Fifty Shades of Grey
discussion
If Christian wasn't rich
message 101:
by
Mochaspresso
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jun 19, 2013 08:24AM
peppermint pattie was a stalker and emotionally unhinged.
reply
|
flag
ralph cramden and alice had an abusive marriage. bang zoom. to the moon, alice.
tom and jerry were sadists.
Mochaspresso wrote: "if people are repeatedly saying that its just fiction, I think that's more than enough proof that people aren't truly taking anything in the book as more than that."You talk about "people" as if they're one big uniform group who all read, understand and react to a book the same way, which is clearly not the case. Some people realise it's just fiction (and you're lucky enough to be in that group) and could never happen in real life, other people don't.
I don't see what the purpose is of mentioning other fictional stalkers. I'm not familiar with any of those characters, but judging by the names of them, they don't sound like they might be the object of grown women's adoration.
every single fsog thread about thid has had people saying that its just fiction. I could go on and on with the fiction characters.
ricky and lucy
morticia and gomez
buffy and spike
how could I forget archie bunker and edith and george and louise Jefferson? these guys were regular. they weren't rich or particularly handsome but they werr all beloved characters. That is really my point. I think you are not understanding whst people liked about Christian as a fictional character.
Mochaspresso wrote: "how could I forget archie bunker and edith and george and louise Jefferson? these guys were regular. they weren't rich or particularly handsome but they werr all beloved characters. That is rea..."
Is that what we're doing now? Mentioning random fictional characters to prove that ALL people view Christian Grey as a strictly fictional character, whose like they're ALL fully aware they'll never meet in real life? Really? I don't see the point.
And you're right, I don't understand what it is some people liked about Christian Grey, because the main thing people seem to mention when I ask them is either his looks or his money, or a combination of the two. I could understand it better if someone had said that they admired him for being philanthropic, or at least mentioned SOME character trait that they found particularly admirable, and not just the change he (allegedly) goes through. But I've never come across anyone who could explain what they liked about his personality, and I really want to believe that the CG lovers aren't all so shallow as they seem when they mention looks and money as their main motivation for liking him.
I think I would have still stayed with the book. The story line would have changed, but, lol, I'm a sucker for a gorgeous man that needs saving!! That's been obvious from the start. Then again I've only read the first two so far. I can't wait to read Fifty Shades Freed though!!
Martine wrote: "Mammamia wrote: "it's ummmmm.... FICTION!!!"THANK YOU!!!"
lol I agree, HOTT fiction but it is fiction
Mochaspresso wrote: "How is calling Christian's behavior abnormal, unhealthy, dysfunctional, controlling and manipulative equated to "justifying" or "rationalizing" it?I was saying that it's the other way around. It's justifying and rationalizing when people refuse to recognize it for what it is, and put it down to something like romance or passion.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I think most people who enjoyed it do actually recognize his behavior as extremely problematic as that was the point of the entire story. In fact, a recurring line throughout the books was that Christian was "fifty shades of fucked up"."
Maybe they do recognize it has problematic. It doesn't seem that way as many of the posters on this thread who have suggested the opposite. I think that's how the book should be read, though I do have to say that I think there is an intention to obscure that aspect of it under a couple of very tired tropes in order to make it more palatable to readers. Making the character rich is part of that.
I am sure that most people are aware that it is possible to like a flawed character. While I thought he was a sullen whiny brat, I did like and empathize with Holden Caulfield from The Catcher in the Rye. Plenty of people loved Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights. While I liked Pride and Prejudice, I thought Darcy was a pompous ass, but plenty of people loved him, too. Just because someone says that they like a character, that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't acknowledge his or her flaws. Despite the fact that he's wealthy and handsome, I think that the book also makes it very clear that Christian also has issues and that he's far from perfect. Most fans of the series are aware of his flaws.
My attraction to the series is that I like the soap opera of Christian and Ana's story. I also like indulging in the HEA fantasy. ("happily ever after".) I like reading stories where characters (flawed or not) find each other and work at achieving a HEA for themselves. Realism is not always an absolute necessity for me. It depends on my mood at the time that I read it and on how the story was written.
I read Fifty Shades of Grey as a series in succession. I would have absolutely hated the first book if it had been a stand alone. When people debate over whether Christian and Ana have a desirable relationship, I think they are possibly missing the whole point of the story. It's clear that they don't have one. Christian and Ana spend three novels trying to get to that point. Also, most of the time, "what happens in real life" has no bearing on escapist/fantasy novels like this and vice-versa, I don't necessarily always need or want what's in those books in my real life relationships either. I liked Christian as a character. Would I want to date him in real life? No. I do like alphas....but I also prefer men who don't need "fixing".
