toni1509's review
2.0
Sex, drugs and rock’n’roll in the 80’s. This is my second novel by Bret Easton Ellis after American Psycho, and I can’t say I’m a fan of his writing, especially not in this novel. However, it was somewhat easier to read than American Psycho, but the multiple narrators is the one of the things I dislike the most. The plot is below average for me, a bit too exhausting to follow. I gave it only two stars because I don’t like this writing style, and the repetitive elements like the drugs abuse and sexual encounters.
fnnbnjmnks's review
4.0
Oh my Christ. This was a class read. The love triangle/square/hexagon of Paul/Sean/Lauren/many others was unbelievable. Darkly comedic and deeply troubling, Ellis does some of his best work in TROA. Also, for fans of Less Than Zero, #imposterclay. Mint.
stewreads's review
5.0
After reading American Psycho, I decided to check out some more of Bret Easton Ellis's books. Then, after reading Less Than Zero, I wished that I hadn't. On a whim, I picked up The Rules of Attraction...
...and loved it. Maybe it's just because I'm reading it at the right time in my life (I'm going into my second year of college) but I really connected with this one. When this novel came out in 1987, I wonder what people thought of the characters. They are all sex crazed partiers, drinkers, narcissists, just plain jerks. Did they seem realistic almost 30 years ago? Did this college, where everyone goes wild getting wasted every night and never showing up for class, did it feel like it could be a real place? Because in today's world, these characters look like people we know and this place feels like it's right down the street, or worse yet, outside your dorm room. The highest praise I can give to this book is that I've seen some of these people walking around campus and I've lived some of these events. It's sad how much truth is in this book.
P.S. American Psycho? I'm not so sure anymore, this one might be better.
...and loved it. Maybe it's just because I'm reading it at the right time in my life (I'm going into my second year of college) but I really connected with this one. When this novel came out in 1987, I wonder what people thought of the characters. They are all sex crazed partiers, drinkers, narcissists, just plain jerks. Did they seem realistic almost 30 years ago? Did this college, where everyone goes wild getting wasted every night and never showing up for class, did it feel like it could be a real place? Because in today's world, these characters look like people we know and this place feels like it's right down the street, or worse yet, outside your dorm room. The highest praise I can give to this book is that I've seen some of these people walking around campus and I've lived some of these events. It's sad how much truth is in this book.
P.S. American Psycho? I'm not so sure anymore, this one might be better.
americantpsycho's review
3.0
i honestly had a very good time with this book. reminded me so much of american psycho, which i may have to reread now hehe
hennyro's review
dark
emotional
funny
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
Content Warnings
Graphic: Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Suicide attempt, and Rape
boekenhonger's review
3.0
It was really funny but so incredibly pretentious. Also all characters were so morally vague that it was sort of hard to relate to them. Yes, we all know people who are exactly like them, but for me there's more to life than alcohol, drugs and getting laid. And why the chapter in French??
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this book a lot even though I was frustrated because of it half of the time. so, just three stars it is.
Bonus points for the mentions of the Classic students slaying farmers and looking like undertakers. so this is what the rest of the college was doing during The Secret History...
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this book a lot even though I was frustrated because of it half of the time. so, just three stars it is.
Bonus points for the mentions of the Classic students slaying farmers and looking like undertakers. so this is what the rest of the college was doing during The Secret History...
vinegarjenn's review
4.0
"and it's a story that might bore you but you don't have to listen..."
Since I read The Secret History earlier this year, I figured now was a good time to read the other book by another famous author that takes place at the same college. Donna Tart has her group of Classics majors and Bret Easton Ellis has... everyone else? Almost. Sort of.
While reading The Rules of Attraction, it might not seem like much. There's not a lot of depth- it's an endless cycle of partying and sex. It wasn't until I had completed the novel and was reflecting on it that I could see the point of it all. It's kind of like when someone pulls a really stupid magic trick and you roll your eyes and start to say, "Well that was dumb", but in the middle of your sentence the magician points to something behind you and so you turn around and, "Whoa, how did you do that?!" It's kind of like that. Basically, there's more at play than what meets the eye.
So yes, this novel is also more than just a story about what the other people on campus were doing while Tart's Classics group were away doing their Classic-y things. But those Easter eggs were pretty entertaining. And apparently Bret Easton Ellis is good at Easter eggs and reusing characters throughout his bibliography. Little did I know. Now I have a few more books to read.
Since I read The Secret History earlier this year, I figured now was a good time to read the other book by another famous author that takes place at the same college. Donna Tart has her group of Classics majors and Bret Easton Ellis has... everyone else? Almost. Sort of.
