Literary criticism is a legitimate intellectual pursuit. Cultural criticism is as well.

[kickitup]

There are entire academic departments built around these studies and there are scholarly journals that publish related findings. Examining sexual practices is also something that thinking people are allowed to do. Seeing if those sexual practices reflect cultural ideology is also okay.

Thinking and speculating about such things does not equate with being a member of the morality police. Criticizing a book does not equate with wanting to ban it. Wondering if rape fantasies are the healthiest of things for women to think about does not mean one thinks women who have such fantasies are immoral or in need of therapy OR that they shouldn't engage in acting them out.

Just fuckin' sayin'.

[Squinch]

1. Kicking and wishing I could kick it a thousand times. But don't hold your breath. The stupid

around here is strong.

Welcome to DU. Boy, do we ever need you.

[brooklynite]

2. You want literary criticism? Here you go

The characters are paper-thin, the plot is completely implausible, nothing in the writing coveys time place or emotion, and the email-as-dialogue device gets dull about 3 chapters in. I read the first edition, started the second, and decided I didn't want to go any further.

That said, I have no issue whatsoever with the underlying theme or subject matter. This started out as one woman's personal fantasy writing, which she discovered there was a commercial market for.

Now, compare that with the hundreds of posts (an alarming number of which are posted by people who HAVEN'T read the book) that focus on the morality of "glorifying rape" or BDSM is just a playground for the 1% or the psychology of couple abuse. Sometimes moralizing is still moralizing.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Exactly...

I haven't read it, and even with all these threads, still aren't tempted to read it. I just wish people would move on to something I have read and watched, which is Game of Thrones. Or if things get really desperate, even resort to talking about politics...

[KittyWampus]

8. Saying or acting as if sadism is normative behavior is itself a moral judgement of its own.

Please note- I have a degree in art criticism, haven't read the book and the statement made about portraying something as normative is not meant as critique of said novel. It's a simple statement of fact with no further value judgement implied.

[Squinch]

9. So you don't have a problem with it, and someone else does. So what is your point?

You have an opinion, someone else has a different opinion. I don't see why you need to characterize it as moralizing, and I am pretty sure you don't realize that you, too, are moralizing, but have at it. But what is your point?

[mainer]

11. Yep. The people criticizing most loudly are those who refuse to read it.

That's what makes it obvious it's the ANTI-intellectuals who are demanding we discuss it. They won't even look at the source material they're attacking.

Those who've actually read it just shrug their shoulders and agree, "It's badly written, it's stupid, it's a waste of money, but who cares? Whatever floats your boat."

[CBGLuthier]

15. I am an anti intellectual? OMFG.

And I suppose by default you are an intellectual?

[mainer]

24. Arguing on the basis of ignorance is pretty much anti-intellectual

So if you are arguing on the basis of ignorance, you are.

[joeglow3]

70. I read the first and second books (and half the third).

I agree with what the critics are saying. I think it is sad how it normalizes violence against women.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. I now have it on the kindle.

So I will finally know what kind of a hubbub this is.

I am at a loss, so figured if there is so much heat... I need to know WHY.

[mainer]

104. Give it a few chapters before you throw it against the wall.

The writing is that bad. But at least you'll know what everyone's talking about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Just finished chapter number one

and I will say this, the writing is bad, the theme... on power is intriguing.

Of course, driving from Vancouver to Seattle and not crossing the border has me baffled, but...

[Louisiana1976]

109. lol--That would baffle me, too.

[pnwmom]

127. Vancouver, WA requires no border passing. n/t

[Scootaloo]

139. It's from Vancouver, WA, to Seattle.

Which sounds normal, but... she somehow drives through Portland to get there.

The Author seems to have just looked up "major cities of the northwest' and glued them together.

Wait until you get to the fake ZIP codes.

[pnwmom]

125. You have it backwards. Some of us refuse to read the whole thing (beyond the free stuff on the web)

BECAUSE of our reactions to what we DID read.

It wasn't just badly written. It glamorized the abusive treatment of a woman; a woman who was attracted to a man's wealth and power and hoped she could reform him. Why should anyone have to read the whole book to know that this theme is demeaning to women and possibly even dangerous? No woman should get hooked up with an admittedly violent, sick man (as he portrayed himself) in the hopes that she can fix him. That's a good way to end up dead.

[mainer]

128. Not only have they not read a single chapter, they make up stuff about it.

All they've read are what other people have said about it. And they claim there are incidents in the book that don't actually exist.

I've read the book (because I'm in the book business and had to know what the controversy was). The sex was consensual. The heroine signed a contract agreeing to it all, and clearly enjoyed the acts. Everyone who's actually read the book here at DU agrees it was consensual. The only rape was one that occurred in the past, and was actually done to the male character.

No one is saying the writing itself has any merit. It was a stupid, appallingly written book. But that doesn't excuse people who fabricate things about the story, and then argue based on that fabrication.

[pnwmom]

129. The contract was signed AFTER some non-consensual acts had already occurred.

Your definition of consensual is very different from mine.

[NanceGreggs]

140. And this would be important exactly why?

It's a BOOK. It is not real life. Is it really important to look into the legal implications of when a written contract was executed, or whether a verbal agreement had been reached at an earlier stage?

Really? This is what the argument is down to: a discussion as to whether a totally fictional character in a rather silly erotic potboiler had actually given "consent" in one chapter as opposed to another?

[pnwmom]

141. The issue to many is whether this book is glamorizing sexual assault.

So there is an issue as to whether, in the book, consent was given or not.

People who oppose sexual assault have every right to speak out against those who would glamorize it in books and movies, and profit from it.

[NanceGreggs]

142. So if someone pointed out to you ...

... that "consent was given" from the beginning, that would change your mind completely about this book? You would immediately change your view, and agree that it was NOT glamourizing sexual assault?

Because that's what you're saying. You are saying that whether this book is about glamoirizing sexual assault or about two consenting adults indulging in a mutually-acceptable sexual relationship ALL hinges on whether "consent" was given and when.

If only the author had thought to introduce the depiction of a legally-binding contract between Christian and Ana in an earlier chapter, all of you who are railing against this book, and the relationship it depicts, would have had nothing to say against it.

[pnwmom]

143. It isn't true. There wasn't consent in the beginning. He was stalking her,

and she wasn't thrilled (except with his money and his helicopter). And when he finally made it clear that he was into BDSM, she sent him an email calling their relationship off. Then he turned up at her apartment, even though she had apparently dumped him. Afterwards, she told him she'd just been joking, but he didn't know that when he ignored her email and turned up in her bedroom.

I am saying that the question of consent is critical to deciding whether it was sexual activity or sexual assault. And that he forced himself on her without her consent.

[NanceGreggs]

144. As I said ...

"If only the author had thought to introduce the depiction of a legally-binding contract between Christian and Ana in an earlier chapter, all of you who are railing against this book, and the relationship it depicts, would have had nothing to say against it."

I've got that right? If Ana had said "I fully consent to everything you want to do" the first time she met Christian, you would have absolutely nothing against this book?

[pnwmom]

145. No. A contract like that is not legally binding. Legally, a person can withdraw consent at any time.

Last edited Tue Jul 29, 2014, 04:48 AM - Edit history (2)

She never signed the contract - not in the first book, anyway. But whether or not there is a written contract or any other agreement, verbal or written, a person who is involved in sexual activity can withdraw his or her consent at any time. And if the other person continues, then s/he is guilty of sexual assault.

You do know that, don't you?

http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2012/07/50-shades-of-grey-contract-for-sex-wouldnt-hold-up-in-real-life.html

[NanceGreggs]

150. Not for nuthin' ...

... but these discussions about "50 Shades" have devolved into absolute lunacy.

