Bret Easton Ellis’ WhiteMargot Metroland
Bret Easton Ellis
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2019
When you see Bret Easton Ellis emerge as a Generation X elder, you know you’ve moved pretty far along the abattoir ramp. Technically he’s not Gen X at all, as he was born in 1964, but Simon & Schuster brought out his first novel (Less Than Zero) when he was still an undergraduate at Bennington, and Ellis’ precocity was part of the sales pitch. First writer of the new generation! (Well, okay, if you say so.) There were a lot of twenty-somethings in the 1980s Literary Brat Pack, beginning with Jay McInerney (Bright Lights, Big City). But they were all Baby Boomers.
I remember hearing about Less Than Zero when it was still in galleys (publishers still used real galleys then for markup, not bound proofs). Everyone despised this kid, hoping he’d be one-and-done. But then came that third novel! Ellis wanted to be something more than a precocious Boy Novelist, so he produced a gross-out snuff-porn story about a serial-murdering Wall Street yuppie. Someone had to do it, of course; the Eighties were ending. Simon & Schuster decided it was just too offensive, and dropped it two months before publication date. But Knopf brought it out in 1991! And American Psycho sold – where bookshops didn’t boycott it. Book and publisher were denounced from coast to coast, and Ellis supposedly received thirteen anonymous death threats.
And now here is White, Bret Easton Ellis’ first non-fiction book. It’s a loosely-related set of essays, some of them patched together from articles and podcasts. Originally, this memoir-cum-apologia-cum-social-critique was supposed to be called White Privileged Male, a much more apt title. For the last five years, Ellis has been complaining about victim culture and its various liturgies: ”trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” “micro-aggressions,” and so on. And in response, his criticism gets put down as the subjective opinion of a “white privileged male.”
The notices have been pretty bad for White, but be not deceived. The reviewers have it in for Ellis, in a way we don’t often see anymore. Maybe they always have, the same way the press kicked Nixon around. The Guardian’s reviewer said it “has all the sound, fury and insignificance of a misguided rant posted at 3am.” The Washington Post: White “baits readers into calling Ellis what many of his critics have long said he is: a sexist, a misogynist, a racist.”
Any book that gets denounced like that is going to get a lot of curiosity-seekers, but people looking for outrageous opinions are going to be disappointed. Ellis’ most egregious crime, his original sin (other than writing American Psycho thirty years ago) is inconceivably minuscule: he once mocked super-sensitive millennials, calling them “Generation Wuss.” Most of Ellis’ essays are an easy read, full of some unexpected but not particularly provocative observations. Some of them are so insubstantial you wonder why he bothered. That was my reaction to his first essay, about a comfortable but vapid-sounding childhood in Sherman Oaks. Mainly, he remembers watching movies.
But then we get to the second essay, which talks mostly about movie rubbish, but is really a tour of Ellis’ creative faculties. It begins with a rhapsodic appreciation of a stylish and underrated film that came out in early 1980, American Gigolo. Ellis saw it when he was 15. It starred Richard Gere and Lauren Hutton, with Gere on a clearly upward career trajectory (first top-billing, I think), and Hutton still young but coming down the slope; she’d been a superb face of Revlon in the ‘70s but didn’t respect acting enough to be really driven. When Ellis lingers over Gere’s appearance, it’s not clear whether his gaze is sexual or whether he’s taking in the whole production Gestalt. But moving on, talking about the film version of his first novel, he shows himself a visual magpie, always making notes, like a film critic aiming to be a director.
And then a big surprise. He contemplates the eternal, inexplicable phenomenon known as . . . Tom Cruise! Most of us think Tom Cruise is beneath our notice, and yet there he is out there, a reliable star in the firmament for decade after decade, like Robert Taylor.
In 1990 . . . few could see what a polarizing figure Tom Cruise would become. There was something so innocent and white and distinctly American about him: the seminary student from Syracuse who’d already married and divorced an older actress was already the biggest star in the world . . .
