50 Shades - Great, or the Greatest?

rml_16

This is my understanding as well. A good BDSM relationship starts with love and trust. It doesn't start with, basically, violence, and then turn into love later. That's not what BDSM is and that's not what it's about. So, the mainstream moms who read this book and/or see the movie are all thinking about it wrong. And, that's kind of sad.

I really with people would just take the BDSM part out and look at the dynamic between the characters and Christian's actions. Seriously, he behaves like a psycho stalker/serial killer. He's SCARY and he's controlling in ways unrelated to sex. None of the objections are about how they have sex (other than it's pretty dull and poorly written). The objections are to his actual abusive behavior. And since they don't have an understanding and Ana isn't into it, it isn't her fetish. It's just one stronger, more experienced person exerting his will on an unwilling weaker, less-experienced person who is pretty much powerless to get away from him.

I mean, she DOES try to get away from him multiple times and he tracks her down, causes public scenes and pretty much forces her to go with him even when she doesn't want to.

As I stated, I didn't read the book, only about it. So, my comments can't be too detailed. I'm speaking at a more high level about what I've heard the book is about. It sounds more like it's about an abusive relationship. But, all the women at work are super into it. So, I dunno. That's why I mention the sex part. They don't see the abuse as abuse. Some women want to be controlled in that way. Or, the fantasy of a man chasing them down and forcing them to do things maybe turns them on. Maybe some women want that?

OK, I'm just going to put this out there. I generally don't like to talk about these things because they're personal, but rough sex? Yeah -- bring it on. And sometime women fantasize about things that are pretty dark that they might not want to do in real life and honestly, that's OK. But that isn't what's going on with these books and that's what scares me.

The conclusion I've drawn at this point, though, is that there simply are a lot of stupid people in the world and this book has attracted them and now we're all being punished.

delicious_cocktail

A lot of people are watching Sharknado and its sequels, but none of them take those seriously. They see them for the terribly awful crap they are and sit back and laugh. Their awfulness is exactly what makes them good -- like Rocky Horror or Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. They're running jokes.

If 50 Shades were received in such a fashion, I'd be right there along with everyone else and it wouldn't make me so angry. What makes me angry is that I have seen a significant number of women exclaim that they are "the best books I ever read." And the people talking about what a wonderful love and redemption story they are. They are not those things and the writing is the worst I have ever seen in a published work -- and I've seen some bad writing.

They don't deserve the praise and popularity they have under the circumstances they have it. I would even accept, "You know, the writing and story weren't so good but they made me horny." That isn't what fans are saying, though.

And Goodreads reviewers have given these books a higher star rating than books like Les Miserables! I am beginning to feel like I live in Bizzarro World.

Wonderful example. In my estimation, Les Miserables is horribly overwrought. I'm hardly a scholar on the piece but it looks like, per wikipedia, at the time of its publication it received mostly negative reviews!

Critical reactions were wide-ranging and often negative. Some critics found the subject matter immoral, others complained of its excessive sentimentality, and others were disquieted by its apparent sympathy with the revolutionaries. L. Gauthier wrote in Le Monde of 17 August 1862: "One cannot read without an unconquerable disgust all the details Monsieur Hugo gives regarding the successful planning of riots."

On my own end I can hold up A Tale of Two Cities by ****ens as an unreadable classic. Painful, laboring, needless details where I'm not interested and no details where I am.

Obviously 50 Shades (like its protagonist) tentatively and perhaps even naively reaches out with faltering fingers and touches something transcendental in many, many readers, whose very own inner-goddesses do backflips and cheerlead when reading the series. To deny these readers their experience and state that they shouldn't enjoy what they enjoy on theoretical principles seems worse than fruitless. While the series has been subject to some criticism it actually has plenty of favorable reviews for what it is rather than could have or should have been.

