“He begins to shame, really shame….”

Fifty Shades of Grey testing positive for herpes does not make it a terrible book and when you say it does you are indirectly saying that people who have herpes are terrible people.

Fifty Shades of Grey
Fifty Shades of Grey (Photo credit: ellebnere)

Last week the news broke that several public library copies of Fifty Shades of Grey were tested positive for trace amounts of herpes and cocaine. There isn’t even enough of the virus present in the books for anyone to contract it from touching them; just enough present for it to test positive.

This has inspired a large wave of ew, gross, herpes, and I guess it really IS a dirty book lol from not only the people reporting this news but, well, everyone else. So far most, if not all, of the reactions I’ve seen have had hefty doses of shaming thrown in.

I’ll admit, when I first heard it, I raised an eyebrow and thought I think I don’t want to know how those books got herpes.

But I dismissed that thought pretty quickly. The fact is, you don’t have to hump a book to give it herpes. Herpes simplex isn’t just an STI; it’s the same virus that gives you cold sores. Viral shedding can occur at any time, and in more areas than just the genitals. It may be asymptomatic. Fifty Shades of Grey getting herpes likely has little to do with the book’s content and more to do with how common herpes is and how popular the books are.

I am not an expert on herpes. I’m just someone who knows people who have it. I’m also someone who was researching STIs about 7 years before I was having sex. (Insert I’m sort of Ravenclaw even though I’m Slytherin joke here.)

The shaming reactions to this news have saddened me.

Having herpes or any other STI doesn’t make you a monster, or diseased, or dirty or unclean. It just means you contracted something. That something may have no cure as of yet (herpes, AIDS), or it may just need a trip to the doctor and a prescription to get it cleared up (syphilis). It may be easy to live with, or it may be hard. STIs are a part of life. Even, sometimes, for people who aren’t having sex. Contracting an  STI does not mean you are undeserving of love or basic human decency.

I hate Fifty Shades of Grey with an all-consuming passion, but I don’t condone the way people have been talking about this. Fifty Shades of Grey testing positive for herpes does not make it a terrible book (the fact that it’s a terrible book makes it a terrible book), and when you say it does you are indirectly saying that people who have herpes are terrible people.

Criticize Fifty Shades for its shoddy writing, for its depiction of an abusive relationship as romance, for its utter lack of plot or meaningful characterization, for its rape apologism, for its plagiarism, for its absolute lack of truthfulness in depicting BDSM and promoting of dangerous BDSM practices, for its message of “EWWWWW, POOR PEOPLE”. Those are all fair criticisms.

Criticizing the book because library copies happened to test positive for herpes is not fair, and has nothing to do with the book itself. Herpes was also found on Tango by Pieter Aspe, and yet you don’t hear people making shaming comments about that. Somehow, because Fifty Shades is about a subject many people find taboo, it’s fair game?

No. It’s not. Stop shaming folks who read erotica, period, and stop with the sex-negative, STI-shaming surrounding this news story. It’s boring. As boring as the sex scenes in Fifty Shades of Grey.

The “Just Don’t Read it if You Don’t Like it” fallacy and other arguments that lack critical thinking

Literary criticism is a good thing.

Let’s just get that out of the way right now.

We need to be able to criticize literature. We need to be able to discuss fiction. We need the freedom to do that in various ways, including fanfic.

We need to adjust our thinking to accept that you can enjoy a work and still find it problematic. We need to see that the world is not black and white, 1-star and 5-star reviews.

Something I’ve noticed a lot of people saying in response to criticisms of books is “If you don’t like it, then don’t read it!”

This is a fallacy, and it’s completely nonsensical — how can you know if you like something or not if you haven’t read it? Furthermore, it doesn’t leave room for people who do like something but find it problematic.

For example, I’ll always have a soft spot in my heart for certain Anne McCaffrey books, including the Stockholm-Syndrome-tastic Freedom’s Landing. I’m not going to gloss over the massive problems in that book — only weak women get raped, race A good/race B bad, it’s totally cool to marry the dude who tried to rape you because he’s totes changed! — just because I have a fond memory of the 20 times I read it when I was 10.

Honestly I doubt I’d enjoy it as much if I reread it now, but I’m not going to. In my memory, I really liked that book. It was also incredibly problematic (as is a lot of McCaffrey’s stuff).

Yet when people criticize Fifty Shades of Grey and the romanticized abusive relationship within its pages, fans of the book (or even people who aren’t fans) will come out of the woodwork to screech “WELL JUST LEAVE HER ALONE, JEEZ, SHE WROTE THIS FOR SCHOOL AND DOESN’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK ANYWAY!”

It’s the FanFiction.net culture around reviews and criticism, blown up to global proportions.

