50 Shades of Opinion

[StudentxDreams]

Hello,
I'm new here so if this is in the wrong place, or is inappropriate then please correct (or delete) it.

I am currently studying 'Professional Writing and Editing' at University and have to give a presentation where we've been given free rein to choose any topic within the very broad category of the course. At the moment I'm thinking about doing it on how some books (or tv shows/movies etc) can deliver completely polarising messages to the audience.

So my biggest focus of this, as it's a relevant, current debate between my friends, is 50 Shades of Grey.

Before I commit to this being my topic I'd like to just see what research on the topic would come up with, so I'm just posting on several different forums looking for general impressions about the book or movie.

So ideally I'd like to know.

1. Did you like the book/movie? (you can have a different answer for both if you do, that's fine)
2. Why do/don't you like it?
3. What message, if any, you took from the book/movie?
4. Do you know anyone in real life who also read/watched it and is their opinion the same or different to yours?
5. If it was different to yours, did you think their interpretation was justified, or do you feel they missed something within the text?

However, even if you just want to put 'loved it' or 'don't ask me this crap' then that's fine too.

Thanks for your time

[YesNo]

I haven't read the book. I might see the movie if it gets into the library, but I usually watch comedies. This sounds more like a drama. So I might miss it. I would be in the category of someone aware of the existence of the product, but not interested in it enough to spend much time on it. Does this book deliver a polarizing message?

[Outlandish]

I think, I can write about it, because I have been confronted by it three times. Once on ebay, by its publicity for it, just on the front page of ebay, without an search. Second it was topic of discussion in the radio and third now you post and ask about it.

Now, to your questions for your university work -
1. So far I have resisted to watch or read any of them. But no, I don't like them. Maybe I would would enjoy the book. And maybe I would like the movie, if I watched it. But I have no time at the moment, and the time I have I use elsewhere, like reading other books.
2. I hesitate to read it, because there is too much publicity for it and the book is too expensive for me. I can have more books for that price, like reading books from self-publishers and support them instead. You get a new style for your price, when you read less marketed books, and not just the marketed language you always have to read, when you are exposed to marketed language, what I call.
3. Just from judging the advertisment, if you put enough money into your project, you get the publicity. Of course, some quality has to be in there. But that you can also buy with money.
4. I heard about it through a radio discussion. And the person was a media analyst and he said that he likes the format of the movie because it is something new. Other than that, I know noone who has told me that he or she has watched the movie or read the book.
5. I have a different opionion from the radio guy in answer four, because I say, a book with less publicity could do it, as well. To me too much publicity is too much exposing yourself, that you just rely on your publicity and less on the quality of your work.

Wish you all the best.
A friend

[SilentMute]

I haven't read it either, and I don't think I'm going to see the movie because I'm not willing to call up old demons. I hope this isn't frustrating for you that people who haven't read it are responding to your topic.

When I read the reviews on Amazon, there were three basic gripes. One, people hated the repetitive language of the heroine. She used the same flattering terms too often. Then they disliked how UNLIKELY the story was...apparently the male character is extremely wealthy and handsome and talented. Now these two things didn't bother me. I don't expect an incredible vocabulary in stroke books, neither do I expect realism. Fantasies are often unrealistic.

What disturbed me more were the reviews by people who normally are into S&M saying that the relationship, even by their standards, qualifies more under abuse than S&M. Some people in that lifestyle are upset by it, because S&M people already live with a stigma...and this isn't helping.

I used to be attracted to the S&M lifestyle, though I never practiced it. However, I started realizing that my fantasies were rooted in childhood abuse that I had blocked for years. As soon as I remembered, I turned against it...and I now stay away from all topics related to it.

And I am hoping you are talking about that 50 Shades...I just remembered there is actually another book, belonging to a different genre, with a very similar title.

[Iain Sparrow]

Certainly there must be more substantial literature out there to spend your time analyzing, StudentxDreams.
Besides being poorly written, really, it makes the Twilight books seem like 'classic literature', it isn't even particularly risqué. 50 Shades of Grey is pornography for dummies. I have not read the book in full, nor will I be watching the movie, but this past Summer my youngest niece was visiting from California and she had the book with her. Curiosity got the better of me, and I read a few chapters. My niece, a straight A student was valedictorian at her high school... so nobody is immune from exploring popular literature as bad as 50 Shades.