Art that makes us uncomfortable about sensitive subject matter is in no other arena treated as these works have been, by a somewhat ironically strict and authoritarian body of critics. The critical reception in this subset will itself be an element of the inevitable curriculum that incorporates the work.

kimberlyblindsey

A lot of people are watching Sharknado and its sequels, but none of them take those seriously. They see them for the terribly awful crap they are and sit back and laugh. Their awfulness is exactly what makes them good -- like Rocky Horror or Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. They're running jokes.

If 50 Shades were received in such a fashion, I'd be right there along with everyone else and it wouldn't make me so angry. What makes me angry is that I have seen a significant number of women exclaim that they are "the best books I ever read." And the people talking about what a wonderful love and redemption story they are. They are not those things and the writing is the worst I have ever seen in a published work -- and I've seen some bad writing.

They don't deserve the praise and popularity they have under the circumstances they have it. I would even accept, "You know, the writing and story weren't so good but they made me horny." That isn't what fans are saying, though.

And Goodreads reviewers have given these books a higher star rating than books like Les Miserables! I am beginning to feel like I live in Bizzarro World.

Wonderful example. In my estimation, Les Miserables is horribly overwrought. I'm hardly a scholar on the piece but it looks like, per wikipedia, at the time of its publication it received mostly negative reviews!

Critical reactions were wide-ranging and often negative. Some critics found the subject matter immoral, others complained of its excessive sentimentality, and others were disquieted by its apparent sympathy with the revolutionaries. L. Gauthier wrote in Le Monde of 17 August 1862: "One cannot read without an unconquerable disgust all the details Monsieur Hugo gives regarding the successful planning of riots."

On my own end I can hold up A Tale of Two Cities by ****ens as an unreadable classic. Painful, laboring, needless details where I'm not interested and no details where I am.

Obviously 50 Shades (like its protagonist) tentatively and perhaps even naively reaches out with faltering fingers and touches something transcendental in many, many readers, whose very own inner-goddesses do backflips and cheerlead when reading the series. To deny these readers their experience and state that they shouldn't enjoy what they enjoy on theoretical principles seems worse than fruitless. While the series has been subject to some criticism it actually has plenty of favorable reviews for what it is rather than could have or should have been.

Art that makes us uncomfortable about sensitive subject matter is in no other arena treated as these works have been, by a somewhat ironically strict and authoritarian body of critics. The critical reception in this subset will itself be an element of the inevitable curriculum that incorporates the work.

Is your inner Goddess doing backflips?
When Harold Bloom aligns it with the likes of Cormac McCarthy, I'll begin clutching my pearls, but I think it's safe to say that's not going to happen anytime soon.

delicious_cocktail

Is your inner Goddess doing backflips?
When Harold Bloom aligns it with the likes of Cormac McCarthy, I'll begin clutching my pearls, but I think it's safe to say that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I cannot specifically tell you what my inner goddess is doing, unfortunately. Completely NSFW.

LiftAllThePizzas

There might not be a "message". Sometimes a character is a character, a river just a river.

Intentional or not, it's the message women are taking away from reading the book. Just listen to what they say about it (the ones who liked it, anyway).

It is A message SOME women are taking from it. This is like saying Ulysses is about bowels, toilets and stomach issues. Society brings to text a contextual framework. If some women believe this book is about "a message of abuse" and not the characters' story possibly it comes from their social framework of understanding. How can one read archetypes into a work if those archetypes don't conceptually exist. Thus the frustration, the innocence, even the abuse are social constructs perceived through the general disdain in this conversation.

Clearly you have never experienced an emotionally abusive relationship. This book is a blueprint. And every single person who has sung its praises has specifically stated it's a great story about how if you can love someone enough, that person will change. They ALL acknowledge that Christian is a bad guy in the beginning but gets better BECAUSE Ana loved him.

Art does not exist in a vacuum. This is why there are entire college degree courses dedicated to it in its various forms, including the novel.

EL James wrote what she thought was a romance novel with "kinky" sex. What she actually wrote was exactly what narcissists do to their romantic partners and she and all her fans think this is the ideal.

Or maybe she wrote what she thought was the type of relationship she would like to have, and other people want the same thing. Which would explain its popularity.