Look. If you write a book and publish it, you have to be ready for criticism. If you write fanfic and publish it online, you have to be ready for criticism. That is what happens when you put your work out there: people criticize it.

And some people will be downright mean when they do so! They will insult you and your taste in music! They may even write spitefic, or fix the plot continuum by getting rid of your author self-insert character that’s fucking everything up!

This is not silencing*. It is part of literary culture.

Another argument I see quite often is “You’re just jealous of [insert author’s] success!”

Ha ha, no. Seriously, what the fuck.

Dear people who make this argument: please go to your nearest university and find an English major. Tell them they only chose English as their major because they are jealous of the success of all the writers ever.

Their reaction will be anywhere between hysterical laughter and slowly backing away with fear in their eyes. Because you will sound crazytown bananapants.

Criticizing EL James or Anne McCaffrey or whatshisfuck who wrote 13 Reasons Why I’m A Mansplaining Dudebro does not mean I am jealous of their success. It means their books are deserving of criticism, and as a reader who also likes to use zir brain I am going to do said criticizing.

All books are deserving of criticism. If you think your favourite book ever is somehow exempt from being criticised, you are living in a fantasy world. Which usually I’d applaud, but in this case you need to wake the fuck up to reality. This is the reality of literature: criticism happens, and it needs to.

And, you know, I get it. I get the feeling of a knife being driven into your heart when you read someone’s vicious, cutting review of a book you like. When you’re a fan of something it is really hard to accept that other people might hate the things you like. Wars have been started over less.

I mean, look what happens to our favourite community college study group when one member doesn’t like a certain band:

This is what happens with fandom. This is why certain fandoms have long-standing beefs with each other, too (because apparently there can only ever be one science-fiction thing ever).

But it’s silly and counterproductive. You can love both Star Trek and Star Wars and at the same time think that Star Trek is actually a better creation. You can love Whedonverse stuff while still acknowledging that most of it is nowhere near as feminist as people claim and that he’s not the greatest writer that ever lived. You can love Twilight and acknowledge that it’s super problematic because Edward is pretty damn abusive.

You can have more than black-and-white thinking. Which is exactly where the “If you don’t like it, don’t read it!” and “You’re just jealous of so-and-so’s success!” arguments come from. You just need to remember to take a step back, breathe, and remind yourself that people can hate the things you love. And if you really think they’ve got a certain aspect of a book wrong, you can tell them so. You can engage in arguments about it because that is also a part of literary culture, that is also a part of literary criticism.

But telling them to shut up and go away because they’re stupid and they don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re just jealous! OMG!!!!1111oneoneeleven? That’s not. That’s just screaming at the darkness, trying desperately to prove you exist. We get it. You exist. You are also stuck in a black-and-white, 1-star-and-5-star-review dichotomy. Good job.

When it comes to literary criticism, stop with the “If you don’t like it, don’t read it!” argument. It’s not even an argument. It’s the equivalent of a kindergartener screaming to the teacher that another kid pushed him.

There is no rule anywhere that says we must all be nice to authors. There is no rule anywhere that says we can’t criticize fiction, or that it must always be constructive. Sure, it’s nicer to do constructive criticism, but there’s no rule that says literary criticism must be nice. There is no rule anywhere dictating how authors should respond to said criticism or that they should at all. There’s no rule saying authors must read all criticism of their work (in fact, it’s probably better for their mental health if they don’t, but again — there’s no rule saying they shouldn’t, either).

The only thing that comes close to being a rule about literary criticism is that if a book has been published, it’s open to criticism. If fanfic has been published, it’s open to criticism. And that is not so much a rule as just a fact. of. life.

Embrace the shades of grey.** Nothing in life is black and white.

Except zebras. And dalmatians.

Ok some things are black and white. My point still stands.

-Kat

*I disagree vehemently with the idea that things like Protectors of the Plot Continuum or other criticisms of Mary Sues in fic exist as ways to “silence” women authors. If a fanfic writer fucks up the plot of a book and makes all the characters go OOC because s/he wants to bone the main character or out-power the main character or both and s/he does it terribly, criticism of that story is well and fair. Hell, criticism is well and fair no matter if the story is done terribly or excellently and you don’t even care that there’s a Mary Sue cause it’s such an awesome story. If criticism is silencing, then all English departments should be shut down, because they’re silencing authors too.

**Yes, I do find it hilarious that a lot of people who are caught up in this black-and-white thinking are also major fans of Fifty Shades of Grey. And by “hilarious”, I mean I just drank all the scotch.

It’s Not the BDSM

[content warning: description of: domestic violence, abuse, using BDSM as an excuse for abuse, rape]

Some of you may be aware that I have a deep and abiding loathing for the Fifty Shades of Grey Trilogy.

