Previous Comments

[1] On Apr-18-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

I posted this to my blog a couple of weeks ago after I finished the book. What do you guys think?

*****

I just finished Bret Easton Ellis' book Glamorama , really loved it, and thought I'd look on the old Amazon.com to see if any of the reviewers posted any interesting interpretations or views on the book. Well, they did. Tons of them. Lots of people loved it, and a few people hated it. The thing is that nearly everyone that gave it a bad review seems to have missed the point.

Like real life, no one in Ellis' books are protagonists or antagonists. They just are. No one is perfect ? in fact most them are terrible people ? but they're all human and we can identify with all of them in some way. Part of the genius of Ellis is that we're not supposed to identify with Patrick Bateman the same way we identify with Lauren Hynde. We're not given the typical flags that lesser authors fly to tell us which ones the ?sympathetic? characters are. We're given real human traits, emotions, desires, and especially faults that ring true because they are, not because we aspire for them to be.

If Victor wasn't a shallow idiot, then he couldn't have been the narrator in Glamorama . The entire premise on which the satire in the book is based is that the people we're seeing are all shallow idiots. Victor is no exception. If he were, he would not hold the views that he does, or the desire to keep the company that he does, and therefore never get involved in any of the events that subsequently unfold because of his associations and worldview. Not only that, but the entire novel would come off as Ellis looking down like a disapproving bully on these inhuman characters that he criticizes, rather than depicting them as he does with such a true understanding of modern humanity, society, and culture.

And, finally, how can you tell someone that reads through five-hundred-plus pages of a ridiculous satire that things in a ridiculous satire are supposed to ridiculous? Exaggeration is what makes something satirical. I'm not sure what they expected, or how they got through the entire book without realizing that it's a satire of the US Weekly crowd and not a genre thriller.

In contrast, Joseph Suglia (who wrote a book that I haven't read called Years of Rage ) writes a particularly insightful review. Don't read the review if you haven't read Glamorama and don't want to spoil it, but he really hits the proverbial nail on the proverbial head, as it were, so to speak and whatnot.

[2] On Apr-18-2005, Decapitatedhope wrote:

I thought Glamorama was fantastic, but it took me a whole long time to become transfixed by everything. It probably took me over a month to finish, which is unsual for me.

To me, Glamorama was clearly the most insightful book Ellis has written, it has depth to the very core of its narrative, yet it takes a long while to be able to see this. As I've only read it the once, I don't think I have the ability to fully judge Victor's character for it too me a great while to be able to engage with the characters in the book, especially Victor.

I never really understood the violence that people seemed to comment about though, was it really that extreme?

[3] On Apr-18-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

I never really understood the violence that people seemed to comment about though, was it really that extreme?

The torture scene with Sam Ho make my stomach turn more than anything in American Psycho. The scene with Bentley and the bombs was pretty rough, too. It's all in the eye of the beholder, though.

[4] On Apr-18-2005, Matt wrote:

Glamorama was the first novel I read from Ellis, and I must say it both shocked and enlightened me. The book was an impulse buy with some birthday money, which in retrospect is funny because the books I had been reading back then were Stephen King and Tom Clancy "novels." Ellis not only showed me that there is better satire than Catch-22, but turned me on to the entire genre of Post-Modernism. I can honestly say I would not be the same person (as well as have the same writing style) without reading this book.

As for the violence, it was extremely graphic, but it fit the theme of the book well. The whole purpose of this work (IMO) is to show the "over the top" nature of celebrities and the people who follow them so closely. It may have been grisly, yet without it the book might not have had the same flavor as it does.

[5] On Apr-18-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

I like the quotation marks around "novels," Matt. That shit is terrible.

CF

[6] On Apr-20-2005, anssi wrote:

From "specks" to "the future is that mountain". The beginning and the end of the book. Ellis has some memorable beginnings in his work but what do you make out of this one?

Interpretations, anyone?

[7] On Apr-20-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

I was surprised that "specks" wasn't really brought up again. I sort of expected it to be a running theme. Not sure why.

The end of the book was for sure different for Ellis because there was kind of a resolution - Victor turning over a new leaf. I thought the 6th section of the book was mostly unneccessary, though. Should have been simpler and less drawn-out. Oh well. Great book.

CF

[8] On Apr-20-2005, jimmy wrote:

The whole specks-to-mountains thing, to me, is representative of the way things grow throughout the book. The violence grows, the conspiracy grows, and - for the first time in an Ellis book, really - a character grows. Victor, by the end of the book, has started to have some level of self-understanding and realization about where he went wrong in life. It's subtle, but it's there.

