The Most Overrated Books Showing 5,051-5,100 of 5,680

[Michael]

Given societal expectations and pressures to always be in control, I don't find it surprising that many men and women have fantasies of submitting to someone else's control.

[Mochaspresso]

Monty J wrote: "Really? What men?
Rice is pandering to her audience by twisting this into a feminist issue, and I think that's a distraction, a distortion even. We need to see this without glomming onto the usual political crutches.

In all fairness to her, she isn't the one twisting this into a feminist issue. She is responding to criticisms of the novel that others have made under the guise of coming from a supposed feminist standpoint.

I won't defend the writing, because Fifty Shades is not well written, imo. I won't deny that. However, I've thoroughly enjoyed plenty of books that I didn't think were particularly well written. From the likes of Jackie Collins, some Nicholas Sparks and even some classics. (Hemingway gets away with a lot. I've also been slowly but surely reading some more of Ulysses and James Joyce gets away with a lot as well.) However, I resent the insinuation that one cannot be a "true and bonafide feminist" depending on the type of erotic fiction they enjoy. I also resent the insinuation that women are generally too simple to distinguish fantasy from reality and need to be protected from "mommy porn", lest they be scarred for life. I resent the insinuation that I, as a grown woman, am learning about love from Fifty Shades of Grey. I resent the insinuation that one's sexual desires and fantasies should be judged. That is a very dangerous road to go down because what happens when a group with a large enough mouthpiece decides that oral sex is the flavor of the month to vilify and call "immoral". Or LGBT relationships. I also find that this happens a lot more with fiction written for and by women than with books with the same content written by men. I don't want any moral majority telling me what is "appropriate" in that regard. I've been raised by parents whom I believe have done a relatively good job and I feel that I can decide what is appropriate for me and what I can and cannot tolerate. I also resent the insinuation that I liked Fifty Shades for the sex and no other reason. For me, this was not true. I liked it for the soap opera drama surrounding their relationship. I read Fifty Shades very much in the same manner in which I used to watch All My Children.



I'm not criticizing or judging--okay, I AM judging the writing quality--I'm trying to understand this surprising phenomenon. I've seen words like "second phase of the sexual revolution" batted around in the news.

There have always been erotica and porn and kinky sex, well, as far back as Pompeii, that I know of. Why, now, this explosion of female interest in erotica?

I think it is because before, erotica was a very small and hidden away niche or fringe genre. Fifty Shades has made erotica mainstream, more prominent and dare I say it...even fashionable.

First we had the Eat Pray Love explosion, now this same cohort of readers, overwhelmingly female--I read that somewhere--are jumping all over 50 Shades. What inner lives have they been leading that this poor-quality writing--I read a few pages, shrugged, and put it back on the shelf--appeals to?

It means something. I just don't know what yet.

Perhaps there is some femininist angle to it. I fell asleep on the train a few years ago and woke up sitting next to a pretty young well-dressed woman who started hitting on me, even though she had a boyfriend. Her card said she was on the payroll at NOW. That was anecdotal, but she did make the point that feminism's agenda gave women permission to have affairs, "just like men do."

Again I say, what men? Where are all these men having all these affairs? I've never met any. And B, it takes two to tango. There are the "other women" involved in the affair who know he's married and sometimes even prefer it that way. They're seldom and lightly, if ever, mentioned, while the guy gets vilified.

Anyway, why play to the lowest common denominator? There's one-upsman-ship and there's "one-downsmansman-ship. "

I think the point is that some women want to have the freedom and ability to decide what they consider the "lowest common denominator" to be for themselves. They don't want to have it dictated to them.

[Victoria]

Mochaspresso wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Really? What men?
Rice is pandering to her audience by twisting this into a feminist issue, and I think that's a distraction, a distortion even. We need to see this without glommin..."