The idea of arguing the legal ramifications of a FICTIONAL contract, verbal or otherwise, between two FICTIONAL CHARACTERS engaged in a FICTIONAL RELATIONSHIP confined to the pages of a FICTIONAL BOOK - it's lunacy.

The book is what it is, it says what it says, it's about what it's about.. And yet there are people here who are under the delusion that if a legal agreement was reached between the two FICTIONAL characters or not will somehow change - well, something. I'm still not sure what.

I'm pretty certain that those who bought the book and will see the movie were not drawn to either on the basis of wanting to assess the legalities involved.

[pnwmom]

151. You assume works of fiction have no affect on people's attitudes. I don't.

I think they both reflect society and influence society.

For example, I think shows like Will and Grace, and Ellen, helped to influence the minds of a generation of young people -- for the better.

But other shows, books, and even video games can influence them for the worse. Just as advertising influences people -- on purpose -- other forms of media can, too.

[NanceGreggs]

152. I don't disagree ...

... that works of fiction can influence society. But there are limits on how much influence they can, and do, exert.

No doubt Will & Grace influenced a lot of people in terms of seeing gay men as "just folks" like everyone else - men with goals, foibles, flaws, dreams, just like straight men. The popularity of the show, however, did not lead to straight men wanting to "become" gay.

"50 Shades" is not going to unleash an epidemic of men wanting to become dominant masters, or women suddenly wanting to be submissive sex slaves. People who are turned on by BDSM will continue to be; those not into it will not be suddenly persuaded that they should be. Many find the whole idea of BDSM abhorrent - a book and movie aren't going to change their minds about that.

A person's sexual propensities do not change because they have read a book, or watched a movie. A gay man is not going to be turned straight by reading books about being straight; a heterosexual woman is not going to be turned gay by seeing a movie about lesbians. In the same vein, a book about a BDSM relationship is not going to lure anyone into a lifestyle that doesn't appeal to them.

There have been thousands upon thousands of erotic books published and movies made that cater to all kinds of "kinky" sexual practices. They have not influenced society in any way. This book and film are no different.

Do you remember a spate of older men/adolescent girls relationships after the release of "Lolita"? How about a rash of dom/sub relationships after "9 1/2 Weeks" hit the theatres? And yet, both of those books/films were popular reading/viewing in their time.

As I've said, the scrutiny of "50 Shades" in terms of whether the fictional characters were engaging in consensual sex or not is of no import. It is a book; it is fiction - and, as such, the "legalities" of what transpires within its pages are of no consequence whatsoever.

"50 Shades" is an incredibly badly-written novel that has been slickly marketed, and the controversy surrounding the subject matter is the best publicity the author/producers could hope for. But in the end, it's just another book/film that will be long-forgotten before the DVDs hit the bargain bin at your local store.

To believe that this book, or the film it is based upon, will "influence" society in any way is just madness. There have been countless books and films on the same topic - much better written books, to be sure - and yet society has not been changed by any of them.

[pnwmom]

163. No, but to disagree with you is "lunacy" and "madness."

Right.



I never said legions of people will now become practitioners of BDSM. But I do think that this book reflects and promotes a very negative and demeaning view of women. You disagree. But I'm not saying your opinion is crazy, because that would be rude.

[NanceGreggs]

169. I didn't say ...

... that disagreeing with me is lunacy. What I did say is that arguing the legal ramifications of a FICTIONAL contract between FICTIONAL CHARACTERS engaged in a FICTIONAL RELATIONSHIP is lunacy. And it is.

"This book reflects and promotes a very negative and demeaning view of women."

Some people see it that way; others see it as a sexual fantasy and nothing more. Eye of the beholder, and all that.

But it "promotes" nothing. It is poorly written erotica being marketed to a particular audience in order to make money. To give it any more weight than that is short-sighted at best.

This is not a book that will be studied for years as important literature. This is not a film that will garner Oscar nominations or Sundance consideration. It is a piece of fluff that will be forgotten in due course. So why so many people have their hair on fire over it is beyond reason.

[kickitup]

168. I agree with you completely.

[pnwmom]

126. Do you have to read a whole Ayn Rand novel to know you oppose her philosophy?

[Scootaloo]

138. I've read it

I have an issue with the normalization, even advocacy of abusive relationships that the book presents. i take issue with the way it presents people who like kinky sex as loveless, damaged monsters who need to be "fixed." I dislike the way it tells readers, "settle for what you can get no matter how much you hate it, else you'll become a lonely cat lady." That being trapped by a violent stalker powerful enough to twist law into his favor is something to regard as "desirable" is another issue I have with this.

It's a psychological horror disguised as a steamy romance.

[one_voice]

30. Good review...

I did read all three...I'm one of those people that has to know how it ends. Doesn't matter if it's an awful book or an awful movie, I have to know the ending.

[nolabear]

42. I bailed after the first one. PM me with the ending. Btw I agree with the OP.

The real pain inflicted was on my writing sensibilities. OY. But if we banned every book that explored "forbidden" territory we'd miss out on a lot of interesting thought. Not in THAT book, but (and I open myself up for flames here) Lolita is magnificent. MUST I say now that I don't condone child molestation? *sigh*

[one_voice]

55. Here's what's bothering me..

Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't know what rape people are going on about. So far the only thing I've seen is it happens in chapter 12 (that's where others have said the rape of Ana occurs). I pulled the book back up on my kindle and re-read chapter 12, again not seeing the rape.

However there is a rape--not depicted in the book--but talked about and that is of Christian Grey when he was 15, he was the submissive for a much older woman. I've not seen anyone comment on that.

That storyline is talked about more in the other books as well. I cannot remember if it's the 2nd or 3rd book but the woman that did that to Christian comes back on the scene.

I've never read Lolita.

I do read a wide range of genres, though.


edited the first line for clarity.

[joeglow3]

73. Define rape

Sounds to me like you believe there is "rape" rape and then just rape.

[nolabear]

118. No, but there is book rape and real rape.

That's what makes it fantasy. If fantasy was prohibited we'd have no books, films, music, art, etc. I am NOT pro rape. I do acknowledge that the fantasy of doing things one secretly wants to do because one is being acted upon and not acting is a strong one, in all kinds of ways.

[joeglow3]

122. Wow, those goal posts moved fast

I NEVER questioned the difference between a rape in a book and a rape in real life. I said what is in the book is rape and if it played out in real life, it would also be rape.

I agree people can read whatever they want, but this clearly normalizes rape.

[nolabear]

132. I'm curious about "normalizes." Should bad things not be mentioned?

For fear of normalizing them? I do know there have been instances of hysterical imitation of things fictional characters do. It's the "Young Werther" effect, from a book written in I believe the mid 1800s whose emo protagonist commits suicide, and apparently young people copied. But that's not normalizing. It's hysteria. More likely normalizing would be something like making smoking and drinking ubiquitous.

[joeglow3]

137. No

Normalizing would be a book claiming smoking and drinking are a fountain of youth.

The scenes in FSOG are bad enough on their own. However, the story as a whole has a man abusing and raping a woman and all she has to do is endure it and love him hard enough. If she does that, he will change into the perfect, rich man and all ends up great. It normalizes abusive behavior and sells the pile of shit that the Anastasias of the world don't end up running in the middle of the night, kids in tow, in fear that her Mr Grey is going to catch her and beat her to death.

[one_voice]

130. Well if that's what it sounds like..

then you don't 'hear' too well.

That's a pretty shitty accusation to make.