I
LOVE
THIS
BOOK.

[9] On Apr-20-2005, Tobias wrote:

I suppose when you read any of Ellis' work, not only Glamorama, you have to avoid over-interpreting the text. Of course one recognizes the satire in every one of his books, but for me, at least, thinking and analyzing the text spoils much of the pure fun.

It still is, after all, fiction. And never mind the social critisism they contain, they make you laugh, feel sick, and enjoy page after another.

TC

[10] On Apr-20-2005, Eredsox wrote:

Along with not over analyzing Glamarama one has to understand that some things in the book will never make sense(10 bucks to anyone who can break down who was working for who in the Bobby Hughes/Palakon/Victor's dad dynamic). I read an interview with Ellis awhile back in which he said that in real life most people(inculding himself) dont understand the motives and workings of terrorism or mercenaries, or even models, so he wanted to develope and complete the plot line in a way that would never really make complete sense. In doing this he was able to make a utterly realistic satire because we strive but can not find meaning in some parts of this books plot, just as we would not be able to if they occured in real life.

[11] On Apr-21-2005, some guy wrote:

i'm sure it's tough for mr ellis to have written one of the best books ever, but that doesn't excuse what he's written since. american psycho cannot be improved upon, half-repeats of it like glamorama are insulting. time to try a new tack.

[12] On Apr-21-2005, jimmy wrote:

Tobias and Eredsox, you hit on important points. I hate it when readers of Ellis' novels try so hard to "solve" them, when that is ultimately missing the point. People have a hard time grasping that there simply is no singular, all-encompassing ANSWER to what does and doesn't really happen in Ellis' books, particularly in regards to Psycho and Glam.

[13] On Apr-21-2005, Sirayderf wrote:

Hi all
You want some interpretations on Glamorama?
I actually wrote a piece on it for my studies. The result is there :
LINK (PDF file)

You might not want to read it all, but I hope it might open some possibilities..And I'd love to get some comments.. :)

[14] On Apr-21-2005, marc wrote:

Does anybody have a breakdown of all the characters and how they are related to each other in all of Ellis' books?

[15] On Apr-21-2005, peter payne wrote:

what was the deal with the ongoing theme of the "smell of shit" throughout the novel??

[16] On Apr-21-2005, Anonymous wrote:

I was with the book the entire way, until, the very end.

After Victor has come back from Europe as a new man, and he is in control of his life..

he ends up where? in milan? with an agent who taunts him and a tv that doesn't work and a mountain in his future?

Of course, I love this book, but the ending.. didn't exactly dissapoint me, it just confused me more than anything else in the entire book.

Can anyone explain? Theories?

[17] On Apr-21-2005, slim wrote:

He's not in control of his life. In fact, it's more confusing than ever. But he is a new person and for once understands that life is more than just hair gel and models. He also understands that no matter how much it may seem like he is, he's actually never in control of his life. Life is hard and never fair and this realization is the mountain. The future he must face. But as much as it is daunting and impossibly insurmountable, it is also beautiful because you are free to climb the mountain or not in your own way. (slight pink floyd reference at the end)

[18] On Apr-22-2005, Anonymous wrote:

that actually makes a lot sense and is an excellent explanation... the minor details, like the his dad on 60 minutes, etc., i'm still not sure about but like it's been said above not everything in the book does add up.

as for the general idea i think i'd agree with that interpretation. thanks.

[19] On Apr-23-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

what was the deal with the ongoing theme of the "smell of shit" throughout the novel??

His world looks great, but smells terrible. It's like saying "something stinks" to express suspicion of things not being on the "up and up." Does that make sense?

CF

[20] On Apr-23-2005, marc wrote:

What's with the theme of "watching television with no sound" in almost all of Ellis' books. I also found the mountain ending to be interesting when victor talks about "stars" and how they are real. I wonder if "stars" has two meanings, one of them meaning stars as in celebrities.

[21] On Apr-24-2005, James S wrote:

"After Victor has come back from Europe as a new man, and he is in control of his life..

he ends up where? in milan? with an agent who taunts him and a tv that doesn't work and a mountain in his future?"

In my opinion, that's not Victor in New York at the end of the novel. It's his double (a clone, a look alike, whatever, I wouldn't dwell on it). His father had him replaced, wanting a son who went to law school instead of trendy night clubs.

We'll just slide down the surface of things... oh, my.

[22] On Apr-24-2005, Anonymous wrote:

that is a much sadder ending but it makes a lot of sense.