At first, I was just pissed off that it existed — it was plagiarized from another book series (that is badly written and glorifies abusive relationships, with a fanbase that largely seems, well, pretty offbase most of the time) and yet this seemed ample reason to reward IceQueenSnowDragonFairyFartPrincess — sorry, EL James — with a publishing contract. Oh, and scores and scores of cash.

Then I was pissed off at how badly written it was. I mean, dear gods, if people are going to make an author rich for a plagiarized piece of work could it at least be well-written? Apparently that’s too much to ask. The series is terrible. It is worse than the source material, Twilight, and that really is saying something.

Then, I got pissed off at the combo-deal of crap: not only is the BDSM in the books completely wrong and downright dangerous, the relationship is actually incredibly abusive. And often, Christian uses his “domness” or whatever as an excuse to abuse Ana.

For a while, folks have been calling out the series for its blatant glorification of abuse. And for a long while, there was no response from EL James. Perhaps she was clueless, we thought. Perhaps she just doesn’t know, and once she hears about it, she’ll think about it. Apologize. Say that the books are just a fantasy, and that they shouldn’t be taken as a manual on How to Do Relationships.

Then she said this:

“Nothing freaks me out more than people who say this is about domestic abuse. […] Bringing up my book in this context trivializes the issues, doing women who actually go through it a huge disservice. It also demonizes loads of women who enjoy this lifestyle, and ignores the many, many women who tell me they’ve found the books sexually empowering.”

Quote source. (Be warned, the page plays two mis-timed video ads that are incredibly annoying.)

There went that theory.

Jenny Trout has already done an amazing takedown on her blog, but I feel I must add my voice to the conversation.

Especially as, since we took to Twitter and started asking EL James about her statement, she blocked anyone who said anything about 50 Shades being abuse, and called us all trolls and witches.

Mature.

So, here’s my response to you, EL James. Please note how civil I’m being, even though I hate you with every fibre of my being and hope that Artemis turns you into a stag.

(After the cut, I go into detail about abuse and rape. I put in a read more tag so that you can skip this if you want.)

Continue reading “It’s Not the BDSM”

EL James’ Fifty Shades of Grey shortlisted for UK’s National Book Award; world cries tears of blood

Trigger warning: Fifty Shades of Grey is the romanticization of an abusive, rapey fucknozzle named Christian Grey, and I’m ranting about this shit.

I try to be fair. I try to leave room for people whose kink is not my kink, and that’s okay. I’m, overall, not a huge fan of erotic romance, and even within erotic romance I’m not a huge fan of BDSM. This isn’t squeamishness on my part — I’m kinky myself — it’s just that most of the offerings I’ve read within BDSM erotica have not been to my tastes.  (As Katje outs zirself publicly, on zir blog. Only good can come from this.)

Regardless, I think people should have the right to get off to what they want, no matter how fucked up it is.

My stance does have some hard limits, however. (I’m not sold on being all YKINMK for, say, Gor.)

It is not okay to glorify rape and abuse. That is exactly what the 50 Shades trilogy has done — aside from it not even really being BDSM erotica. I’ve had vanilla sex that’s kinkier than some of the shit Christian and Ana get up to.

Do you not believe me? Do I have to point out the recaps, once again? Go. Go read Jennifer Armintrout’s absolute brilliance, and then come back once you’re finished.

If you didn’t read the recaps (shame), here’s the gist of what I’m getting at:

  • Fifty Shades is terribly fucking written.
  • Christian Grey is an abusive rapey fucknozzle who basically just mentally tortures Ana and emotionally manipulates her into doing what he wants.
  • They are both horrible people and I want them to die. I realize they’re fictional. Don’t ruin my dream.
  • Christian threatens to rape Ana in the first book. Then in the second book, he actually does.
  • EL James is not a good enough writer to be subtly making the point that this is bad, mmm’kay. She’s just not. She’s a terrible, clumsy writer. She is worse than Meyer. It’s very obvious that, in James’ POV, 50 Shades and Christian Grey are a hot fantasy — and that is what these books are popular as. This makes me weep for humanity.
  • If you don’t research America before setting your “novel” there, you’re going to have a bad time.

This video is pretty much a wholly accurate depiction of Christian Grey’s true nature.

And so the Specsavers National Book Awards see fit to reward that kind of bullshit by shortlisting the Fifty Shades trilogy?

If I needed absolute proof that the world was not going to hell in a handbasket but that we were already there, and the basket full of demonic bunny eggs didn’t tip me off, this is it.

Full disclosure time. I don’t talk much about the times I’ve been raped. Not publicly, at least. But I think it’s time to talk about the second time. Because it’s relevant to this discussion.

There is a sex scene in Fifty Shades Darker that is almost exactly like what I went through the second time I was raped. Almost verbatim. Change some names, and some circumstances, and you’ve got what my ex did to me in June, 2010 while he was visiting me during my mother’s cancer surgery. 

I’m not going to describe it; it’s in one of the recaps posts, and Jennifer Armintrout does call it out as rape, so if you want to go find it you know where to look now. The day I read that post I had to do some serious self-care to get through the day. (This is not Jennifer Armintrout’s fault; there’s no way she can know what is specifically triggering to folks in a book series that is just scene after scene of rapey abuse, and I know what I signed up for when I started reading the recaps.)

Glorifying rapist characters as a way to create romance is totally deserving of an award! That’s why True Blood has won so many Emmys for “Best Rapey Vamps”. I mean, I sure want to see more of that sort of thing. Maybe next time there can be a bunch of not-subtle-at-all anxieties regarding BDSM and seeing the practice of it as sick and wrong and therefore the characters who practice it as sick and wrong, so it can be EVEN MORE like my relationship with my ex-boyfriend.

Oh wait.

Even if the series didn’t glorify a rapey abusive douchefuck, it’s terribly written. It’s honestly probably the worst writing I’ve ever read. And it’s plagiarism. There is an 89% similarity rating between Fifty Shades and the  Twilight fanfic it was “extensively reworked” from, Master of the Universe. Eighty. Nine. Per cent.

That would be enough to get you kicked out of college, but out here in the real world we give you a goddamn publishing contract and slap your name on the shortlist for a fucking medal.

In conclusion, if Fifty Shades wins the National Book Awards, I think the only reasonable reaction would be to nuke the UK from orbit. Even if it meant no more Doctor Who.

“I’m willing to die for my cause. What are you willing to give up for yours?”

So much more.

13 reasons this book made me homicidal: a review of Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher

Cover of "Thirteen Reasons Why"
Cover of Thirteen Reasons Why

I picked up Thirteen Reasons Why recently because it was on my list of “to read” and it had received much critical acclaim. Also it was one of two books I’d brought with me while traveling (not including the two I read on mom’s Kindle). I figured it might be okay, at least.

Allow me to give you 13 reasons I dislike it. And by “dislike”, I mean “hate psychotically.”

[TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE AND ASSAULT]

[SPOILERS]

1. Support of the “Well, she didn’t technically say ‘no’ so it’s not technically rape, right?” trope. The character who gets raped [I’m talking about Hannah; the other character who gets raped is tossed aside like a piece of garbage, her views never explored] is herself unsure if it was rape or no, which is very common because we all get taught that we’re dirty and naughty unless we shout no! in a loud voice — but we’re trained from an early age to never say no, because then the menfolk might get violent. That’s not what I have issue with; I have issue with the book itself seeming unsure regarding the conclusion. If the character who’d been raped could not unequivocally call it that, then another character who knew about it (there were three) should have been clear. Without that clarity it seems the author is saying he agrees that it’s “grey-area rape”. Anything short of enthusiastic consent is rape. Not saying no does not equal consent. The fact that the character was crying and clenching her teeth just to get through it should have alerted the others who knew about the situation that it was rape. Instead, we get vague hand-waving of “well maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t,” and this is wholly irresponsible of the author and holds up standards of misogyny and rape culture.

2. The structure of the book is highly manipulative. The reader is lead on a very deliberate route, leaving no leeway for interpretation. Asher has a conclusion that he wants you to reach and he makes sure you reach it. This leaves you feeling used and abused once the book is done.

3. Horrible characterization: there is no sympathy for Hannah Baker. She’s badly written. Hannah is portrayed as cold, calculating, selfish and childish. Suicidal people get portrayed as selfish all the time, so this is an old, tired, trope. Instead, you feel sympathy for Clay Jensen, who is a basically good guy [even thought he’s been raised steeped in patriarchal rape culture but that’s not really his fault and despite it he seems to turn out okay, at least] who is in love with Hannah. He had no idea how deeply disturbed she was, and feels she didn’t really give him a chance to help her. The added blow of giving him the tapes will give him guilt and anger towards her, which is unfair and childish: suicidal people usually don’t plan big manipulation games like this. We’re too lost in our own pain to even fucking care about how our deaths are going to affect others — and no, that’s not being selfish, that’s called having bodily autonomy. Also, if you can’t understand what it’s like to just want to die because you’re in so much pain, shut the fuck up about suicidal people being selfish. You have no idea.

The attitude of Hannah, the whole “I’ll just kill myself and THEN won’t they be sorry!” makes her look like a spoiled child, and not someone who’s truly in a lot of pain.
Continue reading “13 reasons this book made me homicidal: a review of Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher”