Criticising Fifty Shades of Grey

I've written about my general dislike of 50 Shades of Grey before. If you like porn, there's far better sources of it, for free, online.

As far as a romantic novel goes, it's based around an abusive relationship. A lot of romantic novels are - nobody could say Catherine and Heathcliffe had a healthy relationship. What's worrying in the 50 Shades universe is that this is written as an integral part of a normal BDSM sexual relationship, and indicates that being submissive sexually also means you relinquish your self-determination and self-control. Except in some reasonably extreme situations, this is not the case. Most couples who engage in BDSM activity explore it together and are careful to avoid it slipping into abuse. A full time dom/sub relationship takes an enormous amount of energy to sustain, as well as requiring trust and mutual agreement. The key word, as always, is consent, and consent is the one thing Anastasia Steel does not seem to have the right to give or withdraw. Instead, she's negged, gaslit, physically and sexually abused, and in her innocence, thinks that it is true love. There's a very good blog here detailing how Grey's actions amount to abuse. When the government see fit to televise relationship abuse awareness adverts, what sort of message is that to give young women?

Now, ethical considerations aside, it's not a very well written book. I'm not entirely sure why it became so popular - after all, erotic fiction is hardly a new publishing phenomenon - and I assume it was a slight cash-in on the link to the Twilight universe. The film comes out this weekend, and early reviews seem to indicate it's not going to be a huge critical success. This is hardly surprising - it doesn't exactly have strong source material to work with, and film-tie-ins are rarely appreciated by critics. Pretty as Jamie Dornan is, working with BBFC certificate system means the sexual content is going to be heavily censored. I'm sure the director's cut will be marginally better.

However, I've noticed a new weapon in the army of 50 Shades fans - sexism. Apparently, people don't like 50 Shades because it was written by a woman, and the film is directed by a woman. Now, I'm quite sure for some people that's true. The arts attract misogynist critics as a matter of course. As a feminist, I would argue that the fictional depiction of a disturbingly abusive relationship being widely accepted as 'true love' is more of a blow for women's rights and feminism than attacking EL James for writing it in the first place.
However, it seems unlikely that EL James was aware that her fan fic would ever reach such an enormous amount of people, that it would be so widely appreciated, or that it would be so widely criticised. Sam Taylor-Wood seems the right choice to direct (although the idea of Michael Bay directing it, with random explosions every five minutes has just doubled me up laughing), and she has had to work with a troubled production and difficult material. There's only so much you can do in adapting a book with such a legion of fans expecting it to reflect their reading experience.

This brings me to the thought that triggered this post in the first place. Is 50 Shades of Grey rubbished because a woman wrote it and women writers are universally patronised by the artistic patriarchy?
No, I don't think it is.
Women writers are regularly belittled by terms such as 'chick lit', used for the sort of everyday-woman fiction that fills the shelves. Male writers, and their endless battery of war-porn (McNab) and dead-prostitutes (Nesbo) don't seem to be subject to the same condescending disparagement (except by me, every time a new shitty Dan Brown 'thriller' comes out) But I rarely look at the gender of the writer when I'm choosing a new book, and a straw-poll on twitter suggests I'm not alone in this. A quick once-over the bookshelves shows that I own a lot more books by male writers than female, but I've actually had to LOOK. I buy most books based on blurb, not by forename.

Some of the industry disapproval of EL James will be based on the fact she's a woman writing for women, thus excluding men and making them indignant and cross. There is sexism inherent in every industry. But I think the very real concerns about the way the content of the book is presented risks being overlooked by accusations of misogyny. It's not prudish to find abuse abhorrent. It's not sexist to be concerned that this textbook example of abuse is being considered a template of a perfect relationship.

There is a lot of sneery criticism (of which I'm evidently guilty of doing) of women who enjoyed the book assuming that the only worthwhile literature is either the classics or Booker prize winners. Everyone likes different types of books, and the market caters for everyone. But the problems I have with 50 Shades of Grey go far beyond mere literary appreciation. For instance, if Lolita was rewritten from Lolita's point of view, we wouldn't be recommending it to all our female friends. There wouldn't be a much-hyped cinematic release on Valentine's Day, with Lolita and Humbert's relationship lauded as sexy perfection. Lovehoney would not be selling Lolita themed sex aids. Women would not be wishing they had a much older stepfather to groom, drug and abuse them.

It's an extreme example (and of course, Lolita gets to escape by dying at the end. Anastasia does not) but the point stands. Relationship abuse is not negated by awesome sex, even if it's written in an appealing way, or dressed up as part of BDSM culture.