One of the reviews of this book on Amazon sums up exactly what I thought, after having just finished it:
"Interesting, but did I actually LIKE it???,
Brett Easton Ellis doing what he does best: social commentary with a plot which twists and turns, and rants and raves, and gets bloody and gory and disgusting in parts... it definitely made me dizzy but did I like it? Still not sure. This one is more intellectually challenging than his previous novels and I couldn't put it down while I was reading it, but I doubt I'd ever want to read it again."
I've been a Bret Easton Ellis fan since I read American Psycho, which I thought was a brilliant book. Lunar Park, on the other hand, I found confusing. It started as a straight autobiographic narrative, which I found too self-referential and self-congratulatory. It gradually morphed into something that still seemed autobiographical but clearly wasn't. Where the book started veering off into supernatural territory I started to have doubts, but towards the end I think it started to all make sense, in a weird way. Like American Psycho, you are left at the end wondering how much of it actually happened and how much was the product of a tortured mind. Since Bret Easton Ellis is not that tortured, I think he has done a great job of writing from the perspective of drug-induced madness. The autobiographic start of the book leaves you with no clear dividing line between what you know to be true and what you wonder about.
Almost up to the last few pages I was convinced that I would give this book a poor review, but now I'm not so sure. One thing is certain, though; the reviewer (on the cover of my copy) who found the book 'funny' had clearly not read it. It is a tale of Generation X all grown up, and living in suburbia with money, children, and responsibilities, but none of the coping skills that are needed. The story is filtered through a haze of drugs and drink, which clouds the distinction between fact and fiction in a clever and seamless way.
"Interesting, but did I actually LIKE it???,
Brett Easton Ellis doing what he does best: social commentary with a plot which twists and turns, and rants and raves, and gets bloody and gory and disgusting in parts... it definitely made me dizzy but did I like it? Still not sure. This one is more intellectually challenging than his previous novels and I couldn't put it down while I was reading it, but I doubt I'd ever want to read it again."
I've been a Bret Easton Ellis fan since I read American Psycho, which I thought was a brilliant book. Lunar Park, on the other hand, I found confusing. It started as a straight autobiographic narrative, which I found too self-referential and self-congratulatory. It gradually morphed into something that still seemed autobiographical but clearly wasn't. Where the book started veering off into supernatural territory I started to have doubts, but towards the end I think it started to all make sense, in a weird way. Like American Psycho, you are left at the end wondering how much of it actually happened and how much was the product of a tortured mind. Since Bret Easton Ellis is not that tortured, I think he has done a great job of writing from the perspective of drug-induced madness. The autobiographic start of the book leaves you with no clear dividing line between what you know to be true and what you wonder about.
Almost up to the last few pages I was convinced that I would give this book a poor review, but now I'm not so sure. One thing is certain, though; the reviewer (on the cover of my copy) who found the book 'funny' had clearly not read it. It is a tale of Generation X all grown up, and living in suburbia with money, children, and responsibilities, but none of the coping skills that are needed. The story is filtered through a haze of drugs and drink, which clouds the distinction between fact and fiction in a clever and seamless way.
No comments:
Post a Comment