[nolabear]

117. I was beginning to think I'd blanked on it. I didn't recall one either.

Fictional characters have a built-in problem of being there only to make a point, so I think it's possible to project anything into them (well, I don't think I could project rocket scientist into that little twit Anastasia). Heck, without something bad happening to characters there's no plot.

I'd be interested in seeing what people who haven't read the book(s) would think if they did, and Whatsisface's troubles and damaged character are laid out there for everyone to see.

[pnwmom]

124. What is wrong with discussing the issue of rape in posts on 50 Shades?

[brooklynite]

131. The fact that it's not what the book is about?

[pnwmom]

133. Oh, is that a FACT? Or is that a claim that is worthy of a debate?

[brooklynite]

134. Having READ the book, it's a FACT that...

....the book and its sequels are about a BDSM power-exchange relationship that is consensual among the characters.

[pnwmom]

135. Many feminists disagree that the relationship is consensual, despite

the existence of the so-called contract. And that contract was only signed after a number of non-consensual forceful actions on his part.

I have also read comments from a number of BDSM people here who said the contract did not make all the individual actions consensual.

http://takingbackfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/fifty-shades-of-wrong-part-three-dangerous-insane-and-nonconsensual-feed/

[JVS]

3. That's not really what's going on here.

Criticism has several definitions. The academic fields you are talking about engage in 5 and 6. Newspaper's and popular magazines usually do 3 and 4. DU does 1 and 2. Maybe on a really good day DU might do 3, but usually we just have moralistic fulminations

1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.
2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.
3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.
4. a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.
5. any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.:
historical criticism; literary criticism.
6. investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, especially Biblical ones:
textual criticism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criticism

[KittyWampus]

5. As someone who actually has a degree in Art Criticism- making these distinctions is being pedantic.

Critiquing is often about finding weak spots and lauding high points.

Furthermore, regarding the novel so many feel inclined to opine on- if it has to do with sadism and portrays it as normative behavior, that in itself is a sort of "moral judgement".

[mainer]

28. Would you critique a piece of art without ever having seen it?

but just based on what you've "heard" about it?

[LanternWaste]

174. No one has trivialized or minimized the critiques of Palin's soon-to-be programming...

No one has trivialized or minimized the critiques of Palin's soon-to-be programming...

[The Straight Story]

4. I think it is the conclusions reached though that people have issues with, not the reviews

If you read Dragonlance and tell me that Raistlin is x/y/z and the series sucks I would probably take issue with your conclusion (although it is not great writing it is a fun series to read, especially if you play D&D/etc).

So far I am not sure what conclusions people are drawing - they are just saying they think it depicts rape in a good light (at least that is one thing it appears is being said).

I see that as overly simplistic; one could argue there is more rape in Gone With the Wind (see here: http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/141169/is_50_shades_of_grey though it does not use the word 'more', the comments are interesting as well and worth the read)

And it is not the speculating about what happens in the book (and that seems to be something not all agree on) that people are having the issues with when it comes to the term 'Morality Police'. It is what is being inferred but not really said - the question becomes, 'okay, so this book has a rape scene' why is that important to the discussion (and what really is it that people are trying to discuss, that does not always seem clear).

One might say it 'glorifies rape', which is an opinion which it does not seem many share. So if you think the book does, and many women like the book and it is a bestseller....well, what. Do they want people to not read it? Do they think that people reading have their own rape fantasies and should be educated so that they have different, more approved, fantasies? Is it that they think women just can't possibly like something like this unless there is an underlying problem they are ignorant about so those women all have issues that need addressed?

[el_bryanto]

14. People do consume media uncritically a lot of the time

I can't speak for anybody else, but encouraging people to read and consume media with an awareness of how it works and what messages it might contain is probably a win.

Let's be honest - I watch movies that are pretty racist - I'm a fan of 1940s movies, and its sort of comes with the territory. I still enjoy those movies for their strengths, but I'm also aware and critical of the racist world view that often creeps in. I think something similar here would be beneficial.

Bryant

[The Straight Story]

17. I can respect that

from a larger societal point of view. I think the case we have here is more of a personal and sexual nature and may well appear to be questioning of the motivation of people 'liking' what they read.

The societal question becomes why do people like this sort of thing, and the answer is generally a deeply personal one relating to sexual pleasure -- and, as I have noted over the years, the sub in a relationship is the one with the real power. They can choose to quit, who they want to do this with, etc.

If the goal is to, by such criticisms, educate women about what they should and should not have fantasies about...well I don't know what to say about that. It has been said this reminds people of the whole SI cover blow up some time ago, which was also about women who made modeling choices and other people trying to tell them that their choices were poor and only hurt other women. I read through the twitter pages of those models and it was something they were excited about and proud of as far a career achievement in their chose field.

I'll leave it up to those who read it to decide if they have any societal or moral misgivings with their own desires and joys.

[el_bryanto]

18. It is true that discussing these issues, along with the swimsuit issue issue, might cause some

discomfort. But I still think it's worth it to look at such things critically - while I don't believe that BDSM relationships are all abusive, I do believe that abusive relationships exist - and those relationships quitting may not be as easy as you suggestion.

Bryant

[kickitup]

170. Perhaps the goal is to just examine "rape fantasy" to find out what they mean or why we have them

without wanting to "educate" women or change women at all. Is that really so hard of a concept to understand? Perhaps there is a woman (perhaps like me) who has fantasized about rape a time or two and she is simply trying to understand where that fantasy is coming from and what it means. Going further, perhaps if she discovers what it means or why she may have them, then she is more accepting of herself AND said fantasies.

I made it very clear in my OP that pondering such things as rape fantasies does not equate with casting judgment on a woman who has them. The fact that you still doubt that is what is truly going on in this case, points to your own inability to be objective.

And so what if one questions the motivation of people "liking" what they read? So what? That's not passing a judgment on them. I may wonder why people like scary movies, but that doesn't mean I'm judging them. I like them too . . . but I can wonder like that. And there's nothing wrong with it.

[AngryAmish]

6. You do not believe that is what is going on.

The two great pleasures humans have is arguing and bossing other people around. This fsog thing provides both to people on both sides of the issue.

And those of us who have figured that out are laughing at the rest of you.

[Squinch]

10. Oh, good. Why don't you tell the poster what they DO believe now. I'm sure they are dying to know.

[LanternWaste]

40. I imagine the same agenda was found in those who giggled and laughed about the 2011 production of At

I imagine the same agenda was found in those who giggled and laughed about the 2011 production of Atlas Shrugged, too....

But sure... we all like to pretend we know that we've got others figured out from time to time. It helps us appear more clever than we really are.

[BainsBane]

12. I have noticed that the more thoughtful and analytical the post

The more people seem to be pissed off. Your posts stood out in that regard.

Someone exclaimed with great incredulity that anyone would write an article about "fictional characters." One wonders if some have ever set foot in a college or high-school literature class.

[DirkGently]

35. You can't "analyze" something you haven't read though, right?

Are you actually arguing that you can perform "literary criticism" of a piece of literature you have not read?

When you read a movie review, if you found out the reviewer hadn't watched the film, what you would think?

This is hilarious.

[BainsBane]

44. Try following the discussion

You clearly have no idea what is being said. I get the talking points have been established. It would be to your advantage to try to use them where they kinda sorta make sense. This is not one of those places.

Yes, one must read a work to analyze it, obviously. We are talking about discussions in which 1) the OP was analyzing something else, or 2) someone who had read the book was criticized for "analyzing fictional characters" because why would anyone do that?

[DirkGently]

48. Yes. As I said. You can't analzye or critique what you haven't read.

Thank you.