Cruise never really erased the persona of the sexy geek boy toy he played in Risky Business . . . we’ll have that initial image of him in our collective head forever.
And so we get to Empire, Ellis’ elusive, useful trope. Some stars and notables are Empire, and many today are post-Empire. Robert Taylor (I’m sure Ellis would agree) was Empire, and Tom Cruise comes close. If Bret Easton Ellis contributed no other useful conceits, no deep insights, for the rest of his life – only parsed out cinematic icons and Millennial Wusses – he would still always be remembered for this Empire vs. post-Empire dichotomy.
Like Dwight Macdonald’s 1940s idea of Midcult vs. Masscult, Empire vs. post-Empire is more easily illustrated than defined. So far as I can tell, Ellis first introduced the concept in a Daily Beast diversion about – again, surprise! – Charlie Sheen.
Sheen has embraced the post-Empire, making his bid to explain to all of us what celebrity means in that world. Whether you like it or not is beside the point. It’s where we are, babe. We’re learning something. Rock’n roll. Deal with it.
At the time of writing – early 2011 – Charlie was well into his messed-up #winning phase (you remember that). Ellis wrote that Charlie was poster-boy for post-Empire. Charlie wasn’t always that way, however; in his youthful cameo in the Ferris Bueller movie, he had stolidity, mystery, integrity.
Empire is the traditional A-list tent, for Entertainment & Celebrity players who believe in stardom, and play by the rules; nod politely and suck up, if need be. Post-Empire, conversely, “is Mark Zuckerberg staring with blank impatience at Empire Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes . . .” An Empire Mark Zuckerberg would have kept up standards, and never have been disrespectful like that, however contemptible the interviewer.
Lady Gaga and James Franco are post-Empire. Anderson Cooper and Anne Hathaway and (again) Tom Cruise are Empire, or at least pay homage to it. Frank Sinatra might be called ur-Empire.
Ellis often seems to be talking about something like Old vs. New Hollywood, and he hasn’t fully hammered down the details of this elusive notion. But “Empire” seems to be about integrity, having standards and boundaries, not being easily cowed. And “post-Empire” is, like, whatever.
If Empire was about the heroic American figure – solid, rooted in tradition, tactile and analogue – then post-Empire was about people understood to be ephemeral right away . . . If Empire was the Eagles, Veuve Clicquot, Reagan, The Godfather and Robert Redford, then post-Empire was American Idol, coconut water, the Tea Party, The Human Centipede and Shia LaBeouf.
Empire includes the virtuous, exalted state of mind and character that Ellis is appealing to when he derides “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.” He recalls watching a long Alex Gibney documentary on Frank Sinatra, and reflecting on:
. . . what might’ve happened to Sinatra in a day and age when, for example, he sang “the lady is a tramp” in a song? Misogyny! A chief of the white male patriarchy! Toxic masculinity! Don’t buy his records, comrade! Boycott the label! Sinatra would have been disgusted by the Orwellian tenor of our current moment, but I can’t imagine he would ever have bowed to it.
The press’ anti-Ellis campaign might never have achieved critical mass if our civic and metapolitical environment had stayed where it was in 2014. Ellis gets flayed now because of the perception that he landed in the slipstream of a mid-decade trend known as the “Alt Right.” But if Ellis is really a part of anything, it’s the Push-Back Movement, which has been around since forever, with writers and artists as the likeliest members, often displaying oddball traits that strangers read as willful eccentricity: never learning to drive; writing with a fountain pen (or even dip pen); and taking issue with such preposterous fads as the victim culture.
As mentioned, the ball got rolling with a 2014 ViceUK interview, which Ellis soon revisited in a 2015 Vanity Fair follow-up. In the latter piece, Ellis tells of a fight he had with someone over cyber-“bullying” [sic], which Ellis argued is hardly the same as “hands-on bullying.” They were specifically arguing about the 2010 Tyler Clementi case. Clementi – an 18-year-old blond, bespectacled classical musician and Rutgers freshman – committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge one night. In the popular, social-media account, Clementi killed himself because he was cyber-bullied by a roommate, who set up a secret webcam video of Clementi having sex with a homosexual pickup from the street.