[23] On Apr-25-2005, Sirayderf wrote:

Yep, I totally agree with this interpretation. That's Victor being trapped in his own game of make-believe and superficiality.
I would tend to think that there are also two levels of narration in the book : one in which Victor changes back to his better self and goes back to uni & so on...and the other plane in which he goes to hell. Another explanation could be that both characters are Victor, with the Milan Victor being his "former self" left to evolve as a character by itself, which is, what, a bit strange?

[24] On Apr-25-2005, Anonymous wrote:

Possibilities are endless

[25] On Apr-25-2005, Lou wrote:

I agree with you, James--if you look at chapter 5, it seems like the Victor clone is vaguely threatening Samuel Johnson with exposing the whole thing. Also, it appears that Lauren Hynde has been replaced (of course, since Jamie said that Lauren had died in a car accident outside of Camden in the 80s).

I wonder who Mr. Leisure is.

"The better you look, the more you see."

[26] On Apr-26-2005, Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, but don't forget that this is NOT Jamie....

[27] On Apr-26-2005, Nick wrote:

This is going to seem like a very, very stupid question-I'm only a kid here (17) and just started out on Ellis last year-but is the camera crew that appears in the second part of the story and pretty much stays throughout real? Or is this simply a fantasy of Victors?

Also, when Glamorama is made into a film, do you think that the film crew will be shown?

[28] On Apr-26-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

[I]s the camera crew... real?

They're following him around filming his actions as part of a terrorist organization run by models. Even in the exaggerated reality of the book, I wouldn't find it believable that they're real and they wouldn't alert someone to these activities. I see the camera crew as not only a delusion of Victor's, but as Ellis poking fun at the notion that for something to be REAL in our culture, it has to be filmed and broadcast. That's our new reality. That's an ongoing theme throughout the book, and the camera crew I see as an extension of that.

If they don't show the camera crew in the movie, it'll be an outrage. Not that I expect a lot from this movie, mind you.

CF

[29] On Apr-26-2005, Anonymous wrote:

i think the camera crew is real, and even realistic. of course, it's semi-exagerrated but isn't it true that celebrities constantly have some sort of cameras or voyeur lens on them at all times? between reality shows, tv specials, paparazzi, it is quite possible that victor, "it boy," was actually being trailed by a camera crew as a representation of his celebrity... but the whole book is exagerrated and satirical, so of course there is a satirical element to it. really, nothing in the book is completely plausible.

[30] On Apr-26-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

Yeah, after reading what I wrote, I agree with you, last poster. In the end, though, it doesn't matter becasue it's all a crazy exagerated satire.

CF

[31] On Apr-26-2005, christopher wrote:

Does anyone have any theories as to when this book takes place?

One thing that bugs me is that Victor is playing Super Marios Bros near the beginning of the book, which dates it around 1990/1991, but yet, in the same region of the book, there are a few references to email (which dates it around 1994 at the very, very earliest).

This has me confused.

I am presuming the book begins around the time Ellis started working on it (1990) and ends around the time he stopped (1997 - with the references to the Spice Girls being the most explicit indicator of this).

Would it be correct in assuming the novel has a 7 year time-span?

[32] On Apr-26-2005, Chris Fabulous wrote:

I read the Ellis left all the date-sensitive names and references in there because they were immaterial. So there are things and people mentioned that were briefly popular throughout the entire span that Ellis was writing, although I don't think it was supposed to take place over that long of a period of time.

CF

[33] On Apr-26-2005, James S wrote:

Going back to the camera crews...

Does anyone have any ideas on why there were two? There was the one which contained Felix and the other that was referred to as the 'French film crew', I believe.

And concerning Felix... whether real or imaginary... does anyone think there was some sort of significance to his death? Because to memory (it's been awhile since I've read the book) after he died in the hotel explosion (which was set up by Bobby...) the French film crew seemed to take over...

[34] On Apr-27-2005, pragmatist wrote:

Sirayderf:

i skimmed through most of your paper, and found it truly insightful and enlightening.
i just finished the book a couple of weeks ago, and was having trouble understanding some things, but your analysis filled in alot of gaps in my interpretation of the book.

i highly recommend that anyone with in-depth questions about "glamorama" and a taste for academic lit-crit read this essay. it pretty much covers all the significant issues in the book concerning society, culture, psychology... and especially the dichotomy of fiction/reality in relation to identity and existence.

i've read some utterly moronic entries in this forum (it's a surprise some people even got through the whole 500 pages without grasping some of the most basic stuff)... so do yourselves a favor and read this dude's dissertation.

