Previous Comments

[1] On Oct-20-2004, thomthom wrote:

can this just be real?
i hope he's right, somehow excited i am now...

[2] On Oct-20-2004, suicidemartini wrote:

"the narrator speaks in a post-Fight Club narration of an unsolved mystery."

What does that mean?

[3] On Oct-20-2004, Frank wrote:

It means that the narrator cannot always be trusted, and I'm not talking about the style of the writing. Even he, as a character, is unable to trust himself.

[4] On Oct-21-2004, mitch wrote:

I don't think this sounds too good...does the book have bret easton ellis' trade mark of the 'flat effect' and is this story satire or thriller? In words words is the story written in the simple tone as Less Than Zero or is it more mainstream written?

[5] On Oct-21-2004, Frank wrote:

There is nothing satirical about it, and it can't exactly be classified as a thriller although there are several thrilling moments. It's about the journey of the writer, and how this one in particular looks to his dead father and troubled son to help him find his voice. It is more mainstream than anything he's done, and some admirers of his work will definitely have problems with the fact that despite being about BEE, the writer's voice doesn't really shine until the end, which is a long trek to endure when you expect it to be there from page one.

I was left with a couple thoughts: Ellis has definitely slowed down and making himself the main character must've been a blessing and a curse. Good because, hey, write what you know, but not so good because I'm left wondering if the character was completely made up and didn't have the realistic qualities of our well-known author, would I have cared nearly as much? I suppose that's beside the point in the end. And second, it took such a long time for this to be pieced together and there were times I was sick of the supernatural haunted house and endless questioning of what I was reading. I like it most when he was dealing with his disconnected relationship with his wife and son and his own dependency problems, which is to say that if the haunted house was removed, I may have liked it even more.

[6] On Oct-22-2004, suicidemartini wrote:

so in the book Ellis has a wife and son?

[7] On Oct-23-2004, t wrote:

has anyone of you seen...

a terby?

[8] On Oct-25-2004, mitch wrote:

Am I the only ellis fan who is bitting their nails in fear?
Does anyone know what ellis is hoping to achieve by publishing this book? And the word 'mainstream' is not what I want to hear and I am curious why ellis has gone from writing small books about simple characters to writing large volume books with complex plot lines and hiden meanings. Is this the end of ellis?
Last question: Does the book show that ellis hasn't just changed writing style but also changed character himself.
Ellis' longer books, especially American Psycho, don't 'shine' until the last 50 pages, wondering if anyone has thoughts why the new ellis saves his best writing until the end.

[9] On Oct-25-2004, Johnson wrote:

I don't see the point off all this biting of the nails and preamble.

"I am curious why ellis has gone from writing small books about simple characters to writing large volume books with complex plot lines and hiden meanings. Is this the end of ellis? "

to respond to this, for one thing his books were never about simple characters (Patrick Bateman is a psychoanalists dream, Clay is a fascenating character hiding behind a facade so impenetrable that it's disturbing) and i wouldn't call his books "simple" because, though plotless, they are meticulasly constructed loose narratives, built by Ellis to leave us with deep feelings about what we have just read. It's my belief that he ALWAYS had hidden meanings and one of the pleasures of his novels is to deconstruct the puzzle before you.

I for one loved Glamorama and i think whatever direction he wants to move in his carrear should be supported. Plus, this is ELLIS were talking about, and we know he won't dissapoint.

Autobiographical detail? Haunted houses? I'm game, and the wider the canvus the greater it is.

After all, the future is that mountain.

[10] On Oct-26-2004, jamesg wrote:

I agree entirely with Johnson. mitch you need to understand that ellis is an author, an artist. He is not a plant that manufactures books to fit what you want. One of the great things about being an author is the freedom, and you need to appreciate that. If BEE wanted to write a novel about vampire porn-star dogs it would be his choice. And if he wanted to make it 3000 pages and a very intense, complicated plot it would also be his choice.
Would you prefer if his next novel was about teenagers who do drugs and have meaningless sex and kill each other? You shouldn't try to control an artist and I, for one, am extremely excited to hear that he is out doing something he hasn't done before. It's great to know he's expanding his horizon to how HE sees fit.

[11] On Oct-27-2004, Stanley Kubrick's Ghost wrote:

I've almost finished reading Lunar Park. I am a long-time (let me emphasize: LONG TIME) fan of Bret's work and this is quite simply the most astounding thing I've ever read in my entire life. I can't believe he did this.

"The sea reached to the land's edge where a family, in silhouette, stood watching us until the fog concealed them. From those of us who are left behind: you will be remembered, you were the one I needed, I loved you in my dreams."

[12] On Oct-30-2004, Lazy Lisa wrote:

Is he writing a novel about vampire porn-star dogs?  That would be awesome.

[13] On Oct-30-2004, Brandon Veski wrote:

geez lazy lisa,

the beauty of Ellis' prose is being delivered to us in advance (I assume that "Stanley Kubrick's Ghost" delivered that quote from Lunar Park) and you oh you made me roll my eyes and scrunch up my nose (small, tan, slightly upturned a la River Phoenix) and somewhere in the background Joni Mitchell is singing "California"

[14] On Nov-11-2004, shimmy wrote:

how do you people get advanced copys of this book??
Know BEE personally??
must be cool to read it a year before it comes out...

[15] On Nov-17-2004, Yelena wrote:

I have to ask again, the thing that Shimmy also asked.HOW did you read "Lunar park"? Is there any chance that we can get more quotes than that one? Please. I am working on MA thesis about BEE's work,so it would be of huge importance for me.

Thanx.

[16] On Nov-17-2004, Bret Schlyer wrote:

Everybody I know of with copies of Lunar Park are connected to the movie industry - with the exception of me. And I got mine from a person connected to the movie industry.



Your doing your thesis on BEE? Are you sure you haven't read the book? (hint, hint)

[17] On Nov-17-2004, Matt wrote:

So, how did you like it Bret?

[18] On Nov-17-2004, shimmy wrote:

amazing how music and movies get leaked all the time but books never see the light of day until they get published.
A year seems like an eternity to wait for this!

[19] On Nov-29-2004, brian wrote:

Patrick Bateman or Sean Bateman makes a return? And in what capacity ... a cameo appearance or an involved role?

[20] On Nov-29-2004, Bret wrote:

Its Patrick, and its not a cameo.

[21] On Dec-06-2004, The-Stinger wrote:

Frank give us some new material dude

http://frankbooth.typepad.com/frank_booth/2004/11/lunar_park_bret.html

[22] On Dec-09-2004, BookThread wrote:

I will be seeing Brett very soon and I will have lots of new information: Including release date, changes, anything that I can turn up. And Bret..you asked me once if he reads this site....yes sir he does. He is well aware of it and all of the content.