Wasn't so hard, was it?

[BainsBane]

63. How about saying that to someone who has actually analyzed it

Or in response to a post that seeks to do that. You said you haven't read my threads, Now you respond to a post that you seem to have no comprehension based on some stream of consciousness floating around your head. If you aren't going to engage in the actual discussion, why bother posting at all?

[DirkGently]

64. Well, I was talking to the OP until you attacked.

And hopped all around the relevant point, which remains. There is no analysis or "critique" by people who have not looked at something, of that thing.

I'm glad we agree on that point. Whatever else you're on about, by all means please proceed.

[BainsBane]

82. This is the subthread in which you responded to me

But claimed you were talking to the OP until I attacked.

This is my post you initially responded to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5301023

[KittyWampus]

52. You can discuss the THEME, though. Someone says "I read a book that included sadism"

I can say "I haven't read that book but here is how I perceive sadism especially when portrayed as normative behavior.

Disclaimer once again, I haven't read the book many are discussing. Doesn't mean I can't weigh in with thoughts on the theme or subject matter. Which I have not done, btw. Couldn't be bothered.

[DirkGently]

57. Determining theme is an analysis itself, though, correct?

It's one thing to say, "I think X and Y about themes of A, B, C." It's an entirely another to be up in arms about a particular work on the PRESUMPTION that it contains a given theme or handles them in a certain way.

Where lazy judgmental people go is directly to projection of what they IMAGINE they object to in a given work, and presume to make a judgment on the basis of that imagining.

But that's nothing more than a self-congratulatory exercise in thinking you're right because you think you're right because you think you're right.

For example, I saw someone in another thread, who is currently presuming to scream at me in this one, actually argue to someone who had read The Book in Question that her reading of a summary proved the other person's opinion wrong.

That is not analysis, or reasoned debate, or any kind of intelligent exercise at all.

It is an irrational conceit of the ego pretending to be thought.

[BainsBane]

97. Well, you're discussing it aren't you?

You're discussing the theme.

Why not be honest: the point here is you want to make sure anyone who has a problem with rape keeping their mouths shut. The "irrational conceit of ego" in pretending that others may not discuss a subject because they disagree with you is pretty astounding.

But that's nothing more than a self-congratulatory exercise in thinking you're right because you think you're right because you think you're right.

That is precisely what you are doing, so much so that you insist anyone who doesn't heed your righteousness remain silent.

Telling someone they have no right to discuss a subject matter is not reasoned debate. It is a transparent effort to silence speech.

You don't care who has or hasn't read the book. You haven't asked if they have read the book. You haven't asked if the discussion is even about the book. What you care about is silencing those whose views you do not approve of. You are not telling others who haven't read the book but have decided it is sacrosanct and above reproach that they are not allowed to comment. Your sole concern is silencing views you don't like. Don't pretend otherwise. Take your thought police act elsewhere. You do not control what others are allowed to discuss. You can use the ignore or trash functions if you don't like it, but to continually repeat your empty and uninformed mantra is beyond absurd.

.

[DirkGently]

99. No, I'm discussing what "analysis" is. And what it is not.

It's not, as I have seen you do, telling someone what is going on in a book you think you don't like, over their protestations they actually read the bloody thing and you've got it wrong.

Just as you are free to do that, others are free to point out that it is not analysis, but another thing called "making stuff up without a basis."

Everybody gets to have an opinion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. I actually started reading the book (Gasp I know)

becuase I want to know, on my own, what this is about.

So far, granted, just started... average to kitschy description and dialogue, and I think it makes for an excellent, while you are sick and need a silly distraction piece of reading. So far I have not been disappointed in that respect. But I am actually reading it.

I thank DU for pointing me to this. I usually ignore these books. But the Climate Action Change Plan will surely put me to sleep right at the moment. Oh and just from a how things really work, I found from the outset a couple problems.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

58. But other people who have can, and they did.

There have been links to or reprints of in-depth analysis of the 50 shades stuff that show that it dovetails wonderfully with abusive relationships, and not all that well with the BDSM community.

So why are we to ignore those in-depth analyses in favour of people who simply say they liked it, or agreed with it?

[DirkGently]

68. I don't believe I argued people must "ignore in-depth analyses"

Nor did I say anything remotely about your last bit about "in favor of people who simply said they liked it."

Why would you try to mischaracterize someone else' point like that?

I said that it is not possible to give "critique" or "analysis" of any work you haven't looked at.

The person "arguing" most vociferously against that statement in this very thread has argued elsewhere that her reading of a "summary" on the Internet proved a point about the way "consent" functions in the novel, over the disagreement of someone who read the whole work.

That is not reading someone else's "in-depth analysis." That is pulling conclusions out of one's rear without any actual work or thought of any kind.

[kickitup]

149. Well, you don't know if I've read it or not

but I will say it is possible to critique a certain genre in general. Take gonzo porn for example. I have watched clips and believe I can fairly criticize that genre of porn. The same might be said of certain genres of lit. One can criticize the standard tropes without reading every book.

[MadrasT]

13. The point the "free speech" brigade

can't seem to get through their seemingly thick skulls is that freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from criticism.

It is not that fucking complicated.

[BainsBane]

27. For them, it means THEIR freedom of speech

while making sure anyone who disagrees with their view is told to shut up. Not that the only people expected to have read the book are those who are concerned about rape. Everyone else can pontificate freely based on no reading of the book or even paying attention to the content of the criticisms of it. If we don't agree with them, we need to keep quiet. Free speech demands our silence.


Oh, and if someone presents any academic research, or even mentions it's existence, or engages in thoughtful analysis based on an actual reading of thee book, they make snide comments about wasting time analyzing literary figures, or make personal digs at a poster's mental well-being. The hypocrisy is unreal.

[distantearlywarning]

16. I completely agree.

I have no opinion about 50 SoG, but I fully support the right of individuals to engage in academic study about sexual practices, to engage in scholarly thought about how those sexual practices relate to culture and social norms, and so forth. I felt really bad for some of the posters who got attacked over that yesterday.

[TDale313]

19. Thank you!

k&r

[riqster]

20. Good post. Thanks.

I think a lot of what we are reading is literary (although I hate to put crap like 50SoG in that category) criticism. A lot of other writing on the subject (here and elsewhere) is moralizing, judgmental horseshit.

One of my kids read all three books, and told me the ending, which was itself a bunch of moralizing horseshit. I couldn't make myself slog through such rotten writing, so good on my adult daughter for doing it.

My opinion on the sexual aspect: freely consenting adults make all kinds of choices that I find mystifying, strange, or repugnant. And those choices are precisely none of my needlenosing business. If people get off on being beaten, meh. If they like rough kinky sex, meh. If they like missionary-position sex with the lights off, meh.

The only choices I will try to talk someone out of involve voting republican or other irreversibly harmful behavior.

[Quantess]

21. I would never take a strong stance over a fictional book that I had never read.

I find that to be intellectually lazy and disingenuous. Read the book yourself before declaring any strong statements about it. What would your English teachers think about people who spout their opinions over a book they refuse to read?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

49. I remember very well some years ago hearing Mother Angelica

On the Catholic TV network, EWTN, damning the film The Last Temptation of Christ. I had recently seen the film, and it was clear from what she was saying about it, that she had not seen it.

[DirkGently]

56. It's an index of an intent to be dishonest.

People who want to pass judgment based on their presumptions, prejudices and ignorance scrupulously avoid actually looking at the thing they wish to judge.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

112. "Last Temptation" is the first thing I think of lately....