Christina wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "how could I forget archie bunker and edith and george and louise Jefferson? these guys were regular. they weren't rich or particularly handsome but they werr all beloved ch..."
The problem that I've encountered with listing some of what I thought were Christian's good character traits is that people take that to the crazy extreme of thinking that it's also me saying that he's a "perfect dreamboat" when that isn't the case at all, but I'll try it again and see what happens this time....
1) He's monogamous in his relationships.
2) He's clearly an alpha and I happen to like alphas.
3) He's driven and ambitious. He's also intelligent.
4) You already mentioned that he is philanthropic and generous.
5) He does have a romantic side and shows it from time to time.
6) He's a "fixer". He sees a situation that needs to be taken care of, he firmly decides on a course of action and he dives right in without hesitation and sees it through to execution. He's not indecisive or "wishy-washy". (This quality doesn't always mix well with "hot-heads", though. Christian struggles with that in these novels.)
7) He's passionate. He makes no bones about his desire for Ana. I also like the idea that he encouraged her explore the boundaries of her sexuality.
8) He was enthusiastic about sharing his passions and interests with Ana. The flying, the sailing, the travel etc. He also encouraged Ana to further develop her own passions (ie...her interest in publishing). Once he realized that she was passionate about that career path, like it or not, he did encourage her to pursue it....he gave her a publishing house to run.
9) He clearly cares about his family. He's also what we, in our neighborhood slanguage, used to call "ride or die" with all of the people that he cares about. He's all in and he's got your back, no matter what. If you ever need anything, you are certain that he will be there for you in a heartbeat.
Christina wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "how could I forget archie bunker and edith and george and louise Jefferson? these guys were regular. they weren't rich or particularly handsome but they werr all beloved ch..."
(I could do some "shaming" of my own and say that I think it's very sad that you aren't familiar with any of these characters. You are definitely missing out. Those characters represent some of the best TV ever made in the entire history of TV, imo.)
These characters actually weren't chosen randomly. Most of them were from TV and were beloved characters. They were regular people. They weren't lusted after for their looks or "hotness", but people did love them. I also wonder if we were to analyze their marriages and relationships with through a modern hypersensitive PC
lens, would people say that these couples were also in "abusive relationships"?
For starters, Ralph and Alice Cramden were from "The Honeymooners". Ralph was a ranting and raving hothead most of the time and Alice was his strong and supportive wife who stood her ground and firmly put him in his place when he needed it. He used to get so frustrated about her that he would shake his fist and say "One of these days, Alice. Once of these days! Bang, Zoom. Straight to the moon!" He never actually did it, though. It was always a threat and she was never EVER threatened or intimidated by his over-bearing tendencies.
Btw, I firmly stand by my belief that anyone who says that "The Honeymooners" was anti-feminist does not really understand what feminism truly is and clearly didn't understand the show. All they focused on was the "Bang, zoom" and the fact that she was a housewife and never really saw Alice for what she really was to Ralph. Considering the times, I thought this show was lightyears ahead in that regard compared to some of the other shows that were also airing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-FhWB...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adQhWS...
He'd be an asshole like Parker. but then again he's smart so he'll climb his way and be CEO :)
It won't be fifty shades. It'll be...I don't know. Thirty or lesser. :]
Almira wrote: "It won't be fifty shades. It'll be...I don't know. Thirty or lesser. :]"haha almira! your thoughts made me laugh! but soo true! it'll be less :)
Haha thanks Kath. Glad it made you laugh haha.
Daphne wrote: "Yes I would. I think money isn't all that... He's such a romantic en sweet lover... That's what catched me while reading the books..."Catched me??? Omg, I don't think we read the same books???? Talk about messed, is this what our young people like, sounds like you would rather go hard core...watch porn!
Pft, sad!
With or without the money, I think that Christian still would be who he is. He would still be that man with the abusive and past. In the end, he was just a man who has been hurt by his own flesh and blood, and abandoned as if he was nothing. I personally think that him being rich just drew more people into reading the story. I mean come on, who doesn't love young, hot billionaires? Let's all be realistic here.
I don't think the money aspect would change his personality though. Yeah, certain things in the plot would have changed, like his crazy gifts for her, his expensive hobbies, etc. But other than that, he still would be the same Christian with or without the money. He's still be into BDSM, still be dark and elusive, still be self-loathing, still love the same way, etc.
