Dreamboat or Douchebag: The Christian Grey Edition
I read my first Harlequin Presents when I was in sixth grade. It was Lord of La Pampa by Kay Thorpe and for the decades since I have remembered the line “With a woman like you there can be no other way.” This was said by the hero moments before he forced himself on the heroine. Because he was an Argentinian cattle baron, in my head the line was delivered in a sexy, sensual Spanish accent.
I mention that experience because when I picked up Fifty Shades of Grey a few months ago I felt very much like I was reliving that first encounter with Harlequin. It seemed very Old Skool 1980’s bodice ripper. Christian Grey had all the core characteristics of the alpha hero of the time which is described in Beyond Heaving Bosoms as:
These heroes aren’t just determined, assertive, and confident—they’re hard, arrogant, and harsh and the heroine is often afraid of him. He’s a punisher as well as lover and protector, but he hurts her only because he loves her so much. Baby. Punitive kisses were dealt with abandon, and the heroine, after stiffening up and resisting, would eventually soften into his kiss—after all, who wouldn’t love having their lips mashed hard enough to leave bruises? And speaking of bruises: grabbing the heroine by the arms so hard they leave marks was another earmark of Old Skool heroes.
These things are all true of Christian. He’s assertive and confident (who wouldn’t be with that kind of success before age 30), a dominant who believes he should be allowed to punish his lover (submissive). He certainly has a lover who fears him; Anastasia often chirps about how she is afraid of him. Especially since he likes to spank her – and would be totally into other forms of punishment if she was willing.
The above definition, along with being rather simplistic (and therefore succinct which is why I chose it) missed out on listing the attractive parts of this Old Skool hero. They are almost invariably super wealthy and powerful. Some at this point might say money doesn’t matter but what else explains the endless use of millionaire, billionaire and duke in titles? Maybe in real life it doesn’t matter but I think I can say with confidence it clearly matters to quite a few when it comes to fantasy. Back to the positives of the Old Skool hero: They are handsome, either in the traditional sense like Christian, or in a unique, chiseled, masculine vigor sort of way. They’re charismatic – the heroine and tons of other people are drawn to them. They might demand total control but inevitably it’s because they want to take care of you. Christian is always concerned for Anastasia’s health since she is too stupid to often forgets to eat and drinks a lot and is pretty darn vapid. Also for her safety (he saves her from a bike messenger accident and later buys her a new car with lots of safety features.)He worries about her career (he offers an internship at his firm almost right away). He concerns himself with how often she is being molested (way more than most of us). So controlling yes, but a caregiver as well. They are generous, at least with the heroine. They give her lavish gifts, normally uniquely suited to her (in Christian’s case some first edition books of Ana’s favorites). Finally, they are flatteringly obsessed. A man who could have dozens of women for the asking is interested in our average (and in many cases, below average intelligence) heroine. He’s not just interested in her; he is determined to have her.
I think all of that is relevant when we look at the huge success of Fifty Shades of Grey and the surprising popularity of its hero. Because it is my personal opinion that what makes the book and hero popular is that it delivers the Old Skool hero experience without the bodice ripper cover and the scorn heaped upon those who read romance. Fifty Shades of Grey readers read romance without having to say they read romance. Whether it was through the work of a marketing genius or sheer luck, Fifty Shades broke out of its genre and got legitimized by the mainstream in a way any number of novels employing the exact same characteristics have not been able to do.
And I have to admit that after having written all that I went on the internet to look for information on why the book is popular and was surprised to discover that Smart Bitches Sarah mentions this same factor (Old Skool hero) in a blog she did on why 50 Shades is so popular. I think this is less a great minds think alike coincidence than it is a “people who’ve read a lot of romances recognize a romance hero when they see him” fact.
Adding more depth to my argument that 50 Shades readers read romance is the following argument I found in Psychology Today by Linda and Charlie Bloom:
I believe it (the popularity of 50 Shades) has a lot to do with the desire that so many of us have of being swept away from our mundane lives and into a world of passion and ecstasy. One of the things that makes this series so compelling is that it affirms the classic fantasy that the handsome prince is going to ride into our lives on his noble white steed and sweep us off of our feet, take us away from our ordinary existence and bring us to a beautiful castle where we will spend the remainder of our lives living in luxury, leisure, and of course, pleasure!