I don't get why everyone seems to think it's their business to tell everyone else what type of relationship they 'should' want and get all mad about it. It isn't really your job to be the thought police or tell other consenting adults what they may or may not like. If you don't want to have the sort of relationship described in the book, then don't.

QueenBishOTUniverse

Just finished narrating "Tess of the D'Urbervilles" by Thomas Hardy said to be an inspiration for 50 shades of Grey. I was interested in your comment about it being used in Feminist courses. I agree with that----would be an interesting study to compare the two books .
If you are interested .Please check "Tess" out on Audible.com at the following link
http://ow.ly/zOHlb

James alludes to Hardy the way Twilight alludes to Wuthering Heights, to highlight the similarities in their respective relationships; however to think of 50SOG as a canonical piece sends shivers up my spine. Sure 50SOG could be used (in a thesis) to show how little gender roles have evolved over time ; however, IMHO it couldn't be used as a centerpiece because it's just so poorly written. Tess was written in a different times when all women had to offer was their virtue, hence losing that resulted in their ruin. The fact that Anastasia acts as a helpless, infantilized woman says nothing about women in modern times except that there are perhaps some women who still prefer abuse and control to their own autonomy, because now it's actually a choice--not the default.

The perceived absent of textual quality is perhaps its genius and part of the "je ne sais pas quoi" that has rendered it so popular. Everyone hates it, but it sold very well. This, along with the social response, is worthy of study. Just look at the emergent standard of perception of what "acceptable" violence in the bedroom is - it's a go if consensual and 'safe' word bound - yet this complaint thrown at this book is laughable when considering the genre. It wasn't written as a how-to manual.

Everyone purportedly hates it, and yet is has been so successful as to be adapted into a film. Filmmaking is a terrifically capital-intensive endeavor. Never in a million years would something as theoretically terrible as this garner a film adaptation.

Clearly therefore there is something within that resonates with people, deeply. Despite the frequent, demeaning cries of hausfrau that have been launched in this thread, clearly there is meat and merit in the work. One can claim that McDonald's food is not nutritionally optimal, but no one can claim it is meritless - economics proves the lie.

Popular =/= good. There are lots of stupid people in the world. The fact that people fantasize about what does appear to be an abusive and controlling relationship is not terribly surprising really, and it honestly doesn't worry me that much. Honestly, how realistic is the scenario described in the book? Are these women reading about it likely to encounter this type of situation in real life?

Please understand, I get that the book is mimicking the manipulation that an abuser uses to control a victim and that those things absolutely happen all the time, but they're usually not combined with a hyper-sexualized playboy billionaire...... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in real life, most abusive relationships have a lot less of the fantasy element to go along with them.

It's the same argument for twilight, heck yea it's a creepy unhealthy relationship, WITH A FREAKING VAMPIRE. The whole premise is ludicrous, so leave it in the realm of fantasy and hope that in real life, real experiences will allow most people to understand the difference.

emkayelle91

I won't lie, I enjoyed the sex scenes. However, the book was terribly written, and by about the 18th time that I had to read the words "inner goddess" I gave up on reading it.

rml_16

There might not be a "message". Sometimes a character is a character, a river just a river.

Intentional or not, it's the message women are taking away from reading the book. Just listen to what they say about it (the ones who liked it, anyway).

It is A message SOME women are taking from it. This is like saying Ulysses is about bowels, toilets and stomach issues. Society brings to text a contextual framework. If some women believe this book is about "a message of abuse" and not the characters' story possibly it comes from their social framework of understanding. How can one read archetypes into a work if those archetypes don't conceptually exist. Thus the frustration, the innocence, even the abuse are social constructs perceived through the general disdain in this conversation.

Clearly you have never experienced an emotionally abusive relationship. This book is a blueprint. And every single person who has sung its praises has specifically stated it's a great story about how if you can love someone enough, that person will change. They ALL acknowledge that Christian is a bad guy in the beginning but gets better BECAUSE Ana loved him.