....as an example of reactionaries protesting a film they've never seen and never will.

Unfortunately, there are some people here on DU who engage in similar intellectual engagement, when they find out a book or film or tv show depicts something they find offensive or distasteful, to instantly declare said film or book is "glorifying" it. In other words, they need the story to be sanitized before they will give it their stamp of approval. Well, that's not always how great fiction works, sorry.

Mind you, I don't count "50 Shades" as being great fiction. I have zero interest in it. If it is erotica and it's promoting rape, that's problematic, but it seems people who actually read it are saying it doesn't, so I'm fine to let it go on with it's bad self.

[kickitup]

171. What would your philosophy teachers think . . .

about people who equate inquisitiveness with the "morality police."

[Quantess]

173. What would my philosophy teacher think about the statement,

"...people who equate inquisitiveness with the morality police"

I'm pretty sure a philosophy teacher would be pondering thaat statement, turning it back on the class and asking "what do you think that means?"

I would be sitting there in the classroom, stumped, because I don't know what your statement means. What does it mean?

[DirkGently]

22. Does require, erm, *reading* the literature in question, though.

An opinion rendered on a creation of art or literature, derived from "summaries" and the comments of others, is not "literary criticism" of any kind, right?

To take a step further and actually argue a conclusion as to whether something is valuable or worthless or wonderful or despicable, without having actually examined it, cannot be taken seriously or given credence as "criticism" to the slightest degree, can it?

We shake our heads here at would-be critics and censors who want books destroyed or removed or banned, based on what they "heard" they were about all the time. But it's not just the call for a "ban" that we ridicule. It's the entire notion that you can "hear" what something is about and attempt to put forward a valid observation of the work itself based on anything short of having actually examined it.

[BainsBane]

25. Provide evidence of one person who has advocated banning

Since it is such a problem, there must be plenty to chose from. I await the results.

[Phentex]

31. I have not seen one person suggesting a ban...

but there are plenty of threads responding as if that's what they read.

[DirkGently]

34. You both understand it's the NOT READING that's the point, right?

I mentioned as aside that part of the idiocy of the typical censor is that they don't read that which they criticize.

But simply criticizing something YOU HAVE NOT read is equally invalid.

[Squinch]

154. Yep. The mean demons in their heads are at it again, making shit up and making them believe it.

It happens all the time. And they usually attribute the non-existent statements to feminists, I've noticed.

[DirkGently]

33. No. I said you can't criticize what you HAVEN'T READ.

There is no valid "literary criticism" by someone who has not read the piece in question.

I think you could offer the opinion that culture in general has a lot of this or that you don't like, but you can't claim to be critiquing something you refuse to personally examine.

[TheSarcastinator]

39. 'Zactly

This is apparently quite difficult to understand.

[DirkGently]

43. Difficult to admit, anyway, apparently.

Or are people being deliberately obtuse?

[BainsBane]

41. That is not what you said

But it's not just the call for a "ban" that we ridicule.

This all began because someone who had not read the book started an OP insisting others who had read it were criticizing people's private sex lives. That thread got 62 recs. Not one person raised the issue that the person hadn't read the book or that he had falsely represented the arguments of those who expressed concern about it.

When others--like me--pointed out that the criticism was in fact not about consensual sex but concerns over rape and abuse, suddenly you all insisted that we were not allowed to speak without having read the book, even though I did not seek to critique the book myself. I addressed the fallacies in the discussion and pointed to sources. It is in fact the sources that pissed people off because what the last thing they want to see is evidence.

When the first thread ignored the point the discussion was about fictional characters rather than real people, people scoffed at the suggestion that the discussion was over a book. Suddenly, when I seek to correct the false claims about arguments being made, the only thing that matters is a first hand familiarity with the book, something few here have but they feel perfectly entitled to express their views while insisting those who disagree have no right to do so, supposedly because they "haven't read the book."

In fact, when members who have read it but are critical of it share their observations as well as academic research about the book, they are attacked personally. It is patently clear the objection is to speech, speech that dares to question that sex in every circumstances might not be sacrosanct, might not be good because it might in fact be rape and abuse rather than sex.

I'm not buying this transparent nonsense. What you all ridicule and seek to silence is views that counter your own, pure and simple.
You may convince yourself of your story, but no one believes it who doesn't share the agenda to silence the irritating women who speak out against a culture that promotes rape as a means of seduction.

The fact you can't maintain a consistent argument over two posts and deny what you just said about banning shows how weak your argument is.

[DirkGently]

45. Uh, no. I simply said you can't "analyze" what you haven't read.

Are you actually arguing against that?

I'm not in your other threads, so it's patently ridiculous to bring up whoever else you've been arguing with.

My observation here is singular: It is not "criticism" or "analysis" of a book to draw conclusions based on summaries and comments of others.

Do you actually not understand that?

[BainsBane]

62. So who are you talking to?

Who has analyzed books they haven't read? Why make that point to me repeatedly?

I hope you won't be talking about Gaza or Israel since you haven't been there. Without first hand knowledge, you have no basis for an opinion. That, according to your own criteria, would extend to the Ukraine, Russia, and anything else someone does not have first-hand knowledge of. Apparently reading informed reports on those places is unacceptable, just as you declare unacceptable to recount studies of a literary works done by people who actually have read it.

[DirkGently]

65. I made the point to the OP. You leapt in to attack.

If you'd like to leave the OP and I to discuss the the point that people who presume to analyze or critique things they have not bothered reading are dishonest and full of poo, please feel free to scream at someone else.

[BainsBane]

66. You made the point directly to me, not to the OP

Now in two threads. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to where you post? No wonder you don't respond to what those posts actually say.

The OP does not offer a critique of the book. It talks about the general intellectual approach of literary analysis.

It is fucking obvious that someone who undertakes an analysis of a book needs to read it. No dispute there. Only you make the charge in places where no one is doing that, and the really bizarre claim is that you have no idea what is being said. I suggest you do some reading yourself, only of the posts to which you respond. This is now verging on entering the Twilight Zone.

[DirkGently]

75. I made the point to the OP. You leapt in. What other thread?

I confess, I really don't recall posting in another similar thread. I distinctly posted to make a singular point I thought bore on the ludicrous proliferation of similar arguments.

Can you show me?

[BainsBane]

81. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5301538

I stand corrected. Both responses were in this thread. In that post above you responded to me. In this subthread you responded to the OP. Neither of us engage in a critique of the book.

[DirkGently]

83. Thank you. Might have put your retraction in the subject line.

Nevertheless, thank you for the correction.

I hope you do not still confuse me for someone you may have argued with elsewhere over the general notion of whether poorly written erotica is a wonderful thing or whatever.

[BainsBane]

84. I didn't confuse you with anyone

You responded to my post and then in that same subthread insisted you were talking to the OP "until I attacked." Throughout, you evaded the subject matter in favor of your mantra.

[DirkGently]

89. Pretty sure "There is no critique of something you didn't read" IS the subject

matter. I assume you are frantically avoiding that because you wish to critique a piece of literature you cannot be bothered to read?

I mean, that IS what you're trying to talk around, isn't it?

[BainsBane]

95. No, I do not

As I have said fifty times now.

The subject matter was in fact a post the OP made based on self-reflection of her own sexual desire and broader cultural commentary, not the book at all. In typical fashion, people jumped on her and accused her of navel gazing.

In a separate post in that same thread, someone posted a study of the book by some academics. Since the study didn't affirm the sacred nature of the book some have insisted on instilling it with, they attacked the very notion of doing literary analysis. "You mean they analyze fictional characters and public articles on them? I suppose they get grants for that." They acted like the very concept of analyzing literature was entirely bizarre, irrational, as though it has not been done in colleges and high schools for centuries.