::APPLAUSE:: I am totally in-synch with you on the 50 shades topic! I am in a long heated debate with my feminist/bdsm/kink girlfriends in regards to this book. I read the book series, watched the movie because sometimes I simply just have a guilty pleasure of enjoying a trashy read! It hasnt changed my feminist views, and I don't plan to base my life on this book.
I think the Rice Sleeping Beauty series was god awful.

[Heidi]

Mochaspresso wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Really? What men?
Rice is pandering to her audience by twisting this into a feminist issue, and I think that's a distraction, a distortion even. We need to see this without glommin..."

Fair enough. I just wonder what the appeal is. Where do these desires come from?

[Renee E]

The whole "why 50 Shades going to be the end of enlightened civilization" thing escapes me.

No, I haven't read it, a few excerpts, some dialogue that was so ludicrous I don't know how anyone could find it anything but embarrassing (the real humiliation Whatshername is enduring is the dialogue forced on her — a ball gag would be a welcome addition).

But, all of that aside, my biggest hash with it is the wrongness. Not in its inception. James was just a Twilight fan who got immersed in writing a piece of fan fiction and made no pretense that it was an original novel, but when the *legitimate* Big Publisher stepped in and fixed it so that there wouldn't be copyright issues, then published it as an original work . . .

Yeah. I've got a problem with that and although I'm not a fan of Meyers' work, I give her credit for taking the high road and not making an issue of it. I've wondered why Little-Brown hasn't taken Random to task, though.

[Mochaspresso]

Heidi wrote: "Fair enough. I just wonder what the appeal is. Where do these desires come from? "

Are you referring to the appeal of Fifty Shades as a novel or to the appeal of BDSM and/or BDSM fiction in general? I can't speak for BDSM because while I try not to judge, it's not really my thing. I'm not turned on by it. The ironic thing about all of this is that I've actually read a few of the commonly recommended BDSM erotica that others typically and condescendingly say is far better than Fifty Shades. I've found aspects of them to be far more disturbing and abusive. (Story of O...didn't like it, de Sade...dude was clearly insane; not always a fan of what I like to call "madman lit", The Siren/Original Sinners Series...couldn't finish that one, The Dark Duets...managed to finish the first two books but didn't like them at all. Romanticizing kidnapping and underage human sex trafficking is one of my personal hard limits. When it comes to erotica, I've found that I prefer stories that involve consenting adults.)

Personally, I think the BDSM depicted in Fifty Shades is rather light and very tame and as a result is more palatable and tolerable to mainstream audiences who for most part, likely know of that type of kink via very stereotypical porn. That is why some of the "abuse" accusations baffle me because I know for a fact that what happens in movies like "9/12 Weeks", "The Secretary" and "After Fall, Winter" that was far more abusive than anything that happens in Fifty Shades. Of course, I can't prove it, but I have a strong sneaking suspicion that if Ana had been a stereotypical leather wearing dominatrix "abusing" Christian, we would not even be having this discussion. I also find it odd that people are more disturbed by Ana and Christian's consensual relationship than the fact that in the novels, Christian reveals that he was first introduced to BDSM by an older neighbor and friend of his mother when he was only 15 years old. There seems to be a great deal of misleading hoopla outrage over something that doesn't happen in the book rather than moral outrage over something that does actually happen and it confuses me to no end. I suspect that a lot of the loudest "moral outrage" critics haven't actually read it.

[Karen]

I agree with you Mochaspresso, 100%, although I will have to look up 91/2 weeks, as I don't remember any abuse- but then maybe I was just smitten by Micky Rourke, and he's on my family tree.
I only object to the lousy writing and the fact that the author really isn't a writer at all- there are so many good struggling writers out there.

[Monty J]

Mochaspresso wrote: "Monty J wrote: I'm trying to understand this surprising phenomenon. I've seen words like "second phase of the sexual revolution" batted around in the news."

I doubt I will ever relate to soap opera or BDSM, but I AM interested in the social impact of major trends in thought and behavior, which I sense in both EPL and 50 Shades. Neither of which I have read, although I vow to try again for the 4th time to read EPL (I have seen the film.)