Art does not exist in a vacuum. This is why there are entire college degree courses dedicated to it in its various forms, including the novel.

EL James wrote what she thought was a romance novel with "kinky" sex. What she actually wrote was exactly what narcissists do to their romantic partners and she and all her fans think this is the ideal.

Or maybe she wrote what she thought was the type of relationship she would like to have, and other people want the same thing. Which would explain its popularity.

I don't get why everyone seems to think it's their business to tell everyone else what type of relationship they 'should' want and get all mad about it. It isn't really your job to be the thought police or tell other consenting adults what they may or may not like. If you don't want to have the sort of relationship described in the book, then don't.

You're right. If women the world over enjoy being stalked and kept from seeing their friends and family, who am I to tell them it might not be such a good idea?

rml_16

Are these women reading about it likely to encounter this type of situation in real life?

Minus the lead male being super rich and hot, very likely actually. And they equate his actions with love rather than obsession.

QueenBishOTUniverse

Are these women reading about it likely to encounter this type of situation in real life?

Minus the lead male being super rich and hot, very likely actually. And they equate his actions with love rather than obsession.

My point exactly. It's a fun fantasy, because he's super rich and hot. Take that out of the book and I doubt it would be popular at all.

rml_16

Are these women reading about it likely to encounter this type of situation in real life?

Minus the lead male being super rich and hot, very likely actually. And they equate his actions with love rather than obsession.

My point exactly. It's a fun fantasy, because he's super rich and hot. Take that out of the book and I doubt it would be popular at all.

Of course not. Because these women are turned on by the "rich and hot." But they don't seem to have the thinking capacity to realize that he's a psycho and these relationships often end in someone dying. They think the way he treats her is desirable, but they only think that because of his looks and wealth, yet can't seem to separate the two. They think stalking is romantic. Granted, that was something a lot of women thought even before this book, so I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.

It's frightening.

QueenBishOTUniverse

Are these women reading about it likely to encounter this type of situation in real life?

Minus the lead male being super rich and hot, very likely actually. And they equate his actions with love rather than obsession.

My point exactly. It's a fun fantasy, because he's super rich and hot. Take that out of the book and I doubt it would be popular at all.

Of course not. Because these women are turned on by the "rich and hot." But they don't seem to have the thinking capacity to realize that he's a psycho and these relationships often end in someone dying. They think the way he treats her is desirable, but they only think that because of his looks and wealth, yet can't seem to separate the two. They think stalking is romantic. Granted, that was something a lot of women thought even before this book, so I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.

It's frightening.

They think it's hot IF the guy is super sexy and rich, or IF he's a mysterious vampire. They would be filing charges if it was Joe from the gas station down the street. Yea, it's obnoxious, but I go back to my most people are stupid statement. My point is that the average woman reading and enjoying these books isn't going to go out and throw herself into an abusive relationship because THAT'S the part she finds hot. Taken out of the context of the fantasy, the behavior is no longer appealing.

EvgeniZyntx

There might not be a "message". Sometimes a character is a character, a river just a river.

Intentional or not, it's the message women are taking away from reading the book. Just listen to what they say about it (the ones who liked it, anyway).

It is A message SOME women are taking from it. This is like saying Ulysses is about bowels, toilets and stomach issues. Society brings to text a contextual framework. If some women believe this book is about "a message of abuse" and not the characters' story possibly it comes from their social framework of understanding. How can one read archetypes into a work if those archetypes don't conceptually exist. Thus the frustration, the innocence, even the abuse are social constructs perceived through the general disdain in this conversation.

Clearly you have never experienced an emotionally abusive relationship. This book is a blueprint. And every single person who has sung its praises has specifically stated it's a great story about how if you can love someone enough, that person will change. They ALL acknowledge that Christian is a bad guy in the beginning but gets better BECAUSE Ana loved him.

Art does not exist in a vacuum. This is why there are entire college degree courses dedicated to it in its various forms, including the novel.