While reading The Rules of Attraction, it might not seem like much. There's not a lot of depth- it's an endless cycle of partying and sex. It wasn't until I had completed the novel and was reflecting on it that I could see the point of it all. It's kind of like when someone pulls a really stupid magic trick and you roll your eyes and start to say, "Well that was dumb", but in the middle of your sentence the magician points to something behind you and so you turn around and, "Whoa, how did you do that?!" It's kind of like that. Basically, there's more at play than what meets the eye.
So yes, this novel is also more than just a story about what the other people on campus were doing while Tart's Classics group were away doing their Classic-y things. But those Easter eggs were pretty entertaining. And apparently Bret Easton Ellis is good at Easter eggs and reusing characters throughout his bibliography. Little did I know. Now I have a few more books to read.
dontgetnastybro's review
3.0
Interesante el experimento de narración de Ellis pero se torna aburrido en el último tramo. Definitivamente no lo recomendaría para empezar con el autor.
buddhafish's review
4.0
50th book of 2020.
This is probably the worst time to read Ellis, as he's so damn depressing. Disaffection is the perfect word for his books, the way you feel when you're reading them. (I must say, also, how great is this cover? Not sure why it is, but I think it's great.)
Despite this, by Goodreads standards, has the same rating as Less Than Zero, American Psycho and Lunar Park, I think this has been the best Ellis yet. Let me try to explain. American Psycho is just Less Than Zero on some serious, serious drugs - but bad drugs, the ones that give you the worst trips, like nightmares. This, funnily enough, actually being the novel between the two, is a nice middle-ground. There isn't too much violence, and though it's everything I expected, drugs, sex, depression, suicide... it's not quite as bad as what comes next for Bret Easton Ellis - though nothing is.
There's quite a nostalgic slope coming out of my University library; that's a funny way of describing it. But, I couldn't fathom the number of times I've walked down that slope talking to someone about books, or classes, or food, or money. In that respect, it's a nostalgic slope. The other day, I was speaking to a woman I've never met before. Middle-aged, quite quiet, so the conversation always required a lot of attention, and gentle. She was nice. She told me that she loved Bret Easton Ellis, which surprised me. I gave a spiel about my thoughts on Ellis (hearing how it sounded as I said it, and felt sick at myself) and she agreed with me. You don't want to look but you can't help yourself, was my main point. It's a window into another life, too. And I think Ellis gets flak because what he's writing isn't romantic. He's writing about a lost generation, like Fitzgerald and Hemingway did, but their generation didn't have copious amounts of sex, or do enough cocaine to kill an elephant, or wave machetes around. It's a difficult relationship with Ellis, it's awe, but also disgust. I guess that's what makes him so interesting.
Rules of Attraction is more obviously scathing. It's ironic. It's even playful. Here are some quotes... They aren't nice. I'll say that now.
A boy's thoughts on Kafka in a lecture:
'Well, like, the dude was totally depressed because, well, the dude turned into a bug and freaked out.
(He's not wrong, credit to him. Though maybe 'freaked out' is a little generous of Samsa's reaction.)
Norris pays and ask the shy, acne-scarred cashier if she knows who wrote 'Notes from the Underground'. The girl, who's so homely you couldn't sleep with her for money, not for anything, smiles and says no, and that he can look in the bestseller paperbacks if he'd like. We leave the store and Norris sneers a little too meanly, "Townies are so ignorant."
A particularly crude quote, from a poetry group:
'Yeah, I've been working on this concept that when Man fucks animals, He's fucking Nature, since He's becomes so computerised and all.' Stump stops and takes a swallow from a silver flask he brings out of his pocket and says, 'I'm working on the dog section now where this guy ties a dog up and is having intercourse with it because He thinks dog is God. D-O-G. . .G-O-D. God spelled backwards. Get it? See?'
Most interestingly are the character crossovers. One of our protagonists in this is Patrick Bateman's brother, Sean Bateman. Of course, Patrick Bateman is our American Psycho. He even has several pages from his perspective, though the voice doesn't quite match what we get later on, so Ellis maybe hadn't quite found out what he would become. The other interesting one, is Clay's several pages, who was our protagonist in Less Than Zero - he was the only voice we heard in that novel, compared to the many in this one. So all in all, a good Ellis book.
Does that make it a 'good' book? I'm not sure. Yes and no.
Do I like Ellis: yes and no.
This is probably the worst time to read Ellis, as he's so damn depressing. Disaffection is the perfect word for his books, the way you feel when you're reading them. (I must say, also, how great is this cover? Not sure why it is, but I think it's great.)