If that isn’t a pithy definition of about half of the Harlequin Presents line I don’t know what would be.
So how does all this help me come to a conclusion on whether or not Christian Grey is a douchebag or dreamboat? It doesn’t. But it does help explain why my reaction to him was “meh” rather than yay or nay. I’ve spent years reading heroes exactly like Christian. Unless they do something to push a personal hot button, they no longer have the power to enrage me. They also don’t have the power to enamor me unless they do something extremely right. Christian landed squarely in the middle. He was honest with Anastasia about what he wanted from her, he talked to her (endlessly) about what the relationship would look like and he was kind to her as often as he was cruel. Would their relationship work for me? No. But does that make Christian an eeevvvviiillll villain? Also no.
So there are my completely mediocre feelings on Christian Grey. Now it’s time to put the question to AAR Staff: Christian Grey, dreamboat or douchebag?
Lee: I haven’t read the book, but after reading your blog, I’d say he was an honest but not perfect dreamboat.
Blythe: Straight up douchebag, IMHO. Granted, I didn’t read the last book – just the first two. But Christian is a stalker. He’s controlling. He’s a little smarmy. And I know this is not the point under debate, but his wealth is completely unbelievable. For me the behavior that puts him over the edge is telling Anna what car she needs to drive and then buying her company so he can tell her douchebag boss what to do.
There’s definitely some appeal in his incredible wealth and his very flattering obsession with Anna. I mean, if some rich, handsome guy wants to be obsessed with me because I am just that awesome, I’d probably be cool with that. But if he tells me how to work and what to drive, we’re done.
Melanie: I have to admit, I’ve tried reading 50 Shades three times – I’ve never been able to finish it. Christian creeps me out, but I don’t feel I can really decide on dreamboat or douchebag for him. It’s mainly Anna that I can’t stand, but Christian seems to pull all the stalker tendencies of Edward Cullen (which isn’t surprising, since that’s the basis for the character), and takes controlling to the next level. I don’t like controlling, it’s just not my thing. But he just sits on that line between caring/obsessed and controlling/obsessed, and that’s too close to an abusive relationship for me to feel comfortable with.
Dabney: My sense is that he, while not being my type, is an upfront demanding guy. The real problem with him is that he is drawn to a woman with, at least in the first book, so little agency. The power differential between them is so huge, it reflects poorly on him for wanting a woman who is so not his peer.
Blythe: For me I wouldn’t even say that it is that. It’s more that I can’t even believe that he has the power in the first place, or that she managed to get through college with no email address. I know I harp on that all the time, but with this book you have to take your willing suspension of disbelief, whack it with a sledgehammer, and bury it in the woods somewhere.
Part of it is simply his age. If he were 40, or even 35, I could buy into it more.
Mary: I read all three books precisely so I could understand the phenomena. It took me a LONG time to get through the first book, but I persevered and found book 2 was slightly better and book 3 much better. Since this is about the character of Christian and not a critique of the book, I will try to limit my comments to him and not what was wrong with the book(s) – and there is much to critique there. I did not like Christian at all to begin with. Controlling men are so not my type. He was also a tad unbelievable given his success at such a young age. However, by the second book I started to gain some empathy for him and by the third, I understood why he was the way he was. Christian was the victim of sexual abuse by an older woman who was a Dom. He was manipulated during an extremely difficult time in his adolescence. I see his sexual proclivities as an attempt to regain his own agency. I think he chose Anna precisely because she was so different from the woman who sexually abused him. He also had issues about his birth mother and her death that would make anyone a little disturbed. So the guy had issues. What I saw through the course of ALL of the books is his growth and coming to terms with what had happened to him. So while I would not characterize him as a dreamboat, he was not a douche either. He was just a very unhappy man trying to cope with the injustices life threw his way by himself. Anna helped him to understand that he needed help and through her encouragement, he got it. The Christian at the end of book 3 was a much mentally healthier person than the Christian we first meet.
Shannon: I struggled with Christian throughout my reading of the first two 50 Shades books. He was extremely controlling, and, unlike a lot of people, I see nothing romantic or endearing about someone who is obsessed with another person. He seemed to believe he could behave as irrationally as he chose, but the same was not true for Anastasia. She was expected to fall in line with his every whim. Sure, he was kind to Anastasia, but it seemed a superficial kindness. He bought her expensive things as a way to further his control.Although he did grow throughout the two books I read, I didn’t find his growth sufficient. He was still a self-important ass.
Definitely a douche.
So now it’s your turn. Christian Grey, dreamboat, douchebag or who the heck cares?
Maggie AAR
“”Old school romances had a variety of heroine types. There is a misconception that all the heroines in old school romances were delicate who took whatever the hero dished out and that is not the case.””
Yes, I agree. Like many I grew up with these books and in my case, it is because my mother read them and really liked them. I ended up reacting against a strong tendency to depict controlling, dominant, and violent men in so many of them. But if _50 Shades_ has a target audience, so too do romances featuring men that appreciate relationships based on equality and respect as a counterpoint.
I’m not sure though that I did misinterpret your earlier posts. You were suggesting earlier that women readers are forgiving of “”edgy”” female characters but not equally forgiving of troubled male characters. That sounds like a false equivalent to me because “”edgy”” is not necessarily synonymous with violent, controlling, dominant or stalker-ish. I would not be inclined to romanticize a violent and dominant female character that was abusive to her male partner. I also though would not want to **romanticize** that behavior for any character, and so if anything particularly troubles me about the representations in 50 Shades or the popularity of the books, it is the romanticizing of those qualities. Hope that distinction is clear.
Let’s be honest – if he was an average guy with no money he would be considered a stalker and abuser of women. Douchebag without a doubt.
While I can empathise with an *abused h/h, I find nothing romantic with an *abusive one. If FSoG were written as a straight forward romance (without the BDSM) I would still read it as an abusive relationship. It’s an *old skool/body ripper book, a trope that gives, and is still giving, the romance genre (and sub genres of) a bad name, and in which so many talented authors have worked so hard over the last two decades to change. It is also not an accurate portrayal of BDSM (the genre or the lifestyle,) which is just one of the many reason why some readers have issues with the book.
As for Gone Girl: the book/movie is not a romance but a psychological thriller/suspense. They are two very different genres, therefore cannot be compared and used as an argument. That is not to say, however, that a reader is wrong or should be shamed for liking any genre. Reading is subjective, after all. But I read erotica, and I have read much, much better.
@Suzanne, i’m curious as to why you think the relationship in fsog abusive. Is it because of the lack of sexual experience of the heroine?
I find it interesting that you read erotica while showing disdain towards the old school romances. I’ve found the two genres aren’t so different.
@Erika, you have raised interesting questions/theories, which I will be happy to answer, tomorrow. And in the AAR forum, if that suits??
It is 10 PM my time, so my mind is not exactly running on logical fumes . Though, lol, my husband will tell you it never is and that I tend to argue from an emotional POV rather than an logical one .
@Suzanne, take your time. I like hearing why readers like what they like even if I disagree. It makes me think!
I too feel disdain for Old Skool romances that feature abusive men physically overpowering women while such authors label it “”romantic.”” Emotional abuse in the form of manipulation over a vulnerable person sounds equally distasteful. Clearly though there is still an audience out there that want to fantasize about this power dynamic.
@blackjack1, as a reader who read Rosemary Rogers back in the day, I recall yeah the heroes could be abusive but the heroines weren’t always delicate flowers. Sometimes I even believed the hea when I had on my rose colored glasses other times I didn’t quite buy the hea. Indeed in some old school romances they had sequels where the abusive hero reverted back to his bad behavior.
I’m not really sure what you mean by “”delicate flowers,”” or if that is leading to an argument that if a woman isn’t “”delicate,”” the abuse is acceptable, or somewhat more acceptable? Even if a woman is horrible, physical abuse is not justified. It’s not for me, in any case. And, yes, the reverse is true as well.
@blackjack1, I think you misinterpeted my post.
Old school romances had a variety of heroine types. There is a misconception that all the heroines in old school romances were delicate who took whatever the hero dished out and that is not the case.
You wrote “”Clearly though there is still an audience out there that want to fantasize about this power dynamic””
That is true. I’m seeing alot of romances defined as dark erotica where the authors tell the reader this is not your usual romance. Kristin Ashley did this with her Unfinished Heroes series.
I have not read the books – mostly because most of my friends who have read the books have commented on how poorly they were written – poorly as in bad grammar, bad editing or a total lack of editing, the fact it was fan fiction based on the Twilight series didn’t help convince me to read them either. Plus I read a section that was on a blog at one point and it just didn’t appeal to me as a reader…so I am in the “”who the heck cares”” camp…..
why should there be distinctions? when heroines are imperfect there’s no concern about idolizing them.
This argument is based on faulty logic though. “”Imperfect”” heroines or even “”edgy”” heroines are not synonymous with abusive characters – male or female. Conflating those terms is minimizing abuse, which troubles me. The criticism that I’ve read of _50 Shades_ concerns the abuse in the story (physical and emotional). That issue is not to be conflated with imperfection of any character, and I have no trouble making that distinction.
Happy Valentines Day! I have not read 50 Shades of Grey, it just does not seem to be my type of of book. Not knocking it, mind; I don’t read westerns, New Adult, Vampires either.
But one thing I gotta add to this discussion…That’s got to be one of the sexiest covers ever made. If there is still a Cover Contest, that cover has GOT TO win! That is a gorgeous tie! And you just know the man wearing it is some kind of interesting. Kudos to the cover designers on this one. I think the books were as popular as they were, in part, to the fabulous cover :-)
I also feel like the repetitiveness of the book was a reflection of it being a fan fiction piece to begin with and the lack of quality editing showed. I have read a little fan fiction (mainly Pride and Prejudice sequels or re-tellings) and the installment format seems to beg for repetitiveness but in the case of a stand alone novel, the sex scenes did not move the narrative forward in anyway. I have read much better sex scenes that were the only instance of sex in the book. Page after page of similar sex scenes gets old after a while, but maybe the fan fiction format called for that to keep readers interested.
I did not particularly like Christian Grey, but I did not dislike him either. I finally developed some empathy for him around the middle of book 2 and he became a more interesting character, but it was hard to like any of the characters because the writing was pretty bad. If the 3 books had been condensed down to about 500-600 pages, it would probably have been much better. Too many things took me out of the narrative and it was difficult to continue because of the constant distraction of little things that bugged the heck out of this reader. Having said that…Anna was not under Christian’s control IMO. She was very passive/aggressive in her behavior, but she did not really bend except when it benefited her (new car to replace her unsafe one, job where her boss could no longer sexually harass her, etc.). So much was made about the contract, but…she never signed it. He tried to dictate her diet, but she did not follow his orders. She ate what she wanted. Most of the sex was of the “”vanilla”” variety and the one time they actually delved into the pain aspect, she left him. Because she was depicted as so shy, I think many readers did not recognize that she was pushing back. She did not really argue with him about much of it; she just did not do it. Her rebelliousness was not “”in your face,”” so you have to look a little harder to see that she resists him in her own way. After she leaves him, one condition of her coming back is Christian going back into therapy. He complies. Because she forces him to deal with issues from his childhood that created his need for control (mother overdosing and leaving him locked in a house with no food for days, his own molestation by an older woman), Christian begins to overcome that need for control and ends up still liking a little kink, but much more healthy mentally.
If a good editor took a large red pen to the manuscript and cut out about 900 pages of crap, this book might have been elevated to a C+ or even a B-. I feel like different editors edited different books. The writing in the last book was much better than in book 1. Book 1 was pretty bad. Anna does not gain any kind of dimension in her character until the second half of the series. Even then she needed more fleshing out. The heroine saving the dissolute hero from himself is a pretty common trope in romance. I think many people read the first book and gave up (I almost did) and never got to the rest of the story. I would not place Christian on my list of dreamboats more because of the unbelievability of his success (billionaire, extreme sports fanatic, etc.), just like I don’t particularly care for the sheik or contemporary billionaire theme at all.
Mary, I have to agree with your criticisms of the book. For whatever reason with these books my normal grammar nazi, red-pen tendencies did not diminish my sheer enjoyment in reading them. I also think they were in need of a good paring down by a few hundred pages along with a removal of the repetition, the British-isms, etc. Despite that, I had a blast reading them and the characters really stayed with me.
I actually attribute a fair percentage of the instant-hate of this book to the first-person present tense narrative. I don’t mind most first-person narratives, but a lot of people do and throw in the present tense and a reader really has to relate to the voice of the story or it’s a no-go.
i read 50 Shades series and in it Christian is described as 50 shades of f’ed up and totally agree with that. i still loved the book because I love reading about messed up heroes. I miss old school romances and their heroes who aren’t so perfect.
If heroines can be damaged and edgy and be celebrated for their realness why not heroes???
For me, I see “”damaged”” and “”edgy”” differently though from domineering, controlling, stalkerish, abusive, etc. I have not read these books, but I have read a number of books with alpha males that seem to offer something different than damaged and edgy and verge of abuse, as in the Old Skool books described in the blog (many of which I did read long ago when I first started reading romances). I personally would *not* enjoy books with female characters that abused men, and the same is true in reverse. It sounds from what I’ve been reading that there is concern that the 50 Shades book crosses lines into abuse.
@blackjack1, so what if 50 shades does cross that abuse line? Are women so infantile their books can’t explore abusive heroes? Maybe women ought not read murder mysteries where the villain gets away with the crime.
I am rather happy to see authors pushing the envelop when it comes to the behavior of heroes. For the longest time the trend was perfect beta heroes. Good to see variety now.
As one who loves Gone Girl, I agree. Books are windows into all sorts of worlds. It’s interesting to me that there’s all this criticisms dumped on 50 SoG from a world that loves books about serial killers who prey, often sadistically, on women. We trust readers to explore, on the page, the Hannibal Lecters and Dexters. Why don’t we trust women in the same way?
@dabney, thanks for mentioning Gone Girl. In that movie/book the husband stayed with his evil wife and it wasn’t condemned in the way 50 Shades is. It was seen as a good drama.
Are you though differentiating analyzing serial killers and abusive characters from romanticizing them? I’m not seeing enough people distinguishing between the two and these are very different things for me.
Exploring abusive men in fiction sounds perfectly acceptable. Turning abusive men into romantic heroes, on the other hand, seems problematic. I’m always happy to see authors “”pushing the envelope.”” I think there needs to be distinctions between examining an issue and idolizing it though.
Amen.
I have a suggestion. Dreamboat or Deviant. I
I’m surprised you are still using the doucebag theme.
I really like the character of Christian Grey, but I wouldn’t label him a either dreamy or douchey; he’s a sad, hurt, damaged guy trying to exert control in his life to feel secure after being abused as a child. I don’t consider Ana a doormat or pushover either. In the first book she is a bit overwhelmed by everything, but the events of that book cover only a couple weeks and in the second book she pushes back and argues and disagrees and eventually winds up being the one with all the power in the relationship. I’m not sure this kind of relationship could exist in the real world, but it was pretty entertaining to read about.
I’m always taken aback by people insisting that these books are “”bad”” for showing an unhealthy relationship. I don’t want to read books about perfect people having perfect relationships — give me the drama, please!
The reader shaming about 50 Shades is, in and of itself, shameful. I’m not a Christian fan but I support those who are!
Isn’t there though a difference between believing and arguing that the book(s) are bad and represent unhealthy relationships and telling someone they can’t or shouldn’t read them. It sounds to me as if the first issue is just a criticism of the actual books, which seems fair enough if one can make such an argument. I haven’t read the books and don’t have a specific opinion, but I do think it seems fair to criticize the actual books if a reader doesn’t like them and can make a persuasive case. I don’t see that as “”book shaming.””
Sure, if someone wants to say critical things about the books, fine, but you will easily find oodles of those critiques straying from the topic of the book to the readers of the book — like: only bored housewives with lackluster sex-lives read the books, or people who don’t know what “”real”” or “”good”” literature is, or people who support the rape-culture and believe abuse is romantic, or people who only watch Fox News, or people who are in danger of succumbing to the wily abuses of their own 27 year old multi-millionaire if they persist in reading “”dangerous”” books like this, or people who obviously have never read a good romance novel/BDSM novel, etc. and ad nauseum.