EL James wrote what she thought was a romance novel with "kinky" sex. What she actually wrote was exactly what narcissists do to their romantic partners and she and all her fans think this is the ideal.

Mind blown.
You must be a mind reader.

SunofaBeach14

Are these women reading about it likely to encounter this type of situation in real life?

Minus the lead male being super rich and hot, very likely actually. And they equate his actions with love rather than obsession.

My point exactly. It's a fun fantasy, because he's super rich and hot. Take that out of the book and I doubt it would be popular at all.

Of course not. Because these women are turned on by the "rich and hot." But they don't seem to have the thinking capacity to realize that he's a psycho and these relationships often end in someone dying. They think the way he treats her is desirable, but they only think that because of his looks and wealth, yet can't seem to separate the two. They think stalking is romantic. Granted, that was something a lot of women thought even before this book, so I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.

It's frightening.

They think it's hot IF the guy is super sexy and rich, or IF he's a mysterious vampire. They would be filing charges if it was Joe from the gas station down the street. Yea, it's obnoxious, but I go back to my most people are stupid statement. My point is that the average woman reading and enjoying these books isn't going to go out and throw herself into an abusive relationship because THAT'S the part she finds hot. Taken out of the context of the fantasy, the behavior is no longer appealing.

Yes, it's Fantasy. Fantasy, people. People fantasize about all sorts of things that they will never actually do. IF someone wants to engage in BDSM activities then there are safe ways of doing that, but this is just a book, not a "how to" guide. I wholeheartedly agree with the criticism that it's poorly written drivel but I disagree with the criticism that it "encourages" or "promotes" abuse.

EvgeniZyntx

Are these women reading about it likely to encounter this type of situation in real life?

Minus the lead male being super rich and hot, very likely actually. And they equate his actions with love rather than obsession.

My point exactly. It's a fun fantasy, because he's super rich and hot. Take that out of the book and I doubt it would be popular at all.

Of course not. Because these women are turned on by the "rich and hot." But they don't seem to have the thinking capacity to realize that he's a psycho and these relationships often end in someone dying. They think the way he treats her is desirable, but they only think that because of his looks and wealth, yet can't seem to separate the two. They think stalking is romantic. Granted, that was something a lot of women thought even before this book, so I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.

It's frightening.

They think it's hot IF the guy is super sexy and rich, or IF he's a mysterious vampire. They would be filing charges if it was Joe from the gas station down the street. Yea, it's obnoxious, but I go back to my most people are stupid statement. My point is that the average woman reading and enjoying these books isn't going to go out and throw herself into an abusive relationship because THAT'S the part she finds hot. Taken out of the context of the fantasy, the behavior is no longer appealing.

Yes, it's Fantasy. Fantasy, people. People fantasize about all sorts of things that they will never actually do. IF someone wants to engage in BDSM activities then there are safe ways of doing that, but this is just a book, not a "how to" guide. I wholeheartedly agree with the criticism that it's poorly written drivel but I disagree with the criticism that it "encourages" or "promotes" abuse.

Or that it can only be read one way.

BinaryPulsar

Just finished narrating "Tess of the D'Urbervilles" by Thomas Hardy said to be an inspiration for 50 shades of Grey. I was interested in your comment about it being used in Feminist courses. I agree with that----would be an interesting study to compare the two books .
If you are interested .Please check "Tess" out on Audible.com at the following link
http://ow.ly/zOHlb

James alludes to Hardy the way Twilight alludes to Wuthering Heights, to highlight the similarities in their respective relationships; however to think of 50SOG as a canonical piece sends shivers up my spine. Sure 50SOG could be used (in a thesis) to show how little gender roles have evolved over time ; however, IMHO it couldn't be used as a centerpiece because it's just so poorly written. Tess was written in a different times when all women had to offer was their virtue, hence losing that resulted in their ruin. The fact that Anastasia acts as a helpless, infantilized woman says nothing about women in modern times except that there are perhaps some women who still prefer abuse and control to their own autonomy, because now it's actually a choice--not the default.