Historically, in literature and in cultural norms, there has been a principle that sex and love are deeply entwined if not inseparable, a bond that has been progressively loosening for as long as I remember.

It seems that both EPL and 50 Shades signal a shift in this thinking, with Shades indicating a major, perhaps final break, signifying that sex is sex and love is love. Period. Is love even mentioned in 50 Shades? Is marriage?

If what I am sensing is true, then what does it portend for the institution of marriage? Will marriage become passe and be replaced with social contracts? In 50 years will marriage be a relic of the past? Or, will so-called mainstream BDSM just be an experiment, a fad, and go the way of CB radios?

I am much less interested in how many ways we can fuck each other than I am how we can love each other and how sex and love can be honored within the context of a strong family unit. I think any whole is the sum of its parts. The strongest nation is the sum of strong families and communities. Does 50 Shades portend a weakening or a strenghtening of the social fabric? Does 50 Shades put sex in the same category as LSD, cocaine, speed and ecstasy--just another way of getting high?

[Karen]

What does it have to do with marriage though, I don't quite understand wgat you mean.

[E.D.]

"Break'er..break'er..., keep the shiny side up and the greasy side down....."....

Sorry. Seemed appropriate when I started. :}

[Monty J]

Mochaspresso wrote: "...I resent the insinuation that one cannot be a "true and bonafide feminist" depending on the type of erotic fiction they enjoy. I also resent the insinuation that women are generally too simple to distinguish fantasy from reality and need to be protected from "mommy porn", lest they be scarred for life. I resent the insinuation that I, as a grown woman, am learning about love from Fifty Shades of Grey. I resent the insinuation that one's sexual desires and fantasies should be judged."


Where are these insinuations coming from? Just curious.

[Karen]

E.D. wrote: ""Break'er..break'er..., keep the shiny side up and the greasy side down....."....

Sorry. Seemed appropriate when I started. :}"

I think you're on a roll

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "What does it have to do with marriage though, I don't quite understand wgat you mean."

That's my point.

If marriage isn't mentioned in a film about sex, then marriage is tacitly excluded from consideration. I'm not saying that marriage should be included, only that excluding it takes the position that love/marriage is irrelevant when it comes to sex, thereby devaluing sex, to people like me, and relegating it to the same status as a drug.

[Monty J]

E.D. wrote: ""Break'er..break'er..., keep the shiny side up and the greasy side down....."....

Sorry. Seemed appropriate when I started. :}"

"Breaker one-nine. This is..." Jeese, brings back memories of 1978, driving from Glenwood Springs, CO, to Salt Lake City in a blizzard between two Coors trucks.

[Renee E]

Monty J wrote: "If marriage isn't mentioned in a film about sex, then marriage is tacitly excluded from consideration. I'm not saying that marriage should be included, only that excluding it takes the position that love/marriage is irrelevant when it comes to sex, thereby devaluing sex, to people like me, and relegating it to the same status as a drug. "

Not an uncommon cultural relegation . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n3Oe...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcATv...

[Gary]

Monty J wrote: "Maybe it's one of the tropes of the erotica genre to have a crude literary style. Rough and clumsy writing may compliment atmosphere some way."

I think that's true. It's one of the standards that conveys a certain "this could happen to anyone" thing.

An alternate reality is created by any kind of fiction. In that of porn/erotica, one of the standards is that everyone is walking around in a state of constant arousal, requiring little more than a "Good morning!" or "Here's your pizza..." as seduction/foreplay. Part of that is conveyed by simplistic, even ungrammatical use of the language to give it an "everyman" quality.

[Renee E]

Cemre wrote: "I can't understand the feminist view which thinks that reading "that type" of novels will cause women to go for wrong kind of relationships. I mean, really ? While exceptions certainly do exist, m..."

Neither do I. How would the same assumptions apply to someone who reads high fantasy? Or horror? Or anything, for that matter?