I don't think rich/poor has much to do with it. Rich people get poor overnight these days and vice versa. I think the social standing aspect was integral to his character though.
and if Christian was not handsome...?lol that would be a really different story
It would completely change th story line though because the entire reason he aspired to be so wealthy was because of his past so if he wasn't really rich with practically no chance of ever running out of money then I think his attitude would be different and- agreeing with other comments- I don't think many people would tolerate him without his wealth and power, but I would still love him <3 lol :)
Mammamia wrote: "it's ummmmm.... FICTION!!!"That is such a COPOUT!!! THis is not an argument! It is not fiction because there are men out there in this world that behave like this! STOP condoning these authors for glorifying what in real life is a disgusting and tragic situation.
Frances wrote: "You don't have to have a mental health problem to be into BDSM obviously, but in the case of Fifty Shades he did and he was! That is all!"That's part of the problem. People that are into BDSM proper are actually of very sound mind and know exactly what they are doing. CG was taking out his childhood on women that looked like his mother. How is this not an important detail to all of you that love this book! He has a sick Oedipus complex!
Elena wrote: "in my opinion intelligence and kindness are more powerful things than money!"Great. This guy had neither.
Alys wrote: "Martine wrote: "Tialisa wrote: "Would we readers have taken to Christian Grey had he not been wealthy? We women can find beauty in the oddest places so looks aside had Christian been a good looking..."Dingdingding! Alys. You nailed it!
Well, yes, I would have read all read books but if I was Ana and Christian was a gas attendant...then idk LOL maybe not.
sometimes, I think people tend to overreact and create problems where none truly exist. I have read so many fsog threads and the only ones that seem to be thinking what fans are being accused of thinking are the detractors and critics themselves.
Mochaspresso wrote: "I am sure that most people are aware that it is possible to like a flawed character. While I thought he was a sullen whiny brat, I did like and empathize with Holden Caulfield from The Catcher in..."I never said it wasn’t possible to like flawed characters. I’d even go so far as to say that flawed characters are easier to like and relate to and perfection is boring (which is part of the reason I almost gagged whenever Bella in Twilight would wax on about Edward’s perfect appearance. Yawn.). While I didn’t care for Holden or Heathcliff either for that matter, I had a soft spot for the character Ralph de Bricassart from The Thornbirds, even though he was quite selfish and selfserving and a bit full of himself. So I can relate to liking flawed characters, and as far as realism goes, well, that’s not a necessity for me either, at all, I just don’t like it when the story is TOO unfathomable when it is in the romance genre. But this story was just TOO far fetched. The characters TOO flawed and unlikeable, almost completely devoid of redeeming features to me. I’m also a sucker for a happy ever after, occasionally. The ending of these books just doesn’t seem like a HEA to me at all, and IMHO they never get to the point of a desirable relationship. But I guess we’ll never agree on that.
Mochaspresso wrote: "The problem that I've encountered with listing some of what I thought were Christian's good character traits is that people take that to the crazy extreme of thinking that it's also me saying that he's a "perfect dreamboat" when that isn't the case at all, but I'll try it again and see what happens this time...."I don’t believe I’ve ever accused you of saying that you thought Christian was a perfect dreamboat. I believe you said in another thread that you wouldn’t want someone like him in real life at all, but just enjoyed the book. And I believe you. But that doesn’t change the fact that many other women DO think he’s a perfect dreamguy and want someone exactly like him in real life (as I’ve seen/heard quite a few women claim), and that was merely the point I was trying to make, that not everyone can keep the fantasy elements separate from what they might like in real life. You can, good for you (and I really don’t mean that in an ironic or condescending way at all).
Thank you for making the list. This is actually the first time I’ve seen someone with some thought through reasons for liking him and not just the everpresent “OMG He’s like soooooo totally Hot!!! HOT ! And let’s not forget rich! And did I mention hot?!?!” which seem to be the main reason most people like him, and which just seems incredibly shallow to me. While I don’t necessarily agree with all of your points ( I guess we all read stories and perceive character traits differently), I can at least now see why you like him, in the fantasy.
Mochaspresso wrote: "(I could do some "shaming" of my own and say that I think it's very sad that you aren't familiar with any of these characters. You are definitely missing out. Those characters represent some of the best TV ever made in the entire history of TV, imo.)"How can you “shame” me for something I haven’t seen? Especially considering I never shamed anyone to begin with.