[35] On Apr-27-2005, jimmy wrote:

James S, the two camera crews and Felix's death just all add to the ever-expanding, unsolvable conspiracy.

christopher, you are correct that the book was written between about 1991 and 1997, and Ellis just left all the pop-culture references as they were. I think that because he did so, it's a great '90s pop culture fest. But Chris Fabulous is right too in that, for all the namedropping that goes on in the book, the names themselves, at the end of the day, are almost irrelevant. We understand that they're all celebrities of some sort, and that's all that matters.

[36] On Apr-27-2005, Sirayderf wrote:

>pragmatist
Thanx for your comments!
Problem with the essay is : it might be a bit too much on the "postmodern literay criticism" side of life...
+ reading it inevitably arises many more questions.

Glamorama is one of these books which are never-ending really. Why is there no definite answer to any question? Think about it. This is for me the real question about the book, no one can tell what the confetti is there for or who Mr Leisure is. It's only a pattern.

Can't wait for Lunar Park now :-)

[37] On Apr-27-2005, Sirayderf wrote:

Self-quote concerning the presence of 2 camera crews :

We should consider Glamorama as being the narration of two different films being
shot at the same time with nearly the same characters. Yet the characters do not have the
exactly same part in both movies. In the first one, we are told the story of Victor, the
model, who opens clubs and goes to Europe to look for a friend. In this film, the characters
and the actors are rather distinct, and the actor playing Victor is aware of this distinction. A
second movie is being filmed, in which the actor playing the part of Victor becomes the central
character of a story in which he becomes trapped in a terrorist organisation. In this film, the
substitutes reveal their true character and new characters appear: Lauren becomes Eva,
since Eva is the substitute for Lauren, but still the actress playing Eva is unseen, because
the actor-turned-character Victor is not aware of his shift in position. Palakon, the
mysterious agent, appears only in this film and is then unknown to the members of the
filming team of the first movie.

[38] On Apr-27-2005, Kyle wrote:

I had an idea for the Glamorama movie today.

Okay, there are several lists of celebrities and I think when the characters are spouting them off, the actor playing the character should stick their name in the list, too. I just think that'd be cool...

[39] On Apr-27-2005, Eredsox wrote:

As well the Film crews are run as terrorist orginizations. For example the best boys and production assistants are the people who end up doing the grunt assasinations, while the producer and the director are the ones who first help Victor escape, then convince him to kill Bobby Hughes, and then have him trapped in the hotel in Milan(Where the Director tells Victor "Maybe we will use you in some future work"). Im not sure exactly what the meaning is, but I think there are some parrallels between the crews and terrorsist cells, or maybe the suggestion that the Crews(at least the second one) are the ones that are controlling Hughes(until he gets too out of control and the Director decides to take him out)

[40] On Apr-27-2005, Anonymous wrote:

the idea of their being two victors is becoming increasingly convincing. it would explain a lot, including, which no one had brought up until now, the eva/lauren scene, and - something no one has brought up and i try to forget because it was SO confusing - the two different memories: victor at camden remembering a nice jamie (or was it lauren?), and remembering a terrorist jamie.

[41] On Apr-27-2005, roy wrote:

Guys there is already a movie based on the book glamorama...its called zoolander. Get with the times, baby.

[42] On Apr-28-2005, SirAD wrote:

Concerning the lists and the movie, Kyle's idea is really good. That would be fun and nearly unnoticed. Still, I would totally respect the actors if they could memorize the name lists AS THEY ARE in the book. A terrific and, well, useless challenge.

[43] On Apr-28-2005, Eredsox wrote:

My favorite part is Sean Bateman(my favorite ellis character) coming over with a six pack of beer and pills, and whispering "All of the boys think shes a spy". There are Def 2 Victors : The real one and the one hired by Palakon and Victors father to replace him and become a model citizen(law school, Brooks Brothers clothes, a steady girlfriend). Notice at the end the new Victor starts to see how miserable and fake his new life is going to be when hes eating with Eve(the fake Lauren) he remarks "Is it cold in here" Also in the conversation he has with Victor's Father you can see that Victors dad is having trouble with his choice to replace his son, with the fake Victor basically telling him to get it together.

[44] On Apr-29-2005, Anonymous wrote:

i have noticed the zoolander thing. clearly there are not all that similar tho.

a movie coming out very soon, domino, with keira knightley, also has a very similar premise.

[45] On May-05-2005, Marc wrote:

I always thought Felix and the film crew were in a way Victor's concience (sp.) telling him what he should do.

[46] On May-05-2005, Anonymous wrote:

is it just me, or are people taking glamorama too far? the youthquakemagazine website was funny, but "victor ward's" MySpace is just weird. hundreds of people commented thinking he is an actual person and i really don't think they even know who bret easton ellis is. the ones that play along and talk about lauren or sean just seem stupid and equally weird. glamorama is a great book and it has literary value, but it's not a culture, phenomona, or something to be confused with reality.

