>>18510024
>Tom Wolfe is neither an insult or 'obscure'.
Fair enough, I've heard the titles you mentioned though I've never read them. He's certainly more obscure than Ellis though, assuming the film from 2000 counts. The movie & book more relevant than ever. It's a mainstream cultural reference in a way it seems that Wolfe hasn't been for decades. I'm sure I'd find his work compelling if I gave him a shot, though. Chock it up to being a child of the internet that I know all kinds of esoteric shit but somehow completely missed someone that even Trump has lied about having read.
>anon is advancing a point identical to an extremely famous and well known writer's point
90% of what's discussed in forums like these has been said one way or another by someone at some point. It doesn't really serve the discussion to remind everyone how something one person said is like something someone else said without any additional input. It's mostly pointless and a bit insulting. When I bring up American Psycho it is purposefully so.
>Nice Koons btw, he fucks.
I've got mixed feelings. He's a pretentious mental case with some distasteful instincts but that's a good part of why he's compelling. He seems to exist in a state of psychological superposition between utterly un-serious and completely sincere. I can't help but feel like it's all just one big gaudy spectacle, but then again I can relate to being a schizophrenic shit stirrer, so I tend to lean positive.