fiction-into-fact and supernatural occurrence, but spends so little time on each and links them so clumsily that it is impossible for the reader to gain any insight into them, assuming that Ellis himself had any insight to impart to begin with. The supernatural portions that dominate the last third of the book are particularly cringe-worthy as Ellis makes a self-confessed - and poorly advised - homage to Stephen King despite the obvious incompatibilities of their styles. There comes a point when the absurdity of Ellis using his hyper-realistic style to recount the occasion on which a possessed mechanical toy bird grew fangs and gnawed at his trousers becomes apparent. The blurb's conceit that this is an autobiography of sorts is really just a poorly conceived vice to mask Ellis's comprehensive failure to create a suspension of disbelief in his fiction. It is strange that despite using himself as the lead character and musing on his reactions to his father's death, Ellis still cannot create any sort of emotional resonance within his work. This is a particularly salient failing as one of Lunar Park's primary drives is the assumption of empathy on behalf of the reader, predominantly in relation to Ellis's own character. Ellis begins the book by characterising himself as being only slightly less vacuous than Victor Ward and only slightly more sensitive than Sean Bateman, yet come part two we are immediately meant to empathise with this self-absorbed idiot because he's making some small attempt at self-betterment. This is a stark departure from Ellis's previous novels in which such characters were always presented, rightfully, as objects of derision. Plot has not traditionally been the focal point of Ellis's novels either, however in Lunar Park it forms the unsteady structure around which the rest of the story is awkwardly plastered. Multiple plots and sub-plots are created and dropped on a whim and ultimately fail to combine into any sort of cohesive whole because the connections that Ellis eventually draws between them are so patently stupid. The lame anagram in the doll's name, the unknowable significance of the house's address, the dumb coincidence in the Harrison Ford movie. It's like, please baby, spare me. Towards the end of the novel there is a scene in which Ellis (the character) writes the death of Patrick Bateman. The symbolic significance is not hard to grasp. Ellis wrote American Psycho over a decade ago so let's just move on. The problem with this is that American Psycho was an insightful, entertaining, devastatingly funny, razor-sharp social satire. It is one of the best books I have ever read. Lunar Park is self-indulgent drivel. Despite his relentless shallowness Patrick Bateman was a remarkably complex character while the Bret Easton Ellis of this novel can be read clearly straight up-and-down like so many other clichés - daddy daddy why don't you love me - and his problems are simply uninteresting. So if Ellis wrote Lunar Park to cleanse himself of his past, where to from here? Let's hope that it's somewhere much closer to Earth.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|