[47] On May-05-2005, Anonymous wrote:

but it's not a culture, phenomona, or something to be confused with reality.

Apparently, for better or worse, it is now.

CF

[48] On May-09-2005, Sirayderf wrote:

Well, it does have a potential for unreal things contaminating reality. Don't forget the Web is not quite real either. I actually found the page boring, but it might be of some interest to certain people, so why not let them expand the glamorama universe? It's just another form of fan-fiction, after all..

[49] On May-09-2005, Doktor Florian wrote:

About the "smell of shit" throughout the book: I always thought, that Victor had a brain tumor causing these olfactory as well as other hallucinations...

[50] On May-10-2005, Sir A.D. wrote:

That could be an explanation. In the French translation the 'smell of shit" has become "l'odeur de shit", which translates back as "the smell of weed". This I think is extremely embarrassing...

[51] On May-11-2005, Jeff wrote:

I thought that the film crew was in Victor's mind. The reason being because he couldn't admit to himself that he was a mediocre model with no acting in his future. BEE stated in an interview that he wanted to link models and terrorists. He wanted to display how they are social terrorists, something along those lines. I wish I could find the link to post it.

[52] On May-12-2005, Nick wrote:

I just finished Glamorama. This is the best book I've ever read. I have these images stuck in my head that I'll probably never be able to get out, such as Chloe's death in the hotel bathroom.

However, I was confused by part 6, the last part of the book. It seems that at the end of part 5, Victor is getting his life back on track. The main thing that confused me in part 6 is that it is counting up now. Could someone please explain?

Also, I have a theory. Towards the end, the 'director' actually pursuades Victor to go kill Bruce. If the film crew actually does exist, my idea is that they are actually putting together a really extreme reality/snuff TV show. I don't know, the theory is a little out there, but let me kn ow what you think

[53] On May-12-2005, SirAD wrote:

well, sorry to say, but theory sounds quite down-to-earth actually. Yes they ARE shooting some nasty snuff movie. But is it really snuff? We know for certain there is a scenario to it.. :)
The general idea here (tell me if I'm wrong) about the end of part 5 is that this is not the "real" Victor back in new york but some kind of clean clone. Real victor stays in Milan. Though the name "real" sounds very amusing to me. My advice is : read it a second time, you will definitely find out more about what's going on, more connexions... don't forget : the better you look ... so read it again, a pattern is going to appear, confetti-shaped...

[54] On May-12-2005, Anonymous wrote:

wow, i never thought about that connection. "the better you look, the more you see" has sort of a triple meaning. it's self-reflexive. the better we read / deeper we look into the text, the more we come to understnad. of course it also pertains to victor on a superficial level and the ultimate irony that he looked great and saw more than he ever would want to.

[55] On May-13-2005, Nick wrote:

Wow, I am going to definitely read it again soon. Thanks for the advice and helping me clear things up.

[56] On May-21-2005, nick t wrote:

My interpretation of the the questions being brought up on the blog...as far as the 2 victors go, I am nearly positive that Palakon has had victor replaced in New York with a look alike and here is some evidence... on the boat victor finds a picture of a man who looks just like him, and also victor discovers that San Ho has also been doubled. Victor is also spotted many times in New York while he is in Europe and even gets Chloe pregnant. Regarding the film crew...I think this was all in Victors head, he was so wrapped up in this fame and hope for success that he lost it and really believe everyone was reading from a script and performing scenes, when really there was no crew. I think Easton may have been trying to say something about the paparazzi also with this. And this is kind of a stretch but part of me says it was really just all Victors mind. After the club incident near the beginning he loses it and this whole book could be Victor's growing insanity, which would explain why characters from periods throughout his life(Jamie Fields, his fathers friends, Palakon who works with his father etc.) appeared in Europe. These are just my thoughts. Comments?

[57] On May-22-2005, Chickenbiskit wrote:

Love Glamorama. Love BEE. Love that I found this site. Now please someone get this god damn movie going.

[58] On May-24-2005, DG wrote:

I just finished reaging GLAMORAMA. I think there are definately 2 Victors. I haven`t seen anyone on this message board mention the fact that near the end of the novel, Victor calls his sister who thinks it`s a prank and passes the phone to the `real` Victor. Also, in the 5th part, Victor`s manager calls him to tell him that he got the part in Flatliners 2 and repeatedly asks `who is this I`m talking to`. This could obviously just mean that Victor is a different person, that he has grown because of his experiences, but I think there is more to it than that. I think this is the Victor who got Chloe pregnant and patched things up with Damien while `Victor 2`(or Victor 1 depending how you look at it) was on the QE2.

