When in
2011 the first part of Erica Leonard’s (1963) ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ trilogy
hit the market, there were of course numerous reactions, varying from very positive
to very negative, all neatly mirroring our societies approach to erotic
literature.
On itself
this shows that three successive waves of feminism have only been able to reach
those who lived near the shore anyway. For the rest it was safe and sound back
to the historically, or - now perhaps - self-imposed confinements of the
convenient moral of the majority.
Grey was a
hit, for numerous reasons. To name a few probable candidates; because it is
exciting to read erotic fiction for females while sitting in public transport,
reading secretly on your e-pad or smart phone; because relationships – any
marriages anyway - are boring and because sex has lost its magic and
degenerated to a mass-customized product that competes with red-wine and Zumba
fitness for an ever more equally free female human.
But what is
this freedom worth? It shows similarities to the idea that chess player and
currently oldest grandmaster Victor Korchnoi is said to have once asserted with
regard to communism: ‘Before communism
arose most of us had nothing and a few of us had something, now we all have nothing.’
WDYM? Well,
I mean, that - and that’s of course a big premise – if men were not truly sexually
liberated in the past, what extras does more equality to men and their views
that are instrumentalized in the structures of society actually offer women
when it comes to living as free sexual beings? _____ Nada.
At any time
when an erotic novel came out that in one way or another posed a threat to
ideas that were dominant in a culture, it was naturally met with resistance. It
was like that with Nabukov’s cheerful ‘Lolita’ and it was like that with the
challenging ‘Story of O’. So why would it be different with the ‘Fifthy Shades
of Grey’ trilogy? Wikipedia lists that it is accused by critics of stereotyping
gender roles, depiction of BDSM and to presuppose romanticism, to name a few.
What is
essential is that all three of the above mention books were successful enough
to leave traces in the society of their time. With regard of the depth, scope
and longevity of the Grey trilogy it is of course still to be seen: therefore
the title, ‘Fifty Years O’ Grey’ as
with O, we still love – or hate, or
fear – her after fifty years and it is the same with Dolores Haze. Many (wo)man have dreamed to own O or to play with Lo,
because it is not the age or the submission – consensual or not – that is so
appealing to our mind’s sexual road map, but rather the fact that things like
‘age’ or ‘submission’ circle around the concept of transgressing borders;
whether they are right or wrong in the eyes of the beholder.
The Dutch
reporter Raymond van den Boogaard – in his preface to the Story of O – comes to a similar conclusion and ponders on the
question in how far O and Grey represent a different stance on how sexuality is
perceived in Western society.
In O, he
finds an attempt of transgression regarding social conventions and personal
borders that is touching on the dark and cruel part of our psyche; whereas in
the Grey trilogy, he rather spots a hedonistic motive to try out diversity,
avoiding the struggles regarding excess, danger and deliverance. Eventually he
concludes that O now managed to be influential for more than sixty years and
doubts if we in half a decade still will remember Christian Grey.
In this
regard I agree with him, as indeed the perspective of seeing sexuality as a
commodity that is to be negotiated before it can be enjoyed in all ‘fifty
shades’ stands in strong contrast to the deep personal quest of O, who -
disregarding the costs – struggled against having her own urges be subordinated
to anything else as her own free choice to life or die as an loving object.
Notice,
that O was realist enough to understand the objectification for what it was,
yet she lovingly consented by her obedience. Her decision to be owned was her
own to make and a free choice too. Not being able to control being loved by her
Master, she followed her own power to love in order to find a meaning in life
and death.
Let’s hope
that not many have to carry the burden of O in their heart. But, when you have
ever lost one of your devotees, by time or by suicide, make sure, you never
forget.
Thank you,
sweet adorable H.
Sir Cameron is occupied with O ever since he
found out it was written for him. In his articles, his stories and the books he
play a role in, O will return over and over again. It will, however, be clear,
that many of the assumptions made by Declos will be subject to critique, both
with regard to their factuality as to their alethic reality.