Ellis argued that Clementi was a “weakling,” another Generation Wuss snowflake. This would be a fair judgment if there were no more to the story, but of course there was. As Ellis wonders, “[w]as this a deeply troubled young person who simply snapped because he was brought down by his own shame and then was turned into a victim/hero . . . by a press eager to present the case out of context . . . ?” Indubitably. Suicides aren’t sudden one-offs. Clementi was likely borderline-suicidal in the past. And there could also have been something about his trick he didn’t want people to see. I assume it wasn’t Paul Preppy, last spring’s Lawrenceville lacrosse captain. No, the kid wasn’t “cyber-bullied” to death. Stories like this are often incomplete, and slanted, to elicit a certain response. But if you suggest the facts aren’t all there, you can get called out for lack of compassion.
More recently, Ellis been laced out for not acting horrified every time clickbait merchants shout racism! at a public personality. In White, Ellis recalls the 2018 fuss over famous television star Roseanne Barr, who sent a late-night tweet about Valerie Jarrett looking like a character from Planet of the Apes. After book publication in April, an interviewer from The New Yorker focused on this Barr tweet as an item of strategic interest, and pretended to be seriously appalled when Ellis didn’t see what the big deal was: “Yeah, that’s a tweet. I don’t know. It’s whatever . . .”
The interviewer kept trying to buttonhole the apolitical, never-voted Ellis with “gotcha” political questions about Trump, Charlottesville, and “racism.” And Ellis kept up his ineffably-blasé routine. And then other publications piled on, posting snippets of this irresistible interview as fair-use clickbait.
But here’s where Ellis gets really triggering. With bubbly glee, he relives the aftermath of the 2016 Presidential Election, with his nutty acquaintances in L.A. shaking and bawling helplessly. (It’s just the same stuff that was happening everywhere. But how bullying to treat it as comedy.)
[T]his was fear and horror and outrage that it seemed would never subside and not just for members of Generation Wuss, like my partner, but also for real grown ups in their forties and fifties and sixties, so unhinged that their team hadn’t won they began using words like “apocalypse” and “Hitlerian.”
Later, some “branded themselves, somewhat touchingly, as the Resistance” and averred on good authority that “Trump would be impeached by September.” And then the “friends” who just dumped Ellis in 2017, “because I simply didn’t think that Trump was the worst thing to ever happen to democracy and because it seemed to them I thought it was okay ‘orange Hitler’ was in the White House.”
A funny, straightforward recollection, but we all must remember that such humor unhinges people who heretofore were not easily unhinged, thus preventing them from reading Ellis’ social criticism as anything other than attention-seeking provocation or partisan spleen.
This is what befell the ever-readable and historically amusing critic James Wolcott. He completely loses it in his recent review of White in the London Review of Books. Puzzlingly, Wolcott dismisses Ellis’ complaints “about political correctness and cancel culture,” because his “examples have gone stale.” Whatever does he mean? Ellis’ examples are mainly from 2015-2018, with the “Millennial Wuss” reaction going all the way back to 2014.
But not to fret; on hooves of Jabberwock, here cometh Wolcott’s real agenda:
[And Ellis] is blithely oblivious of the pathologies being exploited by slime merchants and alt-right hustlers such as Candace Owens and Milo Yiannopoulos (he claims that the race-baiting, violence-exhorting Milo Y. was the victim of “an oversensitive corporate culture,” missing the boat by a mile).
Wolcott did it. He got Milo in there. And Alt Right hustlers! Such topicality.
Well, twenty-three-skidoo to you, too.
Johann Gottfried Herder o hudbě a nacionalismu
D. C. Stephenson and the Fall of the Second Klan
Scott Howard’s The Plot Against Humanity
Východ a Západ – gordický uzel: kniha Ernsta Jüngera Der gordische Knoten
Reviewing the Unreviewable
Buddha a Führer: Mladý Emil Cioran o Německu
The Machiavellian Method
Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema
Martin Sheen = Empire
Charlie Sheen = post-Empire
But where does that put Joe Estavez and Emilio Estavez?