I also believe that the camera crews are just a part of his imagination. The first mention we have of them is right after the club opening when Damien beats the shit out of Victor. It`s at this point that Victor`s carefuly crafted facade of `cool` cracks. He`s not prepared to deal with what is going on around him so his psyche creates a way: movies, not life, are being made. The movies can be summed up in one word. The first movie is COOL, the second is DANGEROUS. I think the reason the 1st film crew never heard of Palakon is that he does not fit in with Victor`s idea of cool. The first time the reader (and Victor) meet Palakon, he seems somewhat nervous and definately un-hip in contrast to everyone else in Victor`s life up to that point.

I also loved the contrast between the start and end of the novel: the specks and the mountain. The way I see it, the specks are blemishes, ugliness. At first, Victor has no tolerance for anything remotely ugly. His view of the world is extremely narrow. He looks perfect and demands it from everything around him. As the novel progresses, however, his sense of a perfect self-image diminishes. At the club opening he even says something like: `This is the first time in my life I wish I were invisible`. When surrounded by terrorists, they often treat him with contempt and even (especially Jamie) ignore him, something he`s not used to. By the end of the book, he sees his future as a spirit-like entity floating around a mountain: a far cry from being a semi-famous model in New York.

One question: who sent the two guys Victor killed in his apartment? Was it his father to make sure `clean Victor``s cover would never get blown. Considering the tone of the conversation fake Victor has with his father over the phone, this is a posibilty. It could also explain Victor`s depression at the end: his own father wants him dead. Or it could be Bobby`s former friends or enemies. Or it could even be Damien for reasons I haven`t figured out yet. Any thoughts?

[59] On May-25-2005, Sir A.D. wrote:

Or it could even be that Victor#1 is in a mental institute in Milan imagining all that. Or the guys were sent by one of the camera crews (who definitely seem to be more active towards the end of the novel.) I personnally like to think that it is the author of the book who sends guys to end the existence of this character (V#1) who has become completely useless in relation to the topic of the book, but I know this is far-fetched. :D
Also, don't forget that what Victor focuses on at the very end of the book is the stars rather than the mountain. So, stars, specks, confetti, tiny tiny dots, what do you think about that?

[60] On May-25-2005, DG wrote:

The relation between the specks and stars is interesting. I still think the contrast is between ugliness and beauty. The specks are tiny dots he hates, the stars are tiny dots that are beautiful and far away: just like he wishes to be at the end of the novel. I think the mountain represents his father in a way. His father obviously has massive presence and influence in the world around him and he has almost finished his `climb` to the top of the political moutain: he will probably be president. Victor is just one of the many stars needed in the picture to get the Senator elected. Victor`s job, as far as his dad is concerned, is to look good, but to stay at arm`s length.

Furthermore, the more I re-read the conversation between fake Victor and his father in book 5, the more I`m convinced his father tried to have real Victor killed. Fake Victor is obviously pushing the Senator to do lomething the latter has trouble with. I think it`s more than just having someone impersonate his son. After all, this impersonation has been going on for months at that point, why would he feel regret only then? Plus, it was his father who tricked him into going to Europe. The Senator also did nothing to help when Victor got involved with terrorists, even though he must have known about it. The Senator is obviously driven by pure political ambition, which I think makes him the true vilain of the novel. I think he would even resort (albeit hesitantly) to killing his son.

Any thoughts on the numbering of the chapters?

[61] On May-25-2005, Sir A.D. wrote:

Well, this is really interesting! So, first :
"it was his father who tricked him into going to Europe" :certainly V's father is part of the thing, but is that the ONLY reason? I wouldn't think so.
I don't feel that the senator is such a central character, though. I totally agree that he is aware of the situation, though I have the impression that he doesn't control it and that he realises that it's to late for him to do anything anymore.
Your comparison with the mountain is quite convincing, still.
concerning the chapters, I'll quote myself once again (if you want to know what I think about the whole book, follow the link I posted above)

"There seems to be a teleological ordering of chapters, that is a conclusion-oriented
process which indicates that the narration tends to the realization of some important event
which we assume is going to happen when we get to the end of chapter 0.
In fact, this order of the chapters may and may not be seen as teleological. Indeed,
the countdown starts again when the second part of the novel begins. In a way, we could
see this as the narration failing to achieve what it meant to do, and trying again to get
to its point. As the story of part 1 unfolds, and the numbers of the chapters go decrescendo,
we as readers may try and guess what is going to happen at the end of this part, at chapter
0. We could think that part one ends with the complete downfall of Victor in the New York
scene, which we tend to expect as we see him getting trapped in circles of
misunderstandings and contempt. Yet this is not the case since Victor’s dismissal from the
New York episode happens well before this, at the end of chapter seven, when all the
characters present at the club opening reject him. The few chapters left are only useful in
the way that they allow for a transition to the next part. The physical parts of the text
actually correspond to the parts of the story. Part One takes place in New York, part Two
on the QE2 ship, part Three in London, part Four in Paris, part Five takes place in New
York again but it is quite specific as we shall see later, and part Six takes place in Milan.
The teleological chaptering does not really follow, however, the marking events of
the plot. The impression given is that the parts of the text are only present to separate it into
neat pieces in which the action itself is not really relevant. We could compare this to the
delimitation of the acts and scenes in a theatre play: each time the curtain goes down the
scenery and background of the stage changes, though the characters are still here and the
plot is not finished.
(...) the question raised is
the following: why should there be a sixth part, most of all considering how little
information it provides concerning the hero of the book?"
In short, it's all about playing with conventions and with the reader's expectations. Your opinion?

[62] On May-25-2005, DG wrote:

Your idea of a `conclusion-oriented process` is intriguing and I would have to agree. What I find interesting is that Victor never seems to be heading towards a conclusion. He tends to drift through life going where the trendy winds blow him. By making us think we`re starting at the end, Ellis shows a marked contrast between his style of writing and his main character`s lack of any real ambition.

I think the point of the sixth book is to show that New York Victor and Milan Victor are clearly two different people.
Milan Victor is obviously not attending law school and obviously doesn`t give two shits about getting a dalmation. The entire book is littered with references to there being two Victors, but the reader isn`t provided the clues that are necessary to form an opinion of what is going on. This especialy rings true when Victor watches Bentley fake photographs using PHOTOSAOP. At that point, we are led to believe that all it takes to create a double of someone is to fake photos of him in places he isn`t. One of Ellis` recuring themes (especialy in American Psycho)is that the rich and good-looking are so similar, they are essentialy inter-changeable. Book 6, however, proves to me that it wasn`t just a production of fake photographs: there actually are two Victors. In my opinion, Ellis tries to answer certain questions while still providing the reader a wide berth for interpretation.

[63] On May-27-2005, SirAD wrote:

Bret, anything you can do to prevent Mr. Poker to post here? Not the first time I've seen him. A real nuisance... ;)
Thx

[64] On Jun-06-2005, DG wrote:

So nobody has anything else to say?

[65] On Jun-07-2005, Sir A.D. wrote:

Easier : your favourite quote from Glamorama ?

[66] On Jun-07-2005, DG wrote:

I don`t have the book in front of me, but I remember one quote I really liked. The line is said near the very begining of the book. Victor is at Alison`s, sitting on the floor and is feeling shitty about himself. Alison looks at him and says something to the effect of: `You look really handsome in this light`. The contrast between what Victor is thinking about himself and what the people around him see when they look at him is great. I think it was a line that defines Ellis` main theme very well: to be succesfull just project an image of success. If you look good, good things will follow.
`The better you look, the more you see.`

Other favorite quotes anybody?

By the way, Online Casino. I don`t know if reading is one of your strong suits, but this is a book discussion group. If someone wants to play poker on-line, I`m sure there are tons of sites out there that are easy to find. Thank you very much for trying to expand our knowledge of the on-line poker universe and I`m proud to say you`ve succeded. Your job is done, move on to another discussion group (or not)and stop annoying the hell out of these people.

[67] On Jun-10-2005, Daniel wrote:

Ok, just one thing, could someone please explain me the thing going on between Lauren- Eva and Jaime? whatever whappened to them is Lauren dead how she became Eva?

[68] On Jun-13-2005, Sir A.D. wrote:

I'm afraid no one has a definite answer to that question, Daniel. One might believe that the conspirational oraganization working against Victor had planned all the events of the book and anticipated on these by having some of the most decisive characters removed and replaced by some of their own agents to gain control of the situation. You might Lauren died a long time ago. You might even think that there never was a Lauren, that the character in The Rules of Attraction was already Eva. Or maybe not.
Another option is that this is actually a movie, and that the character "Lauren" is played by an actress called Eva. That the actor playing the character "Victor" is himself at first, then someone else.
There are possibly other interpretations. What do you think about it ?

[69] On Jun-28-2005, Daniel wrote:

Ok, i finished re-reading the book, and i think things seem clear to me now (except for the film crews wich may have several meanings) however I'm sure that the character in The Rules Of Attraction is not Eva since Lauren died in december 1985 (wich is the exact time the book ends) so after that for some reason Lauren was replaced by a double. I think i'll stay with the fact that this is not actually a movie, but a really big conspiracy with a really cruel target wich is to double people in order to satisfy others. (that damn film crew!)

[70] On Jul-10-2005, Drew wrote:

I definatley think that the film crew was part of his imagination. The characters (Felix, director) are inconsistant. Remember how when they were talking on the phone, Felix lost his accent?

[71] On Jul-22-2005, martyn wrote:

My question is maybe stupid too but I´ll ask. Any idea what happened to Sean after he left Camden in December 1985?

[72] On Jul-29-2005, Daniel wrote:

Yes but only a little bit... in American Psycho wich is the book that tells about Sean's brother, Patrick Bateman, there's a quite good chapter where Sean and him have dinner in Dorsia, this super trendy place where Patrick never had the chance to get reservations... and the two brothers have dinner, they talk a little bit and eventough Patrick assisted to know what was his brother exactly been at, Sean behaves as we know him and basically no deeper knowledge is gained... that happens after 1985... and later in Glamorama he is mentioned a couple of times but only in flashbacks.

[73] On Sep-15-2005, GH wrote:

All of it - the plot, the characters - is a metaphor. Ellis likes to emphasise how our society simply sees what it wants to see and how 'glamour' is far easier to deal with than destruction (hence the vivid descriptions when people would die). There are no film crews, no Victors, no Laurens or Bobbys. One cannot read this book and try to find literal meaning. It is meant to be a trip.

[74] On Oct-06-2005, JD wrote:

Why are the chapters numbered out of order?

[75] On Nov-26-2005, TimNZ wrote:

In parts One through Five, we see chapters counting down (18 - 17 - 16, etc).

In part Six, the chapter count up (1 - 2 - 3...)

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

[76] On Jan-16-2006, Anonymous wrote:

are there any continuity issues to prevent there being just one Victor? could it be that Victor has some sort of personality/memory disorder?

[77] On Feb-13-2006, Anonymous wrote:

Both of the covers of the two editions of the book have had a design around either specks or confetti.

[78] On Apr-10-2006, Ellis-Fan wrote:

Hey guys, I love Bret Easton Ellis! I've read every one of his books and just ordered TWO first edition signed copies of Lunar park from powells.com (priced at the normal cover price - hence buying 2). Anyways I'm in a rush and I havent read all the comments but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on what went on in the book.

I think that the japanese that were refered to at a couple points in the story as running the show are at the head of everything. I think that Victors dad sold out to the japanese so that these japanese essentialy bought themselves an american president with strings that they can pull.

Victors dad would have trouble becomming president because of Victors lifestyle, Victor is just too embarassing. So I think that Daddy sent Victor away (he may or may not have known what sending him away entailed) This is why Victor is held in milan under guard at the end, to keep him out of the picture and keep him from embarassing his father and risking the japanese investment.

Palakon works for the japanese and did some side deals with bobby but nothing to undermine the japanese (hence his connection with bobby)

The chick from the QE2 And the chick Victor was sent to europe to find in the first place(Damn what was their names? Something gibson/cannon and something with a J...sorry i got a bad memory) was part of yet another group which was against Bobby.

At first i thought that the film crews were imaginary. They may have been or they could have been real, just really weird. I pictured them doing their job similar to the film crew on cecil b demented (a comedy that not everyone has seen).

ANYWAYS I have not figured it all out yet but I'll be sure to read that pdf posted above and finnish reading this page. I'd LOVE to hear other theories.

Cheers

[79] On Sep-01-2006, Giulia wrote:

Hello,
just found out the site after finishing Glamorama (I know, damn late..) and being a little confused by the amount of elements in the book, although amazed, as always, by the plot and the quality of he writing.
I agree on what the reader above said: I believe that the Victor narrating has been "replaced", even just formally, or is somehow such a source of shame for his father that Mr.Ward himself asks him to change surname. As for the whole conspiracy thing (how is the Middle East involved? Bobby's said to have been seen wearing a kippa in Israel or something...) I guess I'll just need to read the book again.

My idea is that Victor is not only dumb and superficial, but unable (or not willing) to do anything to change the situation he's in: he comes up with the whole hallucination of the cameras and scripts when things start becoming too delirious to be real. If it's all a script, then nothing is real and he can just let it flow. At the end he only starts acting when his own life is in danger, and even when Chloe dies he cries, but it doesn't look as though he cares a lot.

(Here I apologize for misuse of English or other obscenities I may have written but English is not my native language..)