Maybe it wasn’t your intention, but when you say it’s ‘very sad’ that I don’t know those characters, it comes across as just a tad condescending. Growing up in Denmark in the 80s and 90s, why would I be familiar with this old show? Granted we are influenced by American culture in a big way, but surely that does not mean that I’m supposed to know every single American tv show ever made? Just because I haven’t heard about some show does not mean that I had some sort of depraved childhood or am missing out. Even if that HAD been a show they had aired here, I very much doubt I would’ve watched it, because judging from the clips it doesn’t look like the kind of show I would like at all. It looks really naff IMHO. It actually made me think of “According to Jim” which I loathe. Why is it always a young, beautiful, intelligent, overbearing, understanding wife and a fat, old, ugly, unlikeable and brutish husband in those shows, never the other way around? Anyway, I’m getting off track here:-)
I have no opinion on whether Honeymooners is anti-feministic, but on a more general note, I suppose anything made before the 1960s could be considered anti-feministic by some people, seeing as society was pretty anti-women, and naturally that would show in pop culture along with everywhere else.
Meghan wrote: "Mammamia wrote: "it's ummmmm.... FICTION!!!"That is such a COPOUT!!! THis is not an argument! It is not fiction because there are men out there in this world that behave like this! STOP condoning..."
Yeah, don't you just love it when people say "It's just fiction" or "calm down, it's only a book"... Makes me wanna say "Well, if that's so, why even bother discussing books? Let's just shut down Goodreads entirely by all means."
yes, I love Christian for who he is, not for how rich he is
Ha no. Christian had one redeeming quality: his bank account.Don't get me wrong I'm all about the alpha male and all about reading erotica, but this book was about an abusive relationship with a Tiffany bow on it.
Christina wrote: How can you “shame” me for something I haven’t seen? Especially considering I never shamed anyone to begin with.Maybe it wasn’t your intention, but when you say it’s ‘very sad’ that I don’t know those characters, it comes across as just a tad condescending. Growing up in Denmark in the 80s and 90s, why would I be familiar with this old show? Granted we are influenced by American culture in a big way, but surely that does not mean that I’m supposed to know every single American tv show ever made? Just because I haven’t heard about some show does not mean that I had some sort of depraved childhood or am missing out. Even if that HAD been a show they had aired here, I very much doubt I would’ve watched it, because judging from the clips it doesn’t look like the kind of show I would like at all. It looks really naff IMHO. It actually made me think of “According to Jim” which I loathe. Why is it always a young, beautiful, intelligent, overbearing, understanding wife and a fat, old, ugly, unlikeable and brutish husband in those shows, never the other way around? Anyway, I’m getting off track here:-)
I have no opinion on whether Honeymooners is anti-feministic, but on a more general note, I suppose anything made before the 1960s could be considered anti-feministic by some people, seeing as society was pretty anti-women, and naturally that would show in pop culture along with everywhere else.
Doesn't your description of "According to Jim" tie right back into this topic, though? The title of the thread is "If Christian Wasn't Rich" and some were saying that he would not have been tolerated if he weren't rich or attractive. My point is that some of these very popular shows had working class, unattractive men who displayed some of Christian's character traits yet were still liked and even beloved by many. That was just how FSOG was written, but I don't think that Christian necessarily had to have been wealthy or attractive in the traditional sense for this story to still work. It actually has been done a million times before. We could start with the fairy tale of "Beauty and the Beast".
btw, I'm not necessarily sure that liking Christian because of his looks or wealth is any more or less shallow than wondering why an attractive woman is with a fat, ugly, seemingly unlikeable husband. There's really not much difference when you think about it.
Mochaspresso wrote: "btw, I'm not necessarily sure that liking Christian because of his looks or wealth is any more or less shallow than wondering why an attractive woman is with a fat, ugly, seemingly unlikeable husband. There's really not much difference when you think about it."Once again I'm writing one thing and you seem to be reading another. I never wondered why the attractive women were with ugly men in shows like "According to Jim", "The King of Queens" etc. I was merely wondering why Hollywood is unwilling to reverse the roles and depict a relationship between a handsome man and an ugly woman. If you can't see the difference between those two statements, I don't know what to say to you. And I don't dislike those shows because of the ugly man/beautiful woman pairing, but because they're not funny.
And as for the other tv shows, Jim, Ralph, Doug etc. may be beloved characters despite their flaws, but I don't see women dedicating blogs, fb pages etc to them , swooning and claiming that they wan't someone just like them. FSOG may have still worked as a story (to the extent that I'm willing to pretend it works as a story now, for the sake of the argument) even if Christian hadn't been rich and attractive, but there's no way as many women would have been pining for him.