That was was led to this OP. Since the OP is trained in literary and cultural analysis, she affirms the fact the discipline does exist. She offers no interpretation of the book, which you would know if you had actually read the OP.

[DirkGently]

96. Glad we still agree on the one thing I actually said.

As for your claimed multi-thread context for the OP, which is not mentioned in the OP, it is not incumbent on everyone who responded to it to have followed you around for days absorbing whatever else you think is going on.

I have observed that people have, in an endless litany of DU-clogging bullshit threads, purported to loudly, angrily, and wrongly lecture people about the meaning of a book they have not read.

Those people do not know what the hell they are talking about.

[BainsBane]

101. Then use ignore and trash thread

Rather than trying to control speech.

No, it is not incumbent on you to follow people around. What a normal, respectful human being does is ask what prompts the OP rather than repeating an inane mantra and telling others they have no right to an opinion.

I will also point out that while insisting I should have put an apology in the title, you did not offer one at all for what was a clear mistake in claiming I had "attacked you" while you were talking to the OP,when it fact you responded to my post and made no effort to understand its content.

I am not interested in your assessment of "those people." I seriously doubt you even asked them if they read the book or how they came to their knowledge of it. You haven't done so in this thread. You assumed. Not only that. You insisted we had no right to discuss the subject matter at all, whereas somehow that right falls entirely to those who agree with you.

[DirkGently]

103. Critique of BAD critique is now censorship?

I saw you admit to not having read this book, then lecture someone who said she had, as to whether and how "consent" functioned in the book, based on a "summary" you saw somewhere.

That is specious argument. You can make it, but you don't get to make it in a vacuum. Others will notice and point out the problem.

That's not shutting down discussion. It's how discussion works. Just as "literary criticism" does not consist of you telling everyone what something means based on your careful reading of "internet summaries."

[Squinch]

67. Have you read the book?

[DirkGently]

76. Given I don't presume to have a "critique," I am mercifully spared that obligation.

[Squinch]

78. And yet, you seem to be critiquing those who object to it. Seems hypocritical to me.

[DirkGently]

79. Isn't the onus on those offering their "analysis?"

I see you are so excited about this notion that you posted it to me twice in a couple of minutes.

I don't follow. I have to read the book to NOT offer a literary critique of it?

[Squinch]

146. Well, you don't know if the critiques you are so outraged by are accurate or not. Because

you haven't read the book. And yet, that doesn't seem to be stopping you from trashing them.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

86. then why are you in this thread? I honestly do NOT get it. *WHY* are >YOU< in this thread?

What is your purpose/goal/reasoning/rationalization for participating in this thread?

[DirkGently]

87. Which words do you not understand?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

88. I totally understand your actions ... it is your motivation I am questioning. You do understand the

word ... WHY ... correct ... ?

[DirkGently]

93. A million threads. About a book. No one has. Farking. Read?

Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

An OP appearing to proceed from the disingenuous premise someone has objected to this on the theory that there can be no cultural or literary criticism at all.

And you think the motivations of someone pointing that out are sketchy?

How sketchy is it to argue the merits of a book you can't be bothered to read? How sketchy is it to then talk a thousand circles around that fairly stubborn fact?

How sketchy is it to pretend you don't "get" what's wrong here?

If you are attempting to imply I lurve lurve lurve amateur Twilight quasi-porn, and fear the reputation of its glory, you are several miles off base. I am confident the work in question is not worth a read. But I wouldn't presume to draw conclusions about the nefariousness of its cultural impact unless I was willing to slog through it.

I think there is a lot of pretending going on in this thread. I think at least several people, who have not read this book, and have pulled outraged cultural "analyses" out of various dark crevices, loudly, nastily, for days, are scrambling frantically to avoid a pretty normal and basic observation that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

That's what I'm doing in this thread.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

94. perhaps you are the biggest Pretender participating in this thread ...

just perhaps ...

I'm going to rent myself a house
In the shade of the freeway
I'm going to pack my lunch in the morning
And go to work each day
And when the evening rolls around
I'll go on home and lay my body down
And when the morning light comes streaming in
I'll get up and do it again
Amen
Say it again
Amen

I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening
I've been aware of the time going by
They say in the end it's the wink of an eye
And when the morning light comes streaming in
You'll get up and do it again
Amen

Caught between the longing for love
And the struggle for the legal tender
Where the sirens sing and the church bells ring
And the junk man pounds his fender
Where the veterans dream of the fight
Fast asleep at the traffic light
And the children solemnly wait
For the ice cream vendor
Out into the cool of the evening
Strolls the Pretender
He knows that all his hopes and dreams
Begin and end there

Ah the laughter of the lovers
As they run through the night
Leaving nothing for the others
But to choose off and fight
And tear at the world with all their might
While the ships bearing their dreams
Sail out of sight

I'm going to find myself a girl
Who can show me what laughter means
And we'll fill in the missing colors
In each other's paint-by-number dreams
And then we'll put our dark glasses on
And we'll make love until our strength is gone
And when the morning light comes streaming in
We'll get up and do it again
Get it up again

I'm going to be a happy idiot
And struggle for the legal tender
Where the ads take aim and lay their claim
To the heart and the soul of the spender
And believe in whatever may lie
In those things that money can buy
Though true love could have been a contender
Are you there?
Say a prayer for the Pretender
Who started out so young and strong
Only to surrender

[DirkGently]

98. Do you have a response to the substance of my post?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

102. Still trying to decide if it is worthy ... but, since you ask again so earnestly, I will give it

merit and answers will be coming forthwith.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

106. this is the post that you want me to address, correct ... ?

A million threads. About a book. No one has. Farking. Read?

A disingenous (sic) OP proceeding from the disingenuous premise someone has objected to this on the theory that there can be no cultural or literary criticism at all.

And you think the motivations of someone pointing that out are sketchy?

How sketchy is it to argue the merits of a book you can't be bothered to read? How sketchy is it to then talk a thousand circles arount that fairly stubborn fact?

How sketchy is it to pretend you don't "get" what's wrong here?

If you are attempting to imply I lurve lurve lurve amateur Twilight quasi-porn, and fear the reputation of its glory, you are several miles off base. I am confident the work in question is not worth a read. But I wouldn't presume to draw conclusions about the nefariousness of its cultural impact unless I was willing to slog through it.

I think there is a lot of pretending going on in this thread. I think at least several people, who have not read this book, and have pulled outraged cultural "analyses" out of various dark crevices, loudly, nastily, for days, are scrambling frantically to avoid a pretty normal and basic observation that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

That's what I'm doing in this thread.

your questions in regular type, my answers in bold =

A million threads. About a book. No one has. Farking. Read? a Million? really now, hyperbole straight out of the gate or else your math skills are as subject to question as your reading skills.

And you think the motivations of someone pointing that out are sketchy? Yes, as I question your math and reading skills I also question your motivation.

How sketchy is it to argue the merits of a book you can't be bothered to read? I tried to read the book. The writing is atrocious and the plot line was setting up to be formulaic also Ana and Christopher were two characters that I just could not relate. He was boring and she was insipid. I have read many excerpts and passages out of the book and several analysis by Learned People who did take the time to read the book.

How sketchy is it to then talk a thousand circles arount (sic) that fairly stubborn fact?I can not answer this one because I do not understand it. Not sure who is doing the circling unless it is down the drain.

How sketchy is it to pretend you don't "get" what's wrong here? You are right, I don't understand what is wrong here. Seems people are on a message board discussing a book about to go to film. Each individual bringing their own opinions about which they have some/none understanding of the book/film depending on how much they have read either the book itself or any number of articles, passages, analysis, excerpts of said book and as no one has yet seen the film ... that must really blow your mind.

Questions asked and answered. Thanks.

[Stuckinthebush]

23. I wouldn't say it is legitimate

I'd say it is mandatory.

[mainer]

26. For years I heard snooty librarians say Stephen King's books were dreck

And whenever I asked them if they'd read any, they'd sniff "Of course not. Why would I?"

Then I forced one to read the paragraph in "Carrie" where she first gets her period, a powerful piece of writing. And the librarian said "What? THAT'S Stephen King?"

I have no respect for anyone who argues from the position of ignorance.

[WinkyDink]

32. I feel that way about people who say they "hate poetry." But FTR: Even S. King said thusly:

"Most of (my books) have been plain fiction for plain folks, the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries from McDonald’s."

http://quarterlyconversation.com/the-king-of-complacency-under-the-dome-by-stephen-king

Have I read him? No. But he is assuredly in the best of company.

[Louisiana1976]

111. I've read Stephen King. He's one of my favorite authors. His books are very entertaining.

[Squinch]

155. I read a lot of "high literature," but I LOVE Stephen King. Sometimes he misses, but when he hits,

you are inside of that story. That's so rare.

[newcriminal]

165. I just picked up

Mr. Mercedes. I didn't even know he had anything new out. I will start it tonight, don't spoil it for me if you have read it. I think I have read all his books.

[Squinch]

166. Haven't read it yet. It's on my list. Thanks for reminding me.

[kickitup]

167. Sometimes what gets lost, even in this whole

50 Shades discussion, is that sometimes people just want a good story. King is an excellent storyteller which for some reason doesn't give him much cred in academic circles, especially with snoots like Harold Bloom, who can be an insufferable snob.

[WinkyDink]

172. Apparently to millions! Horror just isn't my genre of choice.

[DirkGently]

36. The tapdancing around the NOT READING this is hilarious!

Of course people can analzye literature and draw conclusions. You do that by ... analyzing the literature.

What you can't do is make pronouncements about something based on snippets you read on the Internet and then pretend that is "analysis."

Just weird and silly.

[JVS]

38. +1

[Quantess]

59. +1

Thank you.

[kickitup]

153. You are assuming that everybody offering critical

Analysis hasn't read the book.

[Squinch]

157. Well, he has admitted that HE hasn't read the book, so he wouldn't know if any of the criticisms are

valid or not, by his own standard.

[marions ghost]

107. OK take your point but

Stephen King's books do have some merit, acknowledged by writers and critics.

This book 50 Shades really IS dreck....

[WinkyDink]

29. Spent my career studying and using both. Totally agree.

[TheSarcastinator]

37. Book Burning is not Lit-Crit

I actually attend Popular Culture/American Culture conferences all over this nation every year, from NM to DC, and can tell you that not all Pop Culture Lit Crit is "legitimate": a great deal of it is just warmed over Comic-con fandom without the cosplay. It is "academic" only in the loosest possible sense.

Additionally, I have never heard one call at any academic PC conference to censor, ban or protest ANY text, including during discussion of pornography, so a great deal of what has been happening around these parts doesn't really qualify as academic critique -- it is activism. There is a huge difference.

Again, it also really helps if the people making the loudest and most offended noises have actually read the text in question.

Just fuckin' sayin'.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

50. In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451

One of the characters is asked if he had ever bothered reading the books he was burning.

[Squinch]

69. Please link to any post that calls for banning or censorship. As for protesting ANY text, you are

currently protesting the text of this OP, so I am guessing you'll want to walk that one back.

And have you read the text in question?

[Squinch]

158. And book burning isn't happening here. Neither is censorship or banning. So what is it you mean

when you refer to "what has been happening around these parts?"

Do link to someone advocating burning, censorship or banning.

[kickitup]

164. I specifically used the word 'intellectual' instead of 'academic'

because I knew someone would come along and either argue or assume that only legitimate critical work takes place within the confines of academia. It doesn't, although that is where most of us learn how to approach criticism. Anybody that has ever taken an undergraduate lit class should possess the ability to read literature with a critical eye as I always assumed that's what the professors were trying to teach.

Bottom line is you don't get final say as to what is legitimate criticism and what isn't and it doesn't matter how many conferences you've attended.

And I won't even address your hyperbolic nonsense about book burning. For an academic you should know better than that.

[conservaphobe]

46. Pretentious pursuit* nt

[Avalux]

47. There's a difference between objective observations about culture

which result in intellectual conclusions, and opinions from personal preferences. Those scholarly journals do not publish papers that use moral beliefs to freak out about a piece of poorly written erotic fiction that really doesn't deserve the attention.

[DirkGently]

51. Nor would they presume to "analyze" without reading.

What a weird conceit going on that you can proselytize about something you haven't bothered to even look at.

[kickitup]

148. What I have seen here is that people assume ...

that a moral judgment is being made when that is not the intent. I can question the sexual politics of BDSM without passing a moral judgment about it.

[kickitup]

156. Your sexism is showing...

Last edited Tue Jul 29, 2014, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

at least some if us consider what thousands of women are reading as something worthy of analysis whether we agree with the themes or not!

[Squinch]

159. There is plenty of freaking out on the part of those who are defending the book, too. Are only the

opinions from personal preferences on one side of the issue allowed here?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

53. More-or-less as an aside

The 19th century British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, who earned his living as a novelist, said that the ranks of critics are drawn from those who have failed at literature and the arts.

I suspect he said it after reading a negative review of one of his books.

[redqueen]

60. What I think is just adorable is the stunningly rank hypocrisy of those

who can't seem to post enough times that if you criticize it you absolutely HAVE to have read it... while seemingly anyone can defend it while being wholly and completely ignorant about what they're defending.

It makes me sick like you can't even imagine that people are defending this shit.


At one point, she says, “No, please. I can’t do this, not now. I need some time, please.”

His response? “’Oh, Ana, don’t overthink this." And he keeps going.


Absolutely no respect left whatsoever, for so many here, over this passionate defense of fucking eroticized rape. Twilight they can't say enough bad things about (gee, I wonder how many people insisted that those critics just absolutely had to have read the books before trashing that franchise)

Yes, what an incredibly puzzling double standard. NOT.

This? Eroticized, romanticized RAPE SCENES?

This is the hill they choose to die on. So be it.

[DirkGently]

61. Oh please. How about just defending honest argument?

C'mon, RQ. Making arguments about the intent, impact, or meaning of a piece of writing based solely on descriptions of it given by other people is flatly dishonest.

You can't get around that by saying it's free speech-not-censorship.

You can't flip the script and claim that pointing out that very simple fact equates to a defense of the things the non-reading "critics" imagine are the problem.

If you want to take the time to attack some flatulent piece of amateur erotica on whatever basis, the onus is on YOU to have bothered to read the flipping thing in the first place.

There is a poster in this thread, screaming at everyone, who told someone who actually read this book such and such about the function of the role of consent in whatever acts are going on, based on internet snippets. INTERNET SNIPPETS. The argument was literally, "MY 'summary' beats your personal observation.'"

You defend that? You are "sickened" people find 5,000 threads started by people outraged about something they have not even bothered to examine for themselves silly and obnoxious?

Speaking of a stupid hill to die on, where would you say the "My right to unimpeded, unquestioned rage over the cultural meaning of a work I refuse to look at" falls?