The perceived absent of textual quality is perhaps its genius and part of the "je ne sais pas quoi" that has rendered it so popular. Everyone hates it, but it sold very well. This, along with the social response, is worthy of study. Just look at the emergent standard of perception of what "acceptable" violence in the bedroom is - it's a go if consensual and 'safe' word bound - yet this complaint thrown at this book is laughable when considering the genre. It wasn't written as a how-to manual.

Everyone purportedly hates it, and yet is has been so successful as to be adapted into a film. Filmmaking is a terrifically capital-intensive endeavor. Never in a million years would something as theoretically terrible as this garner a film adaptation.

Clearly therefore there is something within that resonates with people, deeply. Despite the frequent, demeaning cries of hausfrau that have been launched in this thread, clearly there is meat and merit in the work. One can claim that McDonald's food is not nutritionally optimal, but no one can claim it is meritless - economics proves the lie.

Popular =/= good. There are lots of stupid people in the world. The fact that people fantasize about what does appear to be an abusive and controlling relationship is not terribly surprising really, and it honestly doesn't worry me that much. Honestly, how realistic is the scenario described in the book? Are these women reading about it likely to encounter this type of situation in real life?

Please understand, I get that the book is mimicking the manipulation that an abuser uses to control a victim and that those things absolutely happen all the time, but they're usually not combined with a hyper-sexualized playboy billionaire...... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in real life, most abusive relationships have a lot less of the fantasy element to go along with them.

It's the same argument for twilight, heck yea it's a creepy unhealthy relationship, WITH A FREAKING VAMPIRE. The whole premise is ludicrous, so leave it in the realm of fantasy and hope that in real life, real experiences will allow most people to understand the difference.

Just going to say that sometimes people have betrayal bonding. It's something I understand very much first hand. It's very conflicting. And very difficult to break. But, safer if relegated to fantasy. And healthier when a woman can learn how to have those feelings safely and with choice and ownership. Also some psychopaths do become incredibly wealthy. I know one.

ldrosophila

taking notes write a book about some super hot, multi-billionaire dark, mysterious brooder...make bank $$$$

SunofaBeach14

Are these women reading about it likely to encounter this type of situation in real life?

Minus the lead male being super rich and hot, very likely actually. And they equate his actions with love rather than obsession.

My point exactly. It's a fun fantasy, because he's super rich and hot. Take that out of the book and I doubt it would be popular at all.

Of course not. Because these women are turned on by the "rich and hot." But they don't seem to have the thinking capacity to realize that he's a psycho and these relationships often end in someone dying. They think the way he treats her is desirable, but they only think that because of his looks and wealth, yet can't seem to separate the two. They think stalking is romantic. Granted, that was something a lot of women thought even before this book, so I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.

It's frightening.

They think it's hot IF the guy is super sexy and rich, or IF he's a mysterious vampire. They would be filing charges if it was Joe from the gas station down the street. Yea, it's obnoxious, but I go back to my most people are stupid statement. My point is that the average woman reading and enjoying these books isn't going to go out and throw herself into an abusive relationship because THAT'S the part she finds hot. Taken out of the context of the fantasy, the behavior is no longer appealing.

Yes, it's Fantasy. Fantasy, people. People fantasize about all sorts of things that they will never actually do. IF someone wants to engage in BDSM activities then there are safe ways of doing that, but this is just a book, not a "how to" guide. I wholeheartedly agree with the criticism that it's poorly written drivel but I disagree with the criticism that it "encourages" or "promotes" abuse.

Or that it can only be read one way.

As an aside, as psychological and physical abuse go, I think "Story of O" is far worse. Of course, that was written in French and while criticized as being anti-feminist, it seems to be widely read and enjoyed in the BDSM "community" without the criticism that it isn't an example of SS&C.

Timshel_

I won't lie, I enjoyed the sex scenes. However, the book was terribly written, and by about the 18th time that I had to read the words "inner goddess" I gave up on reading it.

Apparently you just haven't reached inner goddess level yet.
Don't get discouraged.