My major thought on American Psycho (1991)

Submitted by Z0mbifiedFr0g t3_10pf1dz in books

I just finished American Psycho (I read it with the intention of analyzing it when I was done) and boy do I have some thoughts. I have two majors points; my overall theory of the story and a brief analysis of the ending.

  1. Looking at all the evidence I saw in the book, I don’t think any of it was real, as in I think Patrick Bateman made all the events of the story up. I don’t doubt that Patrick certainly works in mergers and acquisitions at Pierce and Pierce or that he’s attended many dinners at fancy places with his coworkers or even that many women seem to fancy him.

I do, however, doubt that he actually commited any murders. It’s my theory that Patrick Bateman simply sits in his office, working as he should, and fantasizes about committing gruesome murders. I truly believe Bateman only fantasizes about giving into his more violent urges, hence why some murders are discussed in detail while others are brushed over.

I wouldn’t doubt that he has killed animals or hurt some of the escorts he’s hired, but I believe Bateman is simply an unreliable narrator whose conveying to us his inner desires of causing violence instead of actually following through on them.

Also, some of the logistics just don’t make sense for these things to have actually happened, like how he do easily killed the child at the zoo in a crowd of people or how nothing was said about the missing escorts that he had murdered, as well as the open house at Paul Owen’s apartment. One of the biggest nails in the coffin for me for this theory was when Patrick’s lawyer said he had lunch with Paul after Patrick was supposed to have murdered him. Now this could be a case of mistaken identity as Patrick’s lawyer calls him Davis, but since Paul is portrayed to be a ‘cooler’ guy than Patrick, I highly doubt that the lawyer confused someone else for Paul.

I also call forth just the flat out absurd things that Patrick says out loud to people that warrant zero reaction whatsoever. Patrick routinely says things like how he’s like to hurt people or that he’s committed these heinous acts and no one bats an eye, either not acknowledging it or laughing it off. I believe Patrick is either imagining a scenario where he could say these things without consequence or is saying them in his head during real interactions.

All these factors lead me to believe that all of American Psycho results from Patrick’s fantasies of diverging from his current life to commit these gruesome murders but never actually following through.

  1. The ending of the book, the “this is not an exit” sign. To me, this could have two possible meanings. I think it can either stand for there being no escape from the life that Patrick is currently living, or that no one has an escape from the capitalist world that he and others like him have built and have and will continue to benefit from.

Arguing for the sign meaning that Patrick cannot escape, we see that Patrick is bored with his current life, he’s reaching for more both within his job (the fisher account) and outside of it (the women and restaurants and murders alike), so then the “this is not an exit” sign poses to him that he is stuck in what he is and what he has now. He will never get the fisher account, he will have to settle for Jean, he will never be ‘in’ enough to secure a reservation at Dorsia on the fly, and he will never have the guts to go through with his innermost violent urges, that what he is now is all he will ever be and that he can’t escape that.

Arguing for the sign meaning that we cannot escape, I think that with the overarching themes in the book, that the “this is not an exit” sign could very well be pointed at us, the readers. If we were to operate under the notion that Patrick did actually commit these murders, then we have just seen him escape all his actions with no consequences at the end of the story, despite the fact that his crimes warrant severe legal punishment. He is a member of the financial elite, even if he is a loser among his peers. His wealth and status leave him virtually untouchable by these consequences while a normal person caught doing half of the things Patrick did would likely be looking at a life sentence.

Capitalism, at least in the way 1980’s America had it, allowed people like Patrick Bateman to do essentially whatever they wanted with barely a slap on the wrist. At least right now, we don’t have a good way to punish Patrick because there is so much working to keep him in a safe zone. Even though we saw all the atrocities commited by Bateman, this will not serve as a good enough wake up call to change our system, this is not an exit.

-a horror book enthusiast with a lot of time on his hands

Please let me know what you think! I’d love to have discussions about this book, about my specific theory or just about the book, because a lot of my friends haven’t/won’t read it

Edit: I now understand that Ellis did confirm that the murders did happen but this is just how I like to interpret what I read.

16

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

joevmo t1_j6kb2hi wrote

Disagree 100 percent. Movie made it seem fake, but the murders were real in the book.

People mistaking others' names was a theme throughout the book, as was not caring at all about other people. The lawyer not knowing is because he mistook whoever he was meeting or just didn't want to deal with it.

Why would the realtor act strange with him of nothing happened?

4

Z0mbifiedFr0g OP t1_j6kfpai wrote

Replying to joevmo (#1,632,115)

You make some interesting points but I still think my perspective has some merit. I’ll call to my point that Paul Owens seems to be someone who is more respected and maybe less likely to be confused with someone else but I do agree with you that it is a recurring theme of the names being confused in the book.

As for the realtor, to the best of my memory, Patrick is described as appearing nervous and shifty when he comes to the open house. The realtor could have easily taken this as Patrick coming to steal something from the open house or to generally cause that sort of trouble.

But again, I agree that there are points that go for and against my argument.

2

hoimass t1_j6kmp9a wrote

It's a fantasy a description of a fantasy world or a series of dreams.

2

Z0mbifiedFr0g OP t1_j6knd9g wrote

Replying to joevmo (#1,633,844)

I approach the cab driver with the same attitude as I approach the police chase scene, that it’s just an event that Patrick has worked into his fantasy, it either didn’t happen or something much milder happened and Patrick amplified it to apply to his thoughts.

6

vibraltu t1_j6kzm5z wrote

Blurring of Reality was an essential aspect of the book. It's implied that the protagonist is completely delusional, but it's intentionally ambiguous enough to make his violent freak-outs a possibility. I think the film version also plays along this line and slips hints either way.

Readers can interpret it any way they like.

11

MinxyMyrnaMinkoff t1_j6l6rwi wrote

Replying to joevmo (#1,632,115)

I’ve always thought the murders really happened. I think people miss the point of the final scene. It’s not that Bateman isn’t a murderer, he is, but It. Doesn’t. Matter.

Due to the vapid, superficial world he lives in No. One. Cares. No one cares if he’s Paul or Patrick or Whomever, everyone is interchangeable. No one cares if he’s a psychopath, he’s young and attractive and rich, so they don’t care. He’s literally been saying psychopathic shit for the entire novel, no one cares. His own lawyer laughs off his murder confession. The realtor covers for him for her own gain. The police are never going to arrest him, not even if he murders someone right in front of them. So there really is No Exit for him, he’s stuck, as a terrible person surrounded by terrible people. He’s in hell.

That’s how I always read it anyways.

11

KatAnansi t1_j6ll00k wrote

I finished the book last night, and have been mulling it over all day. I think the joy of an unreliable narrator written by a skilled author is that you don't really know for sure - and you can change your mind, change it back again and still never really be sure. There is no definitive version of events.

For me, I think that virtually all (if not all) of the murders were in his fantasies. He is unraveling throughout the story, becoming more and more unhinged and psychotic. So many of the things he thinks he says out loud are probably not said out loud. He's off his face. What is going on in his mind and outside in the world blur. A lot of the murders are unfeasible. Sure, you could get away with killing a homeless person - but the ludicrous and farcical multiple deaths involving power tools and the amount of blood and carcasses? Unrealistic to the point of the author having a laugh.

And it really does seem to me that alongside being a scathing criticism of 1980s consumerist capitalism it is also the author completely taking the piss out of pretentious yuppie culture. He's exaggerating, pushing further and further to see how much he can get away with, how much his readers will believe - or at least be entertained by.

10

Z0mbifiedFr0g OP t1_j6m0mkl wrote

Replying to vibraltu (#1,638,708)

I agree! The way that Ellis blurs the lines between Patrick’s delusions and reality makes it really hard to tell what’s real and what’s not. I know I often had a hard time telling and would turn to other people who had already read the book to see what they thought. I see a lot of different people interpreting the book a lot of different ways and this is just what I came out with.

2

Z0mbifiedFr0g OP t1_j6m0wgi wrote

Replying to KatAnansi (#1,645,300)

Yes, exactly! So much of what is described in the book just doesn’t make sense for it to have actually occurred. If I were to say any of the murders actually took place, I would say that I could give him the murder of the homeless man in the beginning as I think the logistics work and it’s detailed enough. I truly believe Patrick is just experimenting with these ideas in his mind or is straight up having delusions of legitimately committing these acts. The fact of the book itself being a satire in other areas, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of it was just Ellis pushing with what he could get the reader to believe Patrick could do or get away with.

3

ramadeus75 t1_j6mdz4n wrote

This is not an exit. So let's look at it as an entrance. An entrance to a new life where he finally snaps. He cannot escape this reality that there are two distinct Patrick Batemans. The serial killer, and the mediocre executive. He will end up choosing one as he enters the door. That's my 2c.

2