Talk:Patrick Bateman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dumping text

I am dumping text from American Psycho here until other editors decide what to do with it, because it is more relevant to this article (see talk page of American Psycho:

Unlike many real-life serial killers, Bateman lacks a particular or consistent method. He tortures and kills his victims in a variety of often outrageous ways, using a wide variety of implements, ranging from guns and knives to power tools and live rats, among others. It is interesting to consider those whom Bateman chooses to spare when presented with the opportunity to kill. Three prominent examples are his secretary Jean, his fiancée Evelyn Richards, and a gay friend and co-worker, Luis Carruthers; perhaps he is not able to kill them because they are all in love with him — doubts are allowed, concerning his fiancée.

His lifestyle and attitude to health are inconsistent: on the one hand, he is a health conscious, militant non-smoker (except for an occasional cigar), who works out, drinks diet soda, detests high sodium products, and orders decaffeinated espresso — he accidentally refers to it once as decapitated —; while, on the other hand, he excessively consumes alcohol and drugs. Other characters share his inconsistency.

Bateman's vanity is paramount, and is masked as a concern for health and well-being: obesity and tobacco-stink excite his disgust, while his cocaine abuse leaves few physical tell-tale signs. He is also deeply concerned about his hair; any suggestion of imperfection causes enduring panic, until he is reassured by friends. His vanity predominates reflections on his own image, mostly concerning how good he looks, for which his clothes, skin-care products, manicures, gym work-outs, and his hair-care products are essential. Often the story's narrative focuses on Bateman's attempts to 'score' cocaine, yet he is judgmental of his brother's use of the drug, and of several other freebasers

I agree that that text can be safely dumped from the American Psycho article. That's all stuff specifically about Patrick Bateman, and this is the Patrick Bateman article. --Halloween jack 21:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.Rintrah 10:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

---

changed 'torture murder' to 'torture', 'murder' - ayyem - 21 sept 06

Changing it back, seeing how Patrick does, in fact, engage in torture murder.--Halloween jack 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

He does engage in it - but isn't it strictly legal terminology? I'm just wondering if it could be better worded... Desdinova 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No I have to disagree with you, torture murder is much better according to me.

Drug use

This article currently states in the comparison between Sean and Patrick that both characters use copious amounts of drugs but are not addicts. I'm not going to try and argue against this on seans behlaf as I ahve not read "the rules of attraction". However I have read "American Psycho" so will argue against this claim on Patricks part. Throughout American Psycho Bateman takes copious amounts of Cocaine and Valium, and in the gaps in time within the narrative it is strongly suggested that drug use would have occoured as it seems to be a norm of his social life. It is hard to see how someone who uses drugs this often is not an addict. Also Patrick throughout the book begins to become more and more anxious, as well as seemingly loosing grip of reality, which are both strong symptoms of drug addiction. We can also see patrick using valium constantly using valium to reduce these anxieties, and becoming more and more reliant upon valium to be able to keep up his apperance as a healthy sane man. Reliance on a drug is a form of addiction, and combined with the fact that his intake progressively increases, would be a strong indicator that he is in fact an addict. Thescumfiend 11:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No

I don't think that it should be merged. The entry for Patrick Bateman in about both the book and the movie Bateman and has a different angle than a discussion of his personality *in the novel* from a literary perspective. I think some discussion of his personality is merited in both articles and while some information would be overlapping, the needs of each article differ sufficiently that they should be included on each page seperatly (possibly with a 'see also' link attached) Patrick Bateman is the consumate professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.16.66 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDb

The entire article has been copy pasted into IMDb, is that a copyright violation? http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0004406/bio --Steinninn 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't excise any copyright over its articles

Allen or Owen

in the film it was allen in the book owen this article uses both Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.108.245 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

I'm tagging this article because it contains original research. Feel free to comment. --81.159.220.9 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bateman as an antagonist

Shouldn't the character Patrick Bateman be the antagonist rather the protagonist of American Psycho? This is asked due to the mass killings he did. YUP 5:09, January 21, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.143.109 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the meaning of the words. A protagonist is not a "good guy", a protagonist is the main character of a work of fiction. The antagonist is the one who opposes the protagonist. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Batemanas.jpg

The image Image:Batemanas.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Batman

Whoever keeps changing Bateman to Batman, while your wit is appreciated, you should stop. Melkolmr (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong

This article is wrong. Patrick and others don't confuse "yuppies"; the author is showing disindividualization by means of sterotyping people through brands and haute coutures etc. He hides himself through the name of others, he lives through the image of aother i.e. his "mask", at one point he pretends to be Owens, this is similar to the idea of Ed Gein skinnig the face of his victims in order to embody their image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhmrcs (talk • contribs) 14:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Differences in the movie and the book

They seem to be overlap in the article. For example, it says that he panics upon seeing that Paul Owen has a more expensive apartment than he does, but this only happens in the movie where Paul's last name is Allen, not Owen. Furthermore, it talks of a climax, which, in fact, is not the climax in the book, as there is none. So my question is, how do we separate these things? Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 23:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Mask of Sanity"

The phrase "mask of sanity" in American Psycho is probably an allusion to a book by Hervey Cleckley (called "The Mask of Sanity"), which is a classic early study of Psychopaths.

