XIXAX Film Forum


Bret Easton Ellis

children with angels · 121 · 28467

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eward

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 3422
Reply #120 on: July 09, 2019, 11:12:10 AM
I finished White, which I thought was a great and engaging read, and decided to read reviews to see how they treated the arguments made in the book—how naive of me...The review from The Guardian is especially shameful. It contains errors, it has random quotes without the context, in order to make it sound ridiculous.

But I also found an article about these non-reviews. It's quite interesting. I like what it says about reviewers using a Twitter voice to dismiss what they're reviewing. It seems insane to me that you can write a review in The Guardian without doing the work; because, look, a real negative review of White would be fascinating. The fact that Ellis says, himself, that he doesn't care about politics is helpful, he analyzes the reactions of an elite—the one he's living with, the one he's a part of—and that's fascinating—but the actual effects of politics on the world don't register to him, it's all virtual. And yet, what he describes is political, too. He's in the bubble and outside of the bubble—so he can see things, or be a witness for us, while having his blindspots. Anyway, I'm annoyed that it did not spark discussions; instead, it was just mocked. Ellis has a Twitter voice that I find distateful, but his essay voice is not his Twitter voice; other writers should be aware of that distinction in their work...

Here is the article about the reviews: https://thewire.in/books/bret-easton-ellis-white-review/amp/

tl;dr What I mean is that what made the reading exciting was as much the part I strongly agreed with than the parts I disagreed—it was serious and funny, but not annoying even if I rolled my eyes twice.

Totally agree, am just finishing it up myself. The bulk of the negative reviews completely mischaracterize the nature of the book, which is more concerned with film theory than anything else, save for a few sections addressing the cultural fallout resulting from the 2016 campaigns and election. I skimmed through much of what rang familiar, as indeed large chunks are lifted from various monologues from the podcast, if re-fitted somewhat to make for a more palatable reading experience. And while I find myself disagreeing with him here and there, he's never less than engaging. The outrage this was greeted with was silly and unfounded, and makes me question whether or not any of these so-called critics actually read the damn thing...

And Drenk, thanks for linking that article, I quite appreciated it.
"Do you laugh at jealousy?"

"No, I don't even laugh at seasickness! I happen to regard jealousy as the seasickness of passion."