Was this book good?I finished it today and I actually can't tell if it's pulpy tripe or genius writing.
It is a god shot at a bad and cheap and easy target.
>>8184816
The former--as in, pulpy tripe.
i like less than zero a lot. it's basically what got me interested in 'literature' to begin with.
i do however, several years later, see how it's a little, i dunno, immature?
bret easton ellis is a talented writer, and less than zero exhibits his talent, but not his refined skill i guess.
>>8184867
I hated the lack of commas It kept throwing off my ADD how he would say and instead of using a goddamn comma.The parts I really like we're the ones that made me uncomfortable like the snuff film and the rape scene,scenes like that were stopped too early
>>8184867
Bret Easton Ellis is a reasonably talented writer and he also got me into literature when I was 20. But I wouldn't say he ever developed any 'refined skill'. All of his books have very much the same vibe and the only time he ever really tried something particularly different, with Lunar Park, he really struggled.
>>8184816
I think Less Than Zero is definitely above pulp. But genius is a stretch. It was a unique-ish book for its time and, being a coming of age story written BY someone who was in the process of coming to age, it was fairly genuine. But the edginess felt very forced at times and the characters were completely lacking in substance.
And Dennis Cooper did everything Bret Easton Ellis did, only much better, and then moved on, took risks, and actually improved, whereas Bret now interviews celebrities to feel relevant.
Basically, if you liked Less Than Zero, read Try.
>>8184816
BEE is the first writer I ever "got into" (when I was a freshman/sophomore in college). Read all his book except Glamorama and it's definitely a case of diminishing returns for everything besides American Psycho & Less Than Zero. I don't think he's bad, but I do think I've outgrown him at this point. I used to enjoy writers who have very sparse, pared down prose (Ellis, Camus, PKD) but now I tend to prefer the opposite.
>I actually can't tell if it's pulpy tripe or genius writing
Does it have to be either? It's simply a good book that did something new.
>>8184902
>with Lunar Park, he really struggled
I actually enjoyed Lunar Park when I read it. Due to it's autobiographical content and heavy references to his prior books, it really only appeals to diehard BEE fans though.
>>8184867
>it's basically what got me interested in 'literature' to begin with
Funny. There are already 3 of us in a thread with 6 replies that are in this boat. Maybe the book has quite a bit of cultural value by virtue of getting young people seriously interested in literature?
>>8184934
Well, it makes sense that people in their twenties would enjoy competently written books written by other people in their twenties.
I also enjoyed Lunar Park for very much the same reasons, but the pacing just wasn't there for the kind of book he was attempting. It fell apart during the climax and the supernatural elements all felt very tired.