Joe Estevez is the embodiment of Yockey’s Imperium in Soultaker.
Emilio Estevez leads a mannerbund in The Young Guns.
I don’t find the terms Empire or Post-Empire enlightening at all. I certainly don’t believe the Empire generation of Hollywood was any more ethical than the Post-Empire generation. I never read the books but both movies; American Psycho and Less Than Zero were dreck. The take away from this article is that the Left is completely off their rocker. Not news.
“Empire” is a sloppy notion, like a half-conceived idea for a screenplay. The original Daily Beast piece was a joke Ellis tossed off for Tina Brown, then later expanded upon without making any effort to break it down to its essentials. It may be that he can’t define it, any more than you can dissect a joke.
Which is why I thought of Dwight Macdonald, who DID take the bit in his mouth and type out a tedious theoretical essay on Mid Cult and Mass Cult. All it proved, alas, is that he had intuited something without knowing how it worked. (Or couldn’t describe, because he wasn’t good with abstractions, so kept falling back on Marxist claptrap.) But when he wrote on the topic with examples and didn’t try to theorize, he was funny and informative indeed.
I’ve enjoyed reading most of Ellis’s work, especially Rules of Attraction which even a few decades on is quite accurate to the university experience. He’s shlocky and his books aren’t challenging in any sense, but I’ve always found his simplistic style to compliment its fluffy nihilism. I’m not buying White though since you can find his generation bashing opinions on Twitter and I do not need to read any further than a 120 characters.
One thing I have found myself in agreement with feminist types is that American Psycho is a misogynistic novel. Of course, I have no qualms with Ellis writing a novel featuring a scene where a decapitated woman’s head is placed on Batemen’s erected penis, go right ahead with that. What I think is missing from feminist dictum is the obvious cause of the misogyny: Ellis homosexuality, making his ability to paint such unflattering opinions on women with a certain amount of glee so easy.
It’s a funny moment when Cruise meets Batemen. Incidentally, Christian Bale would model his performance of Batemen on Tom Cruise.
Good commentary. I posted my own thoughts on the book if anyone is interested in doing any further non-msm reading on it: https://palimpsestaw.wordpress.com/2019/05/06/5/
Tom Cruise’s appearance in American Psycho is straight from life. Brad Easton Ellis and he lived in the same building in the late 80s, and Ellis ‘screenshotted’ the visual for his new novel. That’s how he wings off onto his Tom Cruise riff in this new book. Such passages can look indulgent and annoying, but Ellis is showing us his IDEA box of index cards.
Robert Taylor came to represent a defunct style of patriotism even before his death. Might have been the last of the Old Republic, if that’s even a category.
Discounting his many miscasting adventures (Quo Vadis is a fine example of an Army Air Force pilot playing a Roman commander as you’ll ever see) he was good when he played close to what he was.
As the bomber pilot Paul Tibbets who dropped the Hiroshima nuke in the movie “Above and Beyond,” Taylor was quite good. There was a fine sense of quiet, unapologetic, and unsnotty patriotism that went MIA after the Rambo Era. Taylor knew the territory. Better, the real Tibbets gave the film his blessing even though parts of it were fictionalized.
In The Tibbets Story, his 1979 autobiography, he devotes a chapter to the film and Taylor. As two wartime aviators they developed a short friendship. Tibbets felt that when Taylor died of lung cancer the nation lost a great patriot. Wrong or right, it’s high praise for an actor considering the source.
I think Ellis’ “Empire” concept was inspired by Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys’ concept of the “imperial phase”. The concept is that every great band will go through an “imperial phase” which is a period when a band can do no wrong and everything they do works (eg Pink Floyd from Dark Side of the Moon to The Wall).
There will be a book about a NEET billionaires son in a couple of years.
American Psycho is just a portrait of the privileged son of some banker or insurer doodling gore in his day Runner.
What book will be written?
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment