Fewer than 50 links about That Book

I read Fifty Shades of Grey. Hey, it was for my job! So I could discuss the most popular book in the nation with patrons! Nothing to do with dirty bits and kinky sexual practices. Honest!

And I'm afraid I'm late enough to this show that I don't have much say about the book that hasn't been said. No, it's not very well written. But neither, in my opinion, are many other bestselling works of fiction (I'm still waiting for the International Court of Literary Justice to convene and give me back the four hours I spent reading Angels & Demons). Mostly, it struck me as oddly retro, a throwback to the romances referred to these days as Old School -- of the Kathleen Woodiwiss/Rosemary Rogers 1970s-80s school. No rape scenes, thank God, but a lot of the touchstones were there. The heroine is virginal and insecure. The hero is dominant (literally, in this case), but tortured by his past, yet still able to recognize virginal heroine's stunning beauty when no one else had noticed. And also induce her to multiple orgasms the first time out. And like a lot of the older romances, it's epic in length -- three books at more than 500 pages each. And I feel confident that the vast majority of its readers understand this is a fantasy. Lots of us think of ourselves as insecure but goodhearted people -- and wouldn't it be nice if the one person who recognized our qualities was an incredibly goodlooking billionaire who flies his own helicopter and practices global philanthropy and is extremely good at sex, even if he has some serious issues -- that only you can help him get past? Like I said, fantasy. Just like vampires, dragons, elves and whatever that guy does in all those Clive Cussler novels that fly off the library shelves. (5/23 update: See last link below for an opposing view on this issue.)

So instead of opining further about the book or trying to diagnose the social factors behind its unlikely and astonishing success, I'll simply share a few links worth reading if you're curious.

• First up, there's the bizarre action of the Brevard County Library where they yanked their 19 copies of Fifty Shades off the shelves.
• My favorite response came from Sarah Wendell of Smart Bitches Trashy Books who had this to say about the Brevard County decision.  (Warning: that last link contains explicit selection from books that are in the, wait for it, Brevard County Library collection).  I'm sorry to report that we don't have any of those, um, Longarm books in the Monroe County Public Library collection. Though one of my colleagues had the brilliant idea of requesting them via Interlibrary Loan. From Brevard County.
• Wendell has had a number of interesting posts about the Fifty Shades phenomenon - she's as good as anyone about discussing the appeal of certain books and how romance, even erotic romance, is different from porn.
•  In case you were wondering, yes we have all three Fifty Shades books in the Monroe County Public Library collection, both as an ebook (it's the whole trilogy at once; sorry it was just far more affordable that way) and as individual titles on paper. And yeah, there's a waiting list. For all of them. Fun fact: Overdrive, our ebook service, places the Fifty Shades trilogy in the Literature collection. That's them, not us.
• Another good piece on the Fifty Shades phenemonen was posted over at Bookriot where they read and discussed the book in two parts -- the second part is here. I liked their take on it, which was realistic (some of the lines ARE hilarious) without being cruel to either the book, its writer or its many, many readers.
• And finally here's a more critical take from The Rumpus pointing out that maybe these books and their popularity is not all harmless fun after all.
• 5/25 update -- really finally -- one last link.
• 10/1 update -- OK I shouldn't claim really finally because this puppy has legs but this one from Dear Author was too good not to share.

We become the Bone Island BBC Blog

I've been an Anglo-phile for a long time, and the BBC is largely responsible. As a kid, we had PBS on a lot, so I got a lot of exposure to costume dramas, via Masterpiece Theater, and Monty Python. In college, I spent a summer in England. I already had the Tudor thing. And it got worse when a good friend married a Brit and moved there, becoming a reason to visit and a resource on the excellent current programming the BBC continues to produce (as well as the continuing steady stream of costume dramas). So I am of course concerned when I hear references to the Beeb under attack from the new Conservative government -- which is closely tied to the Murdoch empire, and if you think this is a bit paranoid, read this investigative takeout from the New York Times. And when I saw a reference to this video on Neil Gaiman's Twitter feed I immediately checked it out -- and was charmed. I just love goofy dorks. I've had this song stuck in my head for a week now -- and I'm still not sick of it.

Even more amazingly, they posted it, at my suggestion, on the Smart Bitches Trashy Books blog. Woo hoo! Long live the BBC! The comments section is pretty fun, too.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q2iZuU5WM&feature=related]

Lots of Americans, of course, know about Monty Python, the costume dramas and newer offerings on BBC America, like the rebooted Dr. Who and Top Gear. But this song lists -- and everyone should consider a region-free DVD player so you can watch -- a lot of other great shows, including The Thick of It (if you liked the movie In The Loop, this series is its genesis and continuing sequel), Steve Coogan's brilliant Alan Partridge shows, and Shameless, Paul Abbott's great series set in a Manchester housing project, with David Threlfall as drunken, useless but endlessly entertaining patriarch Frank Gallagher. This series also helped launch James McAvoy and Anne-Marie Duff, among others. Another Abbott production is State of Play, a six-hour miniseries that is available on U.S. DVD format (we even have it at the Key West Library). McAvoy's in that one, too, but the real treat is Bill Nighy as the crusading editor and Kelly Macdonald's Scottish accent (you haven't heard someone pronounce "It's muhrr-duhrr" until you've heard her).