[Michael]

From Anthony Lane's movie review in this week's New Yorker:

If the figures are correct, “Fifty Shades of Grey,” by E. L. James, has been bought by more than a hundred million people, of whom only twenty million were under the impression that it was a paint catalogue. That leaves a solid eighty million or so who, upon reading sentences such as “He strokes his chin thoughtfully with his long, skilled fingers,” had to lie down for a while and let the creamy waves of ecstasy subside.

Also:
No new reader, however charitable, could open “Fifty Shades of Grey,” browse a few paragraphs, and reasonably conclude that the author was writing in her first language, or even her fourth. There are poignant moments when the plainest of physical actions is left dangling beyond the reach of her prose: “I slice another piece of venison, holding it against my mouth.”

[Monty J]

Cemre wrote: "I can't understand the feminist view which thinks that reading "that type" of novels will cause women to go for wrong kind of relationships."

Perhaps the story reflects what is already happening. The power/income disparity between the players in 50 Shades shouldn't escape notice, coming as it does at a time when the power/income disparity in the US is at an all-time high.

There is a subtext in showing a choice young middle-class female being submissive to a rich male--that sexual worship, or worship in general, are among the entitlements of wealth.

Did anyone pick up such a vibe? (Just an idea, not having even seen the film.)

[Renee E]

Monty J wrote: "Perhaps the story reflects what is already happening. The power/income disparity between the players in 50 Shades shouldn't escape notice, coming as it does at a time when the power/income disparity in the US is at an all-time high.

Perhaps the story reflects what is alrea..."

That's an old, old theme, Monty. In novels and in life.

[Renee E]

Perhaps, Cemre, the seeming misogyny is because there really aren't any male parallels in novels? The male version of "trashy" novels being primarily in magazine and now, online format?

Even the male authors who write "trashy" novels or sensual or sexual literature seem to be read by a mainly female audience, even historically.

[Karen]

Monty J wrote; "If marriage isn't mentioned in a film about sex, then marriage is tacitly excluded from consideration. I'm not saying that marriage should be included, only that excluding it takes the position that love/marriage is irrelevant when it comes to sex, thereby devaluing sex, to people like me, and relegating it to the same status as a drug."

I disagree. Sometimes marriage is not relevant because It's not always about love but lust instead, I for one see nothing wrong with that. It's part of being human.

[Karen]

Renee wrote: "Monty J wrote: "If marriage isn't mentioned in a film about sex, then marriage is tacitly excluded from consideration. I'm not saying that marriage should be included, only that excluding it takes ..."

Oh I like both those songs!

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "From Anthony Lane's movie review in this week's New Yorker:

If the figures are correct, “Fifty Shades of Grey,” by E. L. James, has been bought by more than a hundred million people, of whom only ..."

I read that also, funny!

[Renee E]

Karen wrote: "Monty J wrote; "If marriage isn't mentioned in a film about sex, then marriage is tacitly excluded from consideration. I'm not saying that marriage should be included, only that excluding it takes ..."

Realistically, loveandmarriage is a very recent cultural concept, and love still isn't a real component of many marriages.

[Mochaspresso]

Monty J wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Monty J wrote: I'm trying to understand this surprising phenomenon. I've seen words like "second phase of the sexual revolution" batted around in the news."

I doubt I will ev..."

I think the answer to your questions depend on whether one has read all three books or just the first one.

Book 1 tells the story of how they meet. Book 2 tells the story of how they (view spoiler)[ fall in love. (hide spoiler)] Book 3 tells the story of how they (view spoiler)[ get married and start a family (hide spoiler)]. That, imo, is the real story of Fifty Shades and the one that appeals to many readers. Fifty Shades is essentially a kinky and dramatic soap opera version of "How I Met Your Mother".

[Karen]

Renee wrote;
"Realistically, love and marriage is a very recent cultural concept, and love still isn't a real component of many marriages."

Love has been here for thousands of years, marriage is new, and I don't see it going away any time soon, and at 57 years of age, it's not something I concern myself with.

[Michael]

No doubt there will be a fourth installment in which they (view spoiler)[ divorce and divvy up the whips (hide spoiler)].

[Renee E]

Precisely, Karen!

Thinking that something as ephemeral and downright trivial as the 50 Shades frenzy is going to have an impact on love and/or marriage makes as much sense as believing that who someone else marries changes the validity or importance of anyone else's marriage.

And really, if a social construct is that fragile, it probably should crumble. No, it will crumble.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "...of whom only twenty million were under the impression that it was a paint catalogue."

Hilarious.

Full article: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/201...

[Karen]

Renee wrote: "Precisely, Karen!

Thinking that something as ephemeral and downright trivial as the 50 Shades frenzy is going to have an impact on love and/or marriage makes as much sense as believing that who so..."

Yep! I think also that when it comes to sex that people want to read about or watch on the screen has nothing to do with marriage. Who wants to read about a married couple having sex? It's just not risque enough, let's face it. Knowing a person's unflattering habits and dirty laundry (literally) does not make for excitement in movies or literature- well um, I think I'll stop there because some smells I guess are exciting. Nevermind.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "No doubt there will be a fourth installment in which they [spoilers removed]."

Hahaha! Whipped cream is better.

[Renee E]

Cemre wrote: "Of course, Fifty Shades being about sex might have something to do with the sneers. I hate the assumption that if more women than men likes a book the book is slightly more than rubbish, negligible..."

Seems unlikely that there are many books, at least fiction, that aren't read and liked by more women than men, so that assumption is — just that. An assumption, or perhaps an assertion?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...
Hemingway as 'Chick-Lit'

When it comes to fiction, the gender gap is at its widest. Men account for only 20 percent of the fiction market, according to surveys conducted in the U.S., Canada and Britain.

By this measure, "chick-lit" would have to include Hemingway and nearly every other novel, observes Lakshmi Chaudhry in the magazine In These Times. "Unlike the gods of the literary establishment who remain predominately male—both as writers and critics—their humble readers are overwhelmingly female."

[Renee E]

I know.

That women read more of ANY fiction than men makes it an easy fallacy to foist on females.

It's a specious argument and should be treated as such.

[Monty J]

Renee wrote: "Even the male authors who write "trashy" novels or sensual or sexual literature seem to be read by a mainly female audience, even historically."

This has been my impression, but one night, as I was waiting in line to pay at a truck stop, I thumbed through a paperback from a carousel and had my eyes opened.

[Mochaspresso]

9 1/2 weeks is airing tomorrow on the Sundance channel. It's been almost 30 years. I wonder if it ages well?

[Karen]

Mochaspresso wrote: "9 1/2 weeks is airing tomorrow on the Sundance channel. It's been almost 30 years. I wonder if it ages well?"

I don't know, but Micky Rourke didn't. I loved him in the 80's and loved his movies, he was a good actor, and so cute, and when I looked at my family tree on my paternal grandmothers Irish side, there he was. I was thrilled.

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "Renee wrote: "Even the male authors who write "trashy" novels or sensual or sexual literature seem to be read by a mainly female audience, even historically."

This has been my impression, but one ..."

And what was it exactly? I want to know!

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "And what was it exactly? I want to know!"


It was like something out of Fanny Hill, graphic description of a woman stroking and talking to a penis and then straddling..., er, how far should I take this exercise?

I had a hard time putting down the book to pay for my gas.

I only got to read one passage from Fanny Hill before one of my college dorm-mates snatched it away. The truck stop version was better.

[Cosmic]

Monty J wrote: "If marriage isn't mentioned in a film about sex, then marriage is tacitly excluded from consideration. I'm not saying that marriage should be included, only that excluding it takes the position that love/marriage is irrelevant when it comes to sex, thereby devaluing sex, to people like me, and relegating it to the same status as a drug.."