The Children of Bodom song is probably a reference to American Psycho, since I doubt any of them spend their time reading books about clinical psychiatry. But unless they've said so explicitly, it's still possible that their song is named after the Cleckley book as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Nutbutter (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Patrick's Sanity

Why doesn't the article mention that the story casts his sanity in doubt?--24.255.171.220 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This whole article needs to be rewritten. I’m amazed at how few people (both professional reviewers and amateurs alike) refuse to comment on the most important aspect of American Psycho (both the novel and the film). The fact is that Bateman’s entire life as a serial killer is imagined. It was pure fantasy, or, perhaps more accurately, delusion. Bateman’s existence is so empty that he increasingly looks for meaning in the shallowest of pools around him – making the most money, having the best body, best toned skin, best suit, best business card, getting into the best restaurants and clubs, picking up the most attractive women, etc. When each new level of achievement or conquest fails to satisfy, Bateman turns to fantasies of violence to make his life seem more real and full of meaning. As he loses himself more and more in his psychotic reveries, everything about his life seems to make less sense. Eventually, he can’t tell the difference between his real life and his fantasy life, as is the case with most people who are truly insane. Some people refuse to believe this twist in the ending and excuse it away by claiming that the fact that Bateman is never caught and that no one believes his confession just reinforces the shallowness, self-absorption, and lack of morality that they all have. To be frank, this is bollocks and wishful thinking on the part of people who, for whatever reason, want Bateman to be a killer instead of a deluded shell of vapidity searching for meaning in an insane way. The real ending makes him, and the entire story around him, much more interesting. Anyone can be a killer, after all. Killing people is not the hard part and doesn’t make as much of a statement. If Bateman is really a killer, it makes the story a macabre fairy tale just like any other slasher flick – the only difference is the setting. But, the fact that Bateman can carry on a seemingly ‘normal’ (by the standards of his peers, anyway) yuppy life while diving deeper and deeper into pure psychotic delusion is the whole point and is how the ‘social commentary’ that every reviewer mentions is delivered.--AE Logan (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is all an interpretation, and not facts. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 18:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide more than that? Your response is a bit like people who say, "you can't prove God doesn't exist!" It's impossible to respond to, but says nothing unto itself. What proof do you have that it wasn't a delusion? Because the "facts" of the story plainly support the delusion unless you can show otherwise.

Questions for you to answer if you think Bateman's killings were real:

1) How do you explain his hallucinations? For example, do you think an ATM actually told him to feed it cats? If not, how do you tell which bizarre situations are real and which are delusions/hallucinations?

2) Do you think he really exploded a line of police cars with a single shot from a handgun? And why didn't this seem to garner any attention after the fact? Bateman went to work the next day (right above where the mayhem occurred) and everything was normal. That was the whole point. Bateman's crimes become more and more grandiose and outrageous, yet no one seems to notice anything. If a line of police cars exploded outside your office the night before, don't you think everyone at work would be talking about it, even in New York?

3) How do you explain the Paul Owen/Allen situation with Carnes (Bateman's lawyer)? The "mistaken identity" explanation is incredibly weak. Bateman is constantly being confused for others because the point is that the real Bateman (not the powerful serial killer he imagines in his own head) is wimpy and timid ("a dork, such a boring, spineless lightweight"), therefore he is not memorable or important to others. Likewise, Bateman confuses other people because A) he's insane and B) he's so self absorbed that other people don't figure into his awareness nearly as much as he himself does. Paul Owen/Allen is a different level in social impact than Bateman and is not one of the people being mistaken for or by others. In addition, do you really think that, if the level of relationship between Owen/Allen and Carnes was such that Carnes would have dinner twice with Owen/Allen in London, do you really think he could mistake his identity??? If Carnes had said, "I saw Paul Owen/Allen in a bar in London," the "mistaken identity" line of argument might have some merit to it. It would still be a shaky argument and would still make less sense than the delusions argument, but it could possibly work in theory. However, the fact that Carnes (twice) had dinner with Owen/Allen blows it out of the water and establishes that Carnes is telling the truth (not his belief of the truth, but revealing the actual truth to the audience).