An unnecessary defense

The romance genre does not need any defense from me. It's doing quite nicely on its own, thank you, with sales up 7.7 percent in 2009 over the previous year -- a rise that's particularly notable amid the decline of book publishing as a whole. I got that figure from a recent piece in Bloomberg Businessweek magazine. That's where the issue of defense comes in. Because this piece, while noting the success of the genre as a whole, then spent the rest of its time ridiculing the various microniches that have found particular recent success, including NASCAR, paranormal, Amish and (snicker) crafts! You might catch the tone of the piece from the headline -- "Getting Dirty in Dutch Country" -- though if you'd actually read any of them you'd probably figure out quickly that the Amish-set romances, unlike a lot in that genre, don't get dirty, and that's a big part of their appeal. It turns out there are, in fact, romance readers out there who aren't into ripped bodices and explicit sex. So some smart writers and publishers are catering to them. That's worthy of ridicule? There's another reason the romance genre doesn't need any defense from me. It already has far more prominent champions, notably the smart women of Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, whose response to the Bloomberg piece* is what alerted me to its existence in the first place. Yep, I had good SAT scores, I have a master's degree, I read a lot, sometimes I read romances and I regularly read SBTB -- but I never read Bloomberg Businessweek. Even though a good friend of mine writes for it. What does that tell you?

If you're genuinely interested in the romance genre and/or the industry behind it, I can suggest a good source of information. Beyond Heaving Bosoms, the book written by the Smart Bitches themselves, is a fun and interesting analysis that reflects what's so cool about them. They're appreciative fans of the genre -- but also gimlet-eyed realists about its flaws and hilariously harsh critic of ridiculous narratives. Check out some of their low-graded reviews if you don't believe me.

And I agree with their conclusion about the Bloomberg Businessweek piece: that its take on the genre is, essentially, offensively sexist. The plots, characters and conventions of romance novels are certainly escapist, ridiculous and highly unrealistic. The prose is unlikely to wind up on the shortlist of Nobel contenders. Just like a whole lot of other popular genres, like thrillers, crime dramas and self-important psychobabble. You don't get romance? You think it's crap that people shouldn't waste their time or money on? I sympathize, believe me. I have had to learn to maintain a neutral expression, or even an enthusiastic helpful one, when a library patron comes in asking for the latest James Patterson or to be added to the 80-person list for The Lost Symbol. And you know what? I do it. Because 1) it's my job and 2) hey if that junk makes you happy, go for it.

It's the contempt in the Bloomberg Businessweek piece that got my blood boiling -- the sort of patronizing dismissal you rarely see displayed toward the hardboiled guys -- who may even wind up as critical favorites, reviewed in the New York Times! My personal favorite line in the piece was the snotty "Insiders insist that knitting is distinct from another ascendant microgenre: quilting." (Though I wonder if he's confusing mystery and romance -- haven't seen a lot of knitting or quilting romances. Or any, now that I think about it.) But my point is, um, yeah, they are different. Quite different in fact, which wouldn't be surprising or ridicule-worthy if you had the slightest firsthand knowledge of either. Which obviously, being an Important Male Newsguy, you wouldn't. I'll try to put it in terms he might understand: It's kind of like saying, Hey it turns out people think baseball and basketball are actually different games! Even though they both use a round thing and keep score in points! Those stupid people!

That's enough ranting from me and like I said, the SBTB website is the place to be if you're interested in the genre and have my kind of take on it. But just thought I'd blow some steam and add to the chorus. Especially since it is Romance Awareness Month.

* If you are offended by profanity or general abusive crudity, this website in general and this post in particular are not for you. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Aug. 27 update rant: Not the same issue but related is the recent flap over the lovefest Jonathan Franzen is experiencing from the New York Times and others (cover of Time mag???). I don't feel comfortable dissing Franzen without having read The Corrections or his new novel but I sympathize with Weiner and Picoult (whom I haven't read either and don't plan to). I will, however, take this occasion to express my irritation with his essay championing the novel "The Man Who Loved Children" by Christina Stead. It wasn't his point I had a problem with -- it sounds like an interesting book, I'd never heard of it or its author and now it's going to be republished. Nice job! The problem I had was with his nostalgia for 1965, "when our country still took literature halfway seriously." Ah yes, the good old days of the 1960s. When it was still perfectly acceptable to be horrifically racist and sexist (just watch an episode of Mad Men! Or read a history book) and the literary culture could exist in its rarefied little trustfunded atmosphere, occasionally enlivened by an outsider like Kerouac for titillation's sake.

I'm sorry, but SHUT UP. Yep, the democratization of pop culture has its horrifying aspects, to be sure -- just about any reality TV show bears that out. But it also allows way more people to take part, and provides way more interesting views into other lives than the Good Old Days Franzen is mourning. True, it's not quite as good now as it was then for white guys. But should a guy who was chosen by Oprah (and I must admit I have been mildly irritated with him since that episode, in which I think he behaved like an elitist dick) and then put on the cover of Time really be bitching?