This reminds me of Brave New World. We have taken care of the baby "problem". We have schools so we don't have to worry about training our children we can farm them out to institutions. So what really does "love got to do with it?" Good chance that your going to have to be transferred to a different city or that I have too many student loans to consider creating this mythical "family" you are talking about. With over 50% of youth under 30 living with their parents, I imagine that people are looking for more of immediate gratification.

I think this is a social trend that is going to change the fabric of society. Not sure that it is for the best. But with so many adult parents having gotten divorced I think the spell has been broken.

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "And what was it exactly? I want to know!"


It was like something out of Fanny Hill, graphic description of a woman stroking and talking to a penis and then straddling..., er, how far..."

What was she saying to it? Lol.

[Heidi]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "And what was it exactly? I want to know!"


It was like something out of Fanny Hill, graphic description of a woman stroking and talking to a penis and then straddling..., er, how far..."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks society is really changing, especially in terms of marriage. Who knows what the average family will look like in another 50 years?

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "What was she saying to it? Lol."

Sweet nothings. Baby-talk. A one-sided conversation as I recall. Nothing memorable. I fantasized a British accent.

[Mochaspresso]

"Who knows what the average family will look like in another 50 years?"


There were segments of society that believed that interracial marriages would destroy the average family. Same with same sex couples. I'm very leery of family values politics.

[Renee E]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "What was she saying to it? Lol."

Sweet nothings. Baby-talk. A one-sided conversation as I recall. Nothing memorable. I fantasized a British accent."

Did she sound like Liz Hurley? ;-)

[S.W.]

You got that right, Mocha. Bawdy, scatological and sexually explicit materials are nothing new and can be found even in our earliest literature: bestiality in Apuleius's Golden Ass, the ass kissing (and branding) in Chaucer's The Miller's Tale, Rabelais's Gargantua and Pantagruel which utilized 36 different terms for copulation (including my favorite about four butt cheeks with a king pin in between). Sappho still gets a rise out of modern readers. Apparently, bodily functions and sexual appetites have a universal and timeless appeal to readers. Has anyone read Roth's Portnoy's Complaint? There's some very disturbing content in there (don't eat the liver). Nabokov's Ada (incest) and Lolita (pedophilia) are shocking too. The "writing" in the above examples is beyond reproach but our innate attraction to taboo material seems to extend even to "poorly written" material like 50 Shades of Grey. Whether you drink high end Scotch, Dom Perignon or rotgut, they can all get you filthy drunk.

[Monty J]

Renee wrote: "Did she sound like Liz Hurley? ;-)"

Ah, yes, what a memorable entrance.

Actually, I was thinking more of a saucy Cockney brogue.

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "What was she saying to it? Lol."

Sweet nothings. Baby-talk. A one-sided conversation as I recall. Nothing memorable. I fantasized a British accent."

I'm kinda glad it was a one sided conversation. British accent, nice.

[Heidi]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "What was she saying to it? Lol."

Sweet nothings. Baby-talk. A one-sided conversation as I recall. Nothing memorable. I fantasized a British accent."


Agreed. Being in a very conservative Greek American family, I hear those sentiments often.

[Mochaspresso]

I have a question about "poor writing". Is it technically "poor" if the writing is actually in line with the established character's traits and voice? In Fifty Shades, Ana is a bit of a silly nitwit. She's an educated one, but still very much an immature, naive and silly nitwit in most other ways.

Of course there are other writing issues present...

1) sandals was spelled "sandles"

2) American characters using British "dialects" and/or phrasings

3) using the same descriptions, words and phrases over and over. References to "flushed faces" appear 117 times. "Crap" appears 88 times. "Oh my!" appears 75 times. 23 references to "long fingers" and 17 references to "burning eyes". (I didn't count. The kindle did it for me. :) References to her "inner goddess" appear 57 times in Book 1. Christian awakens it. It speaks to her regularly and even advises her. It is essentially it's own character. Every time they have sex and every time she even thinks about it, that inner goddess is there.

Regarding #3...this is the part that pertains to characterization, imo. Poor writing? Yes, but what if it is also in line with the established character?