Despite this, by Goodreads standards, has the same rating as Less Than Zero, American Psycho and Lunar Park, I think this has been the best Ellis yet. Let me try to explain. American Psycho is just Less Than Zero on some serious, serious drugs - but bad drugs, the ones that give you the worst trips, like nightmares. This, funnily enough, actually being the novel between the two, is a nice middle-ground. There isn't too much violence, and though it's everything I expected, drugs, sex, depression, suicide... it's not quite as bad as what comes next for Bret Easton Ellis - though nothing is.
There's quite a nostalgic slope coming out of my University library; that's a funny way of describing it. But, I couldn't fathom the number of times I've walked down that slope talking to someone about books, or classes, or food, or money. In that respect, it's a nostalgic slope. The other day, I was speaking to a woman I've never met before. Middle-aged, quite quiet, so the conversation always required a lot of attention, and gentle. She was nice. She told me that she loved Bret Easton Ellis, which surprised me. I gave a spiel about my thoughts on Ellis (hearing how it sounded as I said it, and felt sick at myself) and she agreed with me. You don't want to look but you can't help yourself, was my main point. It's a window into another life, too. And I think Ellis gets flak because what he's writing isn't romantic. He's writing about a lost generation, like Fitzgerald and Hemingway did, but their generation didn't have copious amounts of sex, or do enough cocaine to kill an elephant, or wave machetes around. It's a difficult relationship with Ellis, it's awe, but also disgust. I guess that's what makes him so interesting.
Rules of Attraction is more obviously scathing. It's ironic. It's even playful. Here are some quotes... They aren't nice. I'll say that now.
A boy's thoughts on Kafka in a lecture:
'Well, like, the dude was totally depressed because, well, the dude turned into a bug and freaked out.
(He's not wrong, credit to him. Though maybe 'freaked out' is a little generous of Samsa's reaction.)
Norris pays and ask the shy, acne-scarred cashier if she knows who wrote 'Notes from the Underground'. The girl, who's so homely you couldn't sleep with her for money, not for anything, smiles and says no, and that he can look in the bestseller paperbacks if he'd like. We leave the store and Norris sneers a little too meanly, "Townies are so ignorant."
A particularly crude quote, from a poetry group:
'Yeah, I've been working on this concept that when Man fucks animals, He's fucking Nature, since He's becomes so computerised and all.' Stump stops and takes a swallow from a silver flask he brings out of his pocket and says, 'I'm working on the dog section now where this guy ties a dog up and is having intercourse with it because He thinks dog is God. D-O-G. . .G-O-D. God spelled backwards. Get it? See?'
Most interestingly are the character crossovers. One of our protagonists in this is Patrick Bateman's brother, Sean Bateman. Of course, Patrick Bateman is our American Psycho. He even has several pages from his perspective, though the voice doesn't quite match what we get later on, so Ellis maybe hadn't quite found out what he would become. The other interesting one, is Clay's several pages, who was our protagonist in Less Than Zero - he was the only voice we heard in that novel, compared to the many in this one. So all in all, a good Ellis book.
Does that make it a 'good' book? I'm not sure. Yes and no.
Do I like Ellis: yes and no.
courtney_mcallister's review
4.0
I can completely understand why someone would despise this book. That being said, I enjoyed the novel's structural experimentation, dark humor, and anecdotal tone. Bret Easton Ellis's unique brand of absurd humor is perfectly suited to the scenarios and characters he describes. I respect him for creating complexity out of such pointless excesses.
Rather than focusing on one character's perspective, The Rules of Attraction restlessly vacillates from person to person, creating a multivocalic text that lacks any real thematic substance. The vacuous quality is kind of the point, however. Thanks to the novel's kaleidoscopic construction, you really get a sense of how hollow and interchangeable the characters are. They repeat themselves, echo one another, and never seem to transcend a set repertoire of impulsive sex, drugs, and navel gazing. In other words, it's a caustic portrayal of the meandering lives of privileged, listless brats. It's also a bit horrifying to realize that his portrait of the directionless youth of the 80s is still very relevant. I had several grad school flashbacks.
Rather than focusing on one character's perspective, The Rules of Attraction restlessly vacillates from person to person, creating a multivocalic text that lacks any real thematic substance. The vacuous quality is kind of the point, however. Thanks to the novel's kaleidoscopic construction, you really get a sense of how hollow and interchangeable the characters are. They repeat themselves, echo one another, and never seem to transcend a set repertoire of impulsive sex, drugs, and navel gazing. In other words, it's a caustic portrayal of the meandering lives of privileged, listless brats. It's also a bit horrifying to realize that his portrait of the directionless youth of the 80s is still very relevant. I had several grad school flashbacks.