Showing posts with label e.l. james. Show all posts
Showing posts with label e.l. james. Show all posts

26 July 2012

Erica Jong on FIFTY SHADES OF GREY: "Her bad writing keeps pulling you out of the fantasy"

Last night I went to a panel on the effect and influence of FIFTY SHADES OF GREY in American culture. At the beginning of the night, moderator Amy Lee of event host McNally Jackson said, "Just to get this off the table, we're not going to be discussing the book's literary merit," whereupon the Blythe Dannerish woman next to me looked up from her iPhone (where she was texting someone named Pity) and called out "There is none!"

Most everyone at the event seemed to agree with her on that count, although perhaps there would have been a few champions who were too cowed to speak out. Though not billed as such, the discussion to me represented a takedown of the book at hand and, simultaneously, a passionate defense of the right to fantasy (though some were more passionate than others).

"It's been helping my backlist, God only knows why," said Erica Jong, who criticized FIFTY SHADES' poor writing and hackneyed premise from her position as the author of the groundbreaking FEAR OF FLYING. While she allowed that "solving a mixed-up guy is something we've all tried to do in our lives" and expressed the hope that FIFTY SHADES would blow open the doors of literature to more writing about sex, Jong questioned the idea that people are really getting ideas for their own sex lives from this book. That cause was taken up primarily by Ian Kerner, a sex therapist who by his own admission had only skimmed the book (and at one point compared it to "True Blood," which was weird) but stressed the difference between transgressive fantasy (in which anything goes) and the reality that most Americans are "extremely bored" in their relationships and find themselves in "sex ruts."  

New York Times contributing writer Daniel Berger described it as a "sex novel in the guise of a romance novel" but also defended it as "giving permission" for people to enjoy erotica, even reading a passage from the book as someone in the audience made a retching noise. He also pointed out that the furor over FIFTY SHADES is less about its fantasy content, which is already readily available, than the perception of threat or damage that comes of walking that "uncomfortable boundary" between pop culture we all talk about and sex we don't all talk about.

This was one of several ways the media was taken to task for how they covered FIFTY SHADES; Febos mentioned a disturbing Newsweek article positioning the book as a threat to feminism (surprise, Katie Roiphe strikes again!), and writer Roxane Gay joked, "Of course the media are always shocked as shit when women have fantasies." She also compared it to "Magic Mike" as a hallmark of the monetization of the female gaze, without dismissing the book's more problematic aspects such as its heroine's near-constant vulnerability and that it "requires a suspension of disbelief that few people are capable of" as it "pretends to empower women."

"People have been writing these fantasies in their journals since the beginning of time," put in Melissa Febos, a former professional dominatrix who was the most open among the panelists about her personal reaction to FIFTY SHADES. "There's always going to be simplistic, poorly written fantasies." Berger concluded to a rumbling of disagreement, "Maybe porn can't be literature. It doesn't lend itself to that language." Yet the panel cited several erotic works that they considered literature including LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER, THE STORY OF O, Anne Rice's SLEEPING BEAUTY trilogy, THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING and A SPORT AND A PASTIME, while laughing over the idea that sales of TESS OF THE D'URBERVILLES are spiking because an early edition of the book is exchanged as a gift in FIFTY SHADES.

30 May 2012

On porn

It's interesting to look at the cooked-up media furor over the FIFTY SHADES OF GREY trilogy (which I still haven't gotten around to reading, but am opining on anyway, as one does) as a reflection of accepted ideas about what I will delicately call the sexy entertainments.

What we "know" about straight-male-marketed video pornography and straight-female-marketed romance novels, based on my limited exposure to both, is that they are both poorly written and laughably unbelievable. ("The sexy teacher wants to see me after class?") Undoubtedly people consume both Academy Award-winning movies and the "After Dark" section of hotel in-room rentals. Perhaps even in the same trip! As people who might read FIFTY SHADES and then move onto THE MARRIAGE PLOT for their book club.

I appreciate the dubbing of FIFTY SHADES as "mommy porn" because it has been mostly read by women and initially earned its viral success among women, some of whom have children. It's fun to imagine all the moms at the playground whispering about Christian Grey, as the New York Post implied in its first story about FIFTY SHADES, even though it was probably their nannies at those Upper East Side playgrounds and not them. Even as it already falls apart, that's the accepted story, but it's problematic because it implies that "mommies" are into a certain kind of porn, and they're into it because something about their sex lives (or if you prefer, lives, generally) is disappointing, and it satisfies some need there. And that no one who doesn't fall into that category could possibly be into it, so if you're into it you must be all of those things, and ugh you are such a stereotype, and how dare you, etc.

There are plenty of strong objections one can make to FIFTY SHADES, but "gross, women enjoy it!" is a weak one. And if your biggest objection to FIFTY SHADES is that it's poorly written, I can only assume that your erotic entertainment of choice is all well-written and/or of Academy Award/ Pulitzer-level visual quality. I'm pretty sure their readers realize how badly written these books are. They read them for other reasons. (This excellent blog post compared that line of argument to "Fast food is bad for you, so we should tell everyone not to eat it as if there are people who don't already know that.")

29 April 2012

You've Been Warned: 50 Shades of Suck

Normally I believe a simple "NSFW" warning label may be appropriate, but for the really good stuff, we wait for the weekend.

Do you enjoy jokes about poor grammar crossed with wince-inducing erotica? Alternately, would you like to cringe to death? Oh, it was really funny for a while, joking that I would read 50 SHADES OF GREY and laugh about it. Don't look so shocked, moms of America! Then I found this blog of excerpts from the book, and now I think I might have met my match. These passages are just so bad, guys. So bad! And by bad I mean "very poorly written, and some are also regrettable in content."

Anyway, you probably aren't at work right now and if you are definitely don't click on the blog I'm about to link to, which if it were an R-rated movie would be so rated for "explicit sexuality" and "sexual content," as well as spoilers for 50 SHADES and some truly horrifyingly bad dialogue. But since some of you are as unfortunately curious as I am, go read 50 Shades of Suck. Ugh, I'm going to go take a shower and then maybe become a nun.

03 April 2012

"As has been noted, our heroine Anastasia Steele begins most of her sentences with 'Holy crap!' People say 'shall' a lot and 'fetch' things instead of get them. When Christian Grey 'rips through' Anastasia's virginity, she actually says 'Argh!' like Jon finding out that Garfield has once again shredded the curtains... Also, Christian is a gorgeous 27-year-old (okay) 'tycoon' (hahahaha, double 'okay') who never seems to do any work, but he also doesn't bang models or do drugs."
--Julieanne Smolinski on 50 SHADES OF GREY. Sounds like a party! Also, can't breathe for laughing.

29 February 2012

The fictional characters must be protected

The New York Post reports that the hot new book among Upper East Side moms is the BDSM romance novel E.L. James' FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, the first in a trilogy about... well, I haven't read it, but I gather sexy sex, and also there is some sex in it. Moms be readin' about sex!

But they won't print excerpts from the book (that might actually help the writer, or at least give the rest of us something to talk about) because they're a "family newspaper." Maybe they weren't a family newspaper when they printed the photo of the woman accusing the police commissioner's son of rape on the front cover and read through her text messages to determine if she was slutty enough to discount her testimony. That was, what, three weeks ago? It's a new world.

(The Daily Mail has an excerpt with a bunch of "BLEEP"s in it. But romance megablog Smart Bitches Trashy Books gave it a DNF, calling the narrator irritating.)