[Squinch]

71. Dirk, you aren't answering my question. Have YOU read the book?

[DirkGently]

77. For Pete's sake, I just saw it. Look up ^

[MisterP]

74. don't be silly! a sex scene makes any book immune to any negative comments!

[Zenlitened]

80. I almost wish you had focused solely on cultural criticism.

It might have limited the "But did you read it? Huh? Huh?" replies that consistently miss the big picture.

As if one must read/view/listen to -- in its entirety -- every work in a genre before speaking about the genre.

Or before even participating in discussion of how the piece is being received, in terms of the social and cultural messages that accompany it as part of a genre.

As if all the various aspects of a culture are neatly divided into discreet packets, one never influencing another.

Pondering and talking about these things is not, as you note, the sole province of scholars in carefully delineated academic departments.

It's what we all do, every day, as human beings within a culture. As, to borrow your phrase, thinking people.

Online, general audience discussion boards would be awfully quiet were this not the case!

[DirkGently]

85. No. People don't even agree what the "genre" is here.

What's wrong with insisting people making specific objections to specific works don't decry them on the basis of what they assume about a "genre" they don't even read and can't clearly identify?

All that's clear is that the work in question derives from Twlight "fan fiction" and concerns some kind of relationship between a domineering man and a woman.

BDSM people say it isn't BDSM, but right here in the thread you have people identifying it as such. People who have read it disagree with people who haven't over whether the work contains non-consensual sex acts or not.

You can't take something that's a cultural phenemenon, assume it is about things and contains things you have only read about in the most general terms, and pronounce it to be anything at all.

I don't think it's clear at all what's behind the huge reaction to this book, or that it's possible to make a bunch of declarations about it without actually looking at it.

Sounds bafflingly insipid to me, but that's all the analysis it takes to NOT read something. If you want to declare what it is and where it's gone wrong, you DO need to do some actual work. You can't with any honesty just project what you think you know about a "genre" you don't even follow, and then get outraged by it.

[Zenlitened]

113. Here (for starters) is where your argument goes wrong:

It's when you assume you know what someone commenting has read or not read. Looked into or not looked into. Done the work or not. Followed, observed, understood, experienced, studied, encountered, et cetera... or not.

You don't know. And when you say "all that's clear is that the work in question..." you should note that this is all that's clear to you at the moment of writing. To maintain otherwise is, well, dishonest.

Will you administer a quiz before anyone can comment on a broad, enduring aspect of culture?

Must we have read, viewed, or listened to 100 percent of a particular work in order to pass such a quiz?

May we draw upon our own experiences within the culture when formulating our answers, or would we then be guilty of projection?

And what if our answers conflict? You assert, for example, that the topic involves "domineering" behavior. Others suggest your term is incorrect, much too mild a word to describe behavior they would term abusive, coercive, harmful.

Which point of view is the right one? Must we quiz you to see if you can adequately support your premise, or even state it aloud? Would you pass?

And if you didn't, and expressed your disappointment, could we dismiss your point of view as mere mindless outrage? An effort to halt conversations you don't wish to hear?

Or maybe it's all just a fiendish (if far-fetched) plot to pump book sales, I dunno. But I'll refrain from assuming anything, I suppose. It sounds like too much work.

[DirkGently]

114. Oh no. People have flatly stated

they have not read the piece, then gone on to lecture people about what happened in it and what was wrong with it. That is what I am responding to.

The wrong assumption here is yours.

If you have an argument that supports specific criticisms of a specific work, without looking at the thing itself, please make it.

[Zenlitened]

115. Sorry, no, you are incorrect in your understanding of what's being stated...

...or even, it seems, what's being discussed.

Though the references to assumptions and projection are certainly worth points for style!

[DirkGently]

119. Well you certainly are the one who agrees with that!

Points for the airy blend of unconvincing self-satisfaction and a stolid refusal to address the point at hand, though.

Cheerio!

[Squinch]

160. Dirk, you are hilarious. YOU haven't read the book either. Why are YOU obsessively judging the

validity of the criticisms of it?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

90. agreed, i think literary critique and pop culture critique is essential in a functional democracy

[Zorra]

91. How perfectly reasonable and well said...I'm alerting.

Thanks.

[mainer]

108. If we're going to discuss rape themes, if only we had a better book to argue about.

This is like arguing the merits of crime fiction by examining the Hardy Boys.

[kickitup]

162. Why should we have a better book when this

book is the one so many women have embraced? For all the outrage those of us criticizing the book for its themes have been met with, it is amazing to me that supposedly progressive people are just fine criticizing the reading choice of a significant number of women, saying that what those women are reading isn't worthy of serious debate.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

110. Most literary critics.....

1) Read the book they are critiquing.

2) Don't make it a point to write the same review over and over and over not to read said book and complain that people are in fact reading it.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. Not every would-be literary critic is a member of the morality police, no.

However, some indubitably ARE.

It's worth remembering that the first "50 shades" thread had to do with an outfit called "Morality in Media"- a Chrisitian Right org which is also committed to things like keeping consenting adults from looking at other consenting adults naked or watching other consenting adults fuck on film.

And it also hasn't escaped the notice of some of us here, that many of the same folks now falling all over themselves to "defend" the BDSM community from inaccurate portrayals in 50 shades, have never once had a halfway decent thing to say about those lifestyles or those who practice them, except maybe to suggest that the poor misguided dears need professional help.

In fact, in many of the threads, erstwhile 50 shades "critiquers" can't help but echo some of the same moralizing statements about BDSM that the same folks are supposed to be 'protecting' the lifestyle from.

And I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that when countries like Iceland propose banning all internet porn (oh yeah! whatever happened with that, anyway?), the same not-morality police who are totally not in favor of censorship!111!!!!, are swinging from the rafters, cheering, and popping champagne corks. The same not-morality police can't stand religious right organizations, except when they take up the battle against consenting adults watching other consenting adults fuck on film, at which point those religious right fuckturds magically transmogrify into brave vanguards of progressivism.

...right.

[BainsBane]

120. If you believe that it came from the right

I've got a bridge to sell you. This has movie company stamped all over it.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. On that, you may be right- in fact, I give good odds that you are.

But that's another question- why does ostensibly railing against something cause it to become more popular- of the human psyche which is at least as interesting as why some people eroticize certain forms of pain.

Nevertheless, "Morality in Media" is a real organization (as real as anything, I guess) and it was part and parcel of the originating thread.

[BainsBane]

123. I guess people like the forbidden

Also it's free publicity.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

136. kickitup

[kickitup]

147. I did not mean to post the OP then run . .

But honestly, after being branded a racist due to my other OP and being told I need therapy because I question my own submissive tendencies (and GASP, enjoy acting them out) I didn't really want anything more to do with this "progressive" forum.

But I have received support that I never expected and leaving would be letting some of the bullshit get to me.

And so, not that anybody gives a damn, I will not leave and I will not shut my mouth.

[thucythucy]

161. Good for you!

I think this was an excellent OP and look forward to seeing you here again.

[Quantess]

176. I really enjoyed seeing something as ballsy as your other thread on DU

Plus, I did get your gist! I know exactly what you meant! If I were on the jury (I was not) I would have pondered a minute, then thought, ...okay maybe this is legit.

But in any case, I feel like I am entitled to review "Justine" by Marquis Des Sade, because...wait this is crazy... I read the book! Yes, really! Imagine that! A person actually reading a book, in the modern times of the Internet. Fewer people read books these days, and that is sad.

People who don't read books, yet who have opinions about said books they did not read, cannot be taken seriously.

[Adrahil]

175. I must have missed the DRAMA(tm). My wife is a Victorian Lit professor, so +1000. NT