LA Times Looks Back On Ellis' Career

The LA Times has a nice article about Bret [thank Matthew], his place in the literary world and how the public and critics perceive him.

And because a literary, as opposed to a genre, novel is supposed to be about "depth" or "substance," one thing that's never forgiven is a perceived superficiality.

"He has a way of capturing flattened affect and cynicism, which is part of American life," said (NY Times film critic, A.O.) Scott. "He's fastened onto a loss of self, the replacement of feeling with intensity of sensation - whether by sex or drugs or violence or celebrity. Part of the reasons these books feel so cold, and sometimes unpleasant, is that there's no relief. In a way they're dystopian novels."

Thats a pretty good summary from AO Scott. I always laughed at the people who criticized Ellis' work for being shallow and empty, because for me it seems that his characters were meant to be exactly that. Writing stories about characters that are most interested in what brand of clothing they are wearing or what restaurant they were going to eat at was part of the point - its a social commentary on the pointlessness and selfishness of people's lives.

Ellis doesn't attempt to write the 'great American novel' wherein our hero faces some personal crisis before finding an inner strength to overcome and resume their place as a normal 'whole' person. Instead we get novels that are more of a glimpse into a portion of the lives of very flawed people - we get no great resolution at the end of the novel. No happy ending. No moral awakening.

And that seems to be exactly the point Ellis' is trying to make. This is real life. Flawed people don't always get 'fixed'. There often is no 'normal' to return to.