This is meant to be the shocker twist ending that is common in suspense stories. It suddenly changes, but also explains, everything that came before it. Suddenly, all the little inconsistencies and strange occurrences make sense. Owen/Allen is reported missing, and his apartment is cleaned out, because he left the country for London (and obviously didn't tell everyone). Bateman is able to slaughter people with impunity and never be caught (or even questioned, other than for the Owen/Allen situation, which is explained, as mentioned) because he wasn't actually doing it. People who insist that the murders were real want Bateman to be a murderer because they see him as some kind of exciting anti-hero. For them, the fact that the entire story is commentary on the vapidity of a culture leading to self-obsession on the level of literal madness isn't interesting enough to them. They want this to be a slasher story. However, it's just not. If Bateman is a murderer, then how is any of this social commentary any more than "Friday the 13th" or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"???--AE Logan (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that what AE Logan is saying is that a very important piece of this character is missing from the article. There has got to be something at least mentioned in the article about this interpretation of the extent of Bateman's (Owen's) insanity. I'm sure there are legitimate sources somewhere that would cover this information. — OranL (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Doubles Guy

Patrick Bateman has become an internet sensation, should the inclusion of doubles phenomenon be included in his wikipedia page? see: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/doubles-guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.48.209 (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with this article

You all may have noticed that I eliminated a great deal of the material on the American Psycho page because it was entirely WP:OR. This article is, too, but I'm not going to touch it right now. I'm very surprised it hasn't been deleted, given the shape it's in. I am going to suggest that those of you who really want this page to remain take a look at a character page or two, recently re-written by an experienced editor (and copy-edited by me) from Buffy the Vampire Slayer so that you can see how we made a notable, scholarly article for a fictitious character: Joyce Summers, or Mayor (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Granted, there is a great deal of scholarship on the subject of Buffy, so we had lots of books to refer to, but looking at these articles will give you an idea of how a character article can be written without depending on original research; it's hard to believe there isn't some scholarship on this character. Given the recent spate of interest in "American Psycho", I'd form a committee and get some books or articles written by reputable people and get to work on this article. I'm happy to help with prose, structure, and do copy-editing (I'm a writer in real life), but I don't have the time (or inclination) to do the book larnin' required to make this article notable. I hope someone (or two or three) will respond to this and clean up the article--it could be great. Have fun.--TEHodson 00:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. 92.7.85.175 (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Book/film confusion

There are some aspects of this article that make it unclear whether the book or the film is being discussed. I realize the article is about the character, not specifically the book or the film, but having the two versions merged like this is at best confusing and at worst misleading. I propose either two separate sections or a third section devoted to any differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.17.69 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What the f***, no Phil Collins?

He's a HUGE Genesis fan!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.68.241 (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Bateman isn't a huge Genesis fan, it's just what was in at the time of setting, therefore he buys the cd and talks at great length about it, so as to give a semblance of being well cultured and interesting. Ellis uses this to show Bateman's desperation to be accepted and be popular, and thus how shallow he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.229.246 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Whole article reads like a high school essay

This is seriously below the expected standard of quality for a wikipedia article, to say the least. The whole thing reads like a freshman wrote it. RoflCopter404 (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to go ahead and fix the problems you see, but without specifics a blanket "it stinks" isn't so helpful. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

References in popular culture

I just had an edit reverted, are references to Patrick Bateman in popular culture not allowed? Beatpoet (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Personality of Patrick Bateman

There is a well-written piece of work on the personality structure of Patrick Bateman written by a psychology doctorate student available online. It goes into great detail about Batemans objectives, motives, and desires and he is ultimately given a diagnosis of Borderline personality disorder with some schizotypal features. Why is this not included in the article? --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 21:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@DendroNaja and 24.57.96.68: I missed this comment back in April when it was originally added to the article and removed. Should have responded then but since the same content (more or less) was added again today, I'll respond now. The text in question is "Bateman suffers from borderline personality disorder with schizotypal and histrionic features and traits." The biggest problem here is that the only thing cited is an unpublished source on academia.org. Wikipedia does not consider unpublished or self-published sources to be reliable (except in rare cases of which this is not one -- see WP:RS). Of secondary but still important concern is that it's being used to say that Bateman has (definitively) a certain disorder(s), which is not at all appropriate for a fictional character who is not labeled as such in the works of fiction he/she appears in. It may be appropriate to talk about certain disorders Ellis doesn't mention if it wouldn't be undue weight -- that is, if we can find multiple reliable sources to that effect or at least one in a high-profile publication/by a prominent author. It's not an exact science, of course. Do you know of other similar work? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Where the Patrick Bateman was born?

Where the Patrick Bateman was born? 2A02:85F:E8F4:EAF2:E4D6:ECDB:FC3B:30F0 (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mario Bateman?

Is his brother's name Mario Bateman? 103.42.197.93 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no such character as Mario Bateman. Sean is the only brother acknowledged in the book. 203.63.147.66 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)