If Christian could still talk like he does I think women would swoon over him. He has a way with words that make just about everything acceptable! lol
Marija wrote: "Daphne wrote: "Yes I would. I think money isn't all that... He's such a romantic en sweet lover... That's what catched me while reading the books..."Catched me??? Omg, I don't think we read the ..."
Hahahaha!
I think wealth is a necessary component because of the cost of the life style. An ordinary middleclass man would not be able to afford the equipment,the security or the dues/fees involved in participating in the lifestyle/hobby. In all the series out there..the guy has money or has a buddy that has paid for his membership/gotten him into the club.I think an author could write a novel involving non-millionaires that would compel us to read the next page, entice us to live the next sexual encounter. There are some really talented authors out there.
And...please...if you don't like these books-don't read them. I don't like broccoli..I promise I won't petition Congress to bann the vegetable.
Judy wrote: ".if you don't like these books-don't read them."So how do you un-read a book?
That statement of don't like, don't read it, seems redundant as the person has already read it and then decided they didn't like it. Also, on another note, many people don't like FSOG have no problem with the Erotica genre, preferring other books over these ones.
Judy wrote: "And...please...if you don't like these books-don't read them. I don't like broccoli..I promise I won't petition Congress to bann the vegetable. "
We can't know if we like them unless we read them though. When I started them I expected to like them. Turns out I didn't. But I still don't regret reading them cuz how else would I know how naff they are, and I would have no right to bitch about them:-)
And I think you're right. This particular story line wouldn't work if he wasn't filthy rich, but romance heroes in general don't have to be rich.
Christina wrote: Once again I'm writing one thing and you seem to be reading another. I never wondered why the attractive women were with ugly men in shows like "According to Jim", "The King of Queens" etc. I was merely wondering why Hollywood is unwilling to reverse the roles and depict a relationship between a handsome man and an ugly woman. If you can't see the difference between those two statements, I don't know what to say to you. And I don't dislike those shows because of the ugly man/beautiful woman pairing, but because they're not funny.Personally, I think I understood what you were saying just fine when I answered you. You are saying there is a difference but I really don't think there is all that much of one. But to answer the question more directly, Hollywood actually has done what you are suggesting. "Ugly Betty" immediately comes to mind. There have been other examples too. They just didn't always focus on "ugly" specifically. Maybe the girl in question was awkward and geeky like Molly Ringwald in "Sixteen Candles" or Drew Barrymore in "Never Been Kissed". She may have been heavy set like Jill Scott was in "Why Did I Get Married?" or she may have gotten a complete makeover like Rachel Leigh Cook in "She's All That" or Nia Vardalos in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding".
And as for the other tv shows, Jim, Ralph, Doug etc. may be beloved characters despite their flaws, but I don't see women dedicating blogs, fb pages etc to them , swooning and claiming that they wan't someone just like them. FSOG may have still worked as a story (to the extent that I'm willing to pretend it works as a story now, for the sake of the argument) even if Christian hadn't been rich and attractive, but there's no way as many women would have been pining for him.
Those shows feature average guys. Maybe women don't appear to be swooning because they are probably already happily married to that guy, but isn't that really the "ultimate" swoon? They don't have to claim to want somebody like him because they demonstrated it by marrying one. This goes back to my point about me honestly believing that the majority of readers probably are discerning fantasy from reality just fine without the mother hen's warnings and everyone's fears about FSOG's potential harmful and/or negative influences are unfounded.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Personally, I think I understood what you were saying just fine when I answered you. You are saying there is a difference but I really don't think there is all that much of one. But to answer the question more directly, Hollywood actually has done what you are suggesting. "Ugly Betty" immediately comes to mind. There have been other examples too. They just didn't always focus on "ugly" specifically. Maybe the girl in question was awkward and geeky like Molly Ringwald in "Sixteen Candles" or Drew Barrymore in "Never Been Kissed". She may have been heavy set like Jill Scott was in "Why Did I Get Married?" or she may have gotten a complete makeover like Rachel Leigh Cook in "She's All That" or Nia Vardalos in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"."Are you being serious or are you pulling my leg? You honestly don't see a BIG difference between someone saying "I don't understand why those beautiful women are with those ugly men" (which I NEVER said or even implied, but apparently that's what you think I said) and someone saying "I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't depict relationships between ugly women and attractive men"(which is what I ACTUALLY said). If you truly maintain that those two statements mean roughly the same, I see no point in carrying on this discussion because that would mean that our way of thinking (yours and mine) are so far from each other that we'll continually misunderstand each other.
And as for those examples you gave, I don't think either of them prove your point particularly well, since not one of those women are ugly or even remotely unattractive. Some of them were dressed up to look different, but they were still all beautiful.
"Those shows feature average guys. Maybe women don't appear to be swooning because they are probably already happily married to that guy, but isn't that really the "ultimate" swoon? They don't have to claim to want somebody like him because they demonstrated it by marrying one."
So are you saying that only single women are pining for someone like Christian Grey? If what you say is true, shouldn't the single women be pining after the kind of average men from those shows (if they display some of Christian's character traits), just as much as they are after Christian? Yet I seldom (never) hear anyone say "I really hope to marry someone exactly like Doug Heffernan some day" or "I want a marriage just like Jim's and Cheryl's".
If he hadn't been wealthy, the book would have been a lot shorter.
Nuran wrote: "Judy wrote: ".if you don't like these books-don't read them."So how do you un-read a book?
That statement of don't like, don't read it, seems redundant as the person has already read it and then..."
Sorry...I have never spent the time to finish a book that I could tell by the fifth chapter I wasn't going to like. There are too many books on my 'to read' list to waste time on books 'I' don't like or don't engage my interest quickly enough. I am just glad there are lots of writers writing books I like.
He would have been a pervert!
Judy wrote: "Nuran wrote: "Judy wrote: ".if you don't like these books-don't read them."So how do you un-read a book?
That statement of don't like, don't read it, seems redundant as the person has already re..."
It's either waste time or waste money. And since it doesn't take me ages to finish a book, it really isn't an issue for me. I read the whole trilogy in 3 nights. There are three types of bad books for me.
1. It's boring, even if it has everything I like in it, I can still find it boring and can't continue.
2. It's a car crash book, really bad but you can't help yourself but stare because you want to see it all, dead body included. Then you feel sick afterwards. Metaphorically speaking for a book.
3. So bad it's funny!
The first FSOG falls under 2 and 3. The last two books just falls under 2.
Maybe you should think about what you say. There are many reasons people do what they do when you can't. Also, I find a book can redeem itself, even past halfway, another reason I don't give up.
Plus, I like to give accurate reviews of what I thought. And avoid those people who cry, you can't review it if you haven't read it all.
But then us finishers get stuck with people like you.
Can't win with you fangirls/boys.
Tialisa wrote: "He's a saddist who is controlling and defective? His goal is to hurt. Well WAS to hurt. Most of his actions were stalkerish at best were he not wealthy and handsome most women of sound mind would n..."I agree.
I work for a publishers and we find that if a title has "Billionaire" in the title than the books would sell. (Prior to billionaires it was tycoon and millionaires - but now these are far too poor to generate interest)
Historical fiction- Prince or Duke.
Paranormal - Vampires and Werewolves are favourites. A billionaire Vampire is even closer to the ideal.
The Rag to Riches tale (of a woman being chosen to be the companion of a rich man- or may be a rich man owning a woman - whatever) is part of our DNA I guess. The whole gold-digging, meal ticket evolutionary theory. Not all of us have evolved.
However, I haven't read this series and I am not into billionaires. I really don't understand why people need billionaires, particularly in a world where billions of people are starving (and I know these billionaires make token charitable gestures - however, they were serious they give easily live in extreme comfort by having millions and giving away the billions). Anyway I digress.
Romance is fantasy fiction. Some people just like their romance completely removed from reality I guess.
I am soooo fortunate that I can read to enjoy...and not have to read to review. I review a book if I have something posititive to say. If I didn't like the book...I didn't finish it, so I don't comment on it. I consider myself extremely lucky.
Judy wrote: "I am soooo fortunate that I can read to enjoy...and not have to read to review. I review a book if I have something posititive to say. If I didn't like the book...I didn't finish it, so I don't co..."I feel extremely lucky I can say what I feel and not bottle up negativity. I feel extremely luck I can enjoy positive and negative aspects of discussing a book. I feel extremely lucky I enjoy writing reviews, whether I like the book or not.
I would feel extremely unlucky if I could only handle and could only cope with positive things.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Coincidence of Callie & Kayden (other topics)
On the Island (other topics)
Beautiful Disaster (other topics)
Fifty Shades of Grey (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Easy (other topics)The Coincidence of Callie & Kayden (other topics)
On the Island (other topics)
Beautiful Disaster (other topics)
Fifty Shades of Grey (other topics)