If people are moralizing and trying to make assumptions of readers based their own moral and ethical views, then that is judgmental and inappropriate. If someone is criticizing a book for perceived flaws, that is legitimate literary criticism.
I’ve been watching Outlander this week–for the first time–and I’m struck by how that show, also hugely popular, shows such a different version of love and sex. We know Jamie will be a great lover because he is comfortable with himself, listens to Claire, and the two talk as equals. That’s hot–I find nothing in the 50 SoG relationship sexy.
I’ve only read the first book. I thought the relationship was so unhealthy and over-the-top unequal for the heroine and found the hero so warped, that I thought the ending of the first book was perfect, and I didn’t need to read anymore. I had heard that the hero’s issues were explored, the heroine gained some relative power, and the hero was redeemed during the course of the series, but I just didn’t think the first book was written well enough to get me to read the next two and find out how all that happens. (Perhaps if the author had managed to condense the plot of all three books into one, I might’ve seen the light. Heh!) But, unless the author’s writing skills improve over the series in accordance with the hero’s redemption, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever bother to find out.
I have not read the books or been interested in reading them, though I am always interested in understanding cultural phenomena. There seems to be target audience of women that enjoy “”alpha”” heroes and consider books like this one a “”romance.”” I’m far on the other side of the spectrum in that I am turned off by controlling men, plots coming too close to stalkerish behavior, and heroines that are painted as weak and in need of male schooling. Does the popularity speak to a backlash against feminism? Can we have a swept-off-your-feet romance without the dominance effect? My mother was a fan of the Old Skool romances and I remember well arguing with her when I was younger about how denigrating such representations were, but she felt they established a way of living between the sexes that felt right. I went the other direction and pretty much equate romance with egalitarian relationships. This book sounds very Old Skool to me.
Douchebag. Someone who really cares about you will not seek to hurt, punish, degrade, humiliate, or control you. I am appalled that the “”heroine”” of this story is so weak that she accepts this.
Oh, gosh, I guess my comment was a lot more forgiving of the guy. But again, I didn’t read the book. ;)
Not only is Christian a douchbag, he is the King of douchebags, the UberDouchebag, the pinnacle of douchebaggery.
It’s interesting that, according to reviews, he’s less douchey and more drab and that she’s more powerful. I loved this review: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/02/12/fifty_shades_of_grey_the_movie_transforms_anastasia_steele_christian_grey.html
I have to say I haven’t read the book – and really don’t want to do so. So I can’t say.
Fantastic analysis. And I especially agree with the idea that the reason that 50SoG is as successful as it is is due to the “”old skool”” factor. As far as we’ve come since the early days of romance when the bodice ripper was the norm, deep down inside something about that whole dynamic works for people. What I find unfortunate – and said as much to my husband – is that it’s 50SoG that went mainstream when there are so many other GOOD books in the same vein. It’s as if people think that 50SoG is something new and unique when really, it’s just a very poor sample out of a much larger pool that has existed for a long time.
As for Christian, getting over the ridiculousness of his success at such an age is such a huge obstacle that all other aspects of him are almost cartoonish. I chalk him clearly in the douche column.
“”So now it’s your turn. Christian Grey, dreamboat, douchebag or who the heck cares?”
I have one foot in the who the heck cares camp and the other firmly in the douchebag camp.
I wish I didn’t care so much ;-)
I’ve read the whole series 3 times and I hardly ever read any romance novels more modern than the 19th century, loving the old times in books when men seemed to be very much more masculine and natural in their element as proactive, leaders providing all they can (& then some) to their woman and family. So, I loved Chrisitan, right from the start (but Anna had to grow on me) & all his bossy, controlling ways – which was just His way of taking the best care of her that he could and in ways he knew worked out very successfully in most other areas of his life. And I love my man of 28yrs to be his own big, strongc naturally masculine, dominant, bossy, protective, borderline stalking – yeah right, of his wife?… (seriously, it feels very safe, comforting, attractive, and well taken care of… to me – & we don’t have billions, or millions, or even thousands.
From Maggie: “”So now it’s your turn. Christian Grey, dreamboat, douchebag or who the heck cares?””
My answer: “”Who the heck cares.”” :)