On top of that, I have had a girlfriend or two that shall we say... were sexually outgoing, and had me tie them up, and whatnot, or switch and tie me up, and whatnot, and I'm sorry but at the end of the day the practice just isn't my cup of tea, just felt sort of silly. By nature I'm a risk taker and very liberal, so I have no qualms with alternative sex, to each their own... but I was brought up in a very hardcore working class (bluest of blue collar) families, and there are certain things and places where one does not go, and tied up spread eagle getting your *** whipped, or whipping someone's *** is one of those places.

And one more thing I'll put out there; my problem with 50 Shades of Grey isn't that it's remarkably bad prose marketed towards girls/women, it's as SilentMute mentions... the relationship between the two characters is abusive by any standard. S&M sex is about role-playing for mutual satisfaction, the dominance/submission should end outside the bedroom. I suppose from a sociology/psychology standpoint the book might be worth dissecting. No matter how "modern" we become, how far society progresses... we're still just beasts at heart, rutting about in the jungle. And perhaps that's a good thing.

[kelby_lake]

I will imminently be reading it out of morbid curiosity. To be fair, it seems to be the standard Mills and Boon set-up and those books are very popular so it's not as if it's unprecedented. A lot of their appeal is that they are by-the-numbers trash with simple gender roles. Back in the older days when women's options were more limited, romantic novels maintained the woman's inferior position but it gave them the fantasy of being able to dominate and control a man through their own natural allure. As with Fifty Shades of Grey these men are rich because that makes them a bigger challenge and again allows the reader to take comfort in the fact that money cannot buy everything/underneath the consumerist trappings of modern life, there is still passion.

The psychological abuse seems to be, as with Twilight, a misreading of the Byronic anti-hero. Heathcliff and Rochester aren't unequivocally shown as lovely men and even if they were, modern sensibilities have moved on lightyears. You can't portray an abusive relationship in a modern novel and not acknowledge any ambiguity.

Books delivering polarising messages is a bit vague; many books split people's opinion. I would probably narrow the topic down some more.

[Clopin]

I still talk to girls who swear that Heathcliff and Rochester are "hot"; though this may in part be due to film adaptations, especially considering Rochester who is repeatedly described as being very, very ugly.

As far as Heathcliff is concerned, just lol. A (female) friend of mine tried to get me to agree that, even though Heathcliff was bad, he wasn't any worse than Hindley (yeh sure) and that in general the other charactets were "just as bad"...

[kelby_lake]

I still talk to girls who swear that Heathcliff and Rochester are "hot"; though this may in part be due to film adaptaions, especially considering Rochester who is repeatedly described as being very, very ugly.

Part of their ugliness is down to their swarthiness, which in those days was a mark of villainy but the 'tall dark stranger' is now considered appealing, with people making their skin darker through tanning. Also both men are openly sexual; no tiptoeing around, they know what they want, which in those days probably made them coarse and shocking. Contrasted with other sexless characters in the novels, they stand out, hence why women find them attractive.

One of my favourite Rochesters is Orson Welles and he most definitely was not hot so casting a sexually unappealing actor is fine if they can overcome it through charisma and even makes for a more interesting performance as viewers would forgive a lot more if he was hunky. However casting someone with obvious sex appeal makes the job easier.

[Clopin]

Well Heathcliff actually is attractive; Rochester, swarthiness or not, is described as genuinely ugly in a misshapen sort of way.

[kelby_lake]

Well Heathcliff actually is attractive; Rochester, swarthiness or not, is described as genuinely ugly in a misshapen sort of way.

I thought Rochester just kind of had a rough look about him. He managed to pick up Adele's mother plus Bertha so presumably there is something attractive about him, if not his looks.

[Clopin]

He's incredibly rich. Adele's mom is sleeping around and mocks him behind his back, prompting him to fight a duel. And Blanche ****s off as soon as he disguises himself as a gypsy and tells her that Rochester (himself) is actually poor. Bertha is from some sort of South American country and seems to have been married off to him because he's a rich white guy.

He has some good qualities though, I mean, Jane likes him enough.