Perfectionism and the death of writing

Because writing is supposed to be an uncontrollable urge fuelled by passion, divinely-inspired by Keats. Or something.

(I'm not actually that pretentious).

I'm going to try something I never realised was important. I'm going to write something, this, in one sitting, and publish it. Just to prove that I can.

I'm a perfectionist, and I have no right to call myself that really, because nothing I write is being close to perfect. It takes a long time for me to be comfortable sharing anything I write. My dad has a friend who's writing a novel. She's been writing it for 30 years. Every time it seems like she's close to sending it back to the publisher, she thinks of something else to edit. Your novel is your legacy to the world, you should be happy with it, but to me, this seems like passion turned to hell.

I've never had the experience of editing such a long piece of writing. Recently, writing a 1000 word quickly went from fun to agonising. I spent so long tweaking it that if in the end I just sent it off in a "There you bloody go" kind of way. I washed my hands of it.

I spent so long on it that I completely lost interest. And if it turns out to be awful, that's probably why.

You can't progress onto new ones, and therefore learn the lessons that those ones hold. There comes a point where you've milked everything you can from one project, why keep going until your enthusiasm has completely frazzled?

We can't all be wild Byronic literary heroes who spew genius on a whim. Editing is always involved. It's necessary. Your craft is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration, remember? But come on, sometimes it's just beyond the joke.

My becoming more laid back is going to take a shocking amount of work.

NaNoWriMo Day 9: Floundering in a sea of (not too many) words

This is my very first NaNoWriMo, and I'm writing a good ol' fashioned sword fighty fantasy adventure. Right now my word count is the grand total of... 3338. Oh. Considering that's almost 10,000 words below schedule, it rests somewhere between the realms of pathetic and tragic. The official NaNo website tells me that "at this rate" my 50,000 words will be finished by the 28th of February. Thanks, guys! Unfortunately for me, I have until the end of this month.

I was going to do a preliminary NaNoWriMo blog post but unfortunately I've been without the internet. I was also planning to spend the last few moments of Halloween staring, moon-eyed, at the computer screen, coffee in hand, waiting for the cathodes to flicker over to 00.00 and then boom, off I'd go like a bolting (fat, Shetland) pony. As it happened I spent those moments collecting vomity glasses from a nightclub floor dressed as the Wicked Witch of the West. I got in at 5 in the morning, had little sleep then went to work at my daytime retail job, then went to work at the club again at night. I spent the next day resting, and can't actually remember what I did on Monday my life is THAT interesting, but I eventually came in late to the party on the 4th, when I actually wrote some words at one of Kent's many Write Ins.

When you do NaNoWriMo you learn that there simply is no excuse for not writing. I've always fancied doing it, but thought that, as a student with essays and "reading" to do, I wouldn't have the time. I naively that after graduation I'd somehow be more free to pursue the challenge; I shudder to think how difficult to be if I actually had a social life nowadays as well as two jobs etc. NaNoWriMo encourages you to fit in writing wherever you can, be it during your fifteen minute break at work, or by waking up half an hour early to fit an early morning session in. The Write In meetings are a fantastic idea, as not only do you get to meet like-minded writers, but you also get the motivation to get some words down during the twenty minute "sprints". As a writer speed isn't my strong point, but watching others zip through their novel is a much needed kick up the backside.

Everyone does NaNoWriMo differently, Some like to write a steady 1667 words per day and others like to plough through a substantial amount at the beginning, or  attempt a mad dash at the end; I personally feel have no choice but to be the former.

But why am I so far behind? Right now, the answer is obvious. There's only a very limited number of words I can blag before it becomes apparent that I don't actually know what on earth I'm doing. In writing there are planners and there are those that can spontaneously produce amazing work right off the bat. I'm definitely a planner, but I launched into November without a much-needed novel blueprint. I pretty much started with a sentence-long idea and a couple of half-formed characters. How far I've progressed from there, I'm not too sure.

Sure, plot points, character and setting are gently inching their way out of my brain as I write but still, it's like trying to steer a horse with a really flaccid grip on the reins. I'm stuck in a fantasy land of my own creation, and I haven't even drawn up a map. That's how dire the situation is. What's the world called? What are people wearing? What's the geography like? Who's the main character? I DON'T EVEN KNOW! Naturally, I've ground to a halt.

I'm also fairly certain that what I'm writing is terrible because I'm focusing more on quantity instead of quantity. This doesn't exactly inspire me to keep going. I'm sure some people work both into theirs, and that's great, but at the moment I just feel like I'm writing a glorified 50,000 word synopsis which lacks the linguistic deliciousness of a brilliant novel.

So I'm taking a few days out to actually plan my novel, stop floundering and get the bloody hell on with it. Seriously. And who knows, maybe by tomorrow's Write In I'll have partially caught up with the others, and won't be screaming at my laptop.

If anyone wants to buddy up with me and watch my continuing NaNoDesPair as I battle with the aptly named Untitled Generic Fantasy, my NaNoWriMo username is poppy_elizabeth,

A tale of two Lolitas

That's obviously a pile of petticoats in the background and not a pair of jeans. Definitely not

(SPOILERS: American Horror Story: Coven)

Happy Halloween!

This year I've opted for the demonic doll look. I've already been cackled at on my way to work (it was a Halloween themed night, okay) by group of thirteen year old girls standing around in the cold wearing tiny hotpant playsuits. It's Halloween, people! What happened to the childish excitement surrounding the holiday, when it was about honouring all things that go bump in the night and not getting boys to want to grind against you at a disco? And on the subject of unspeakable things and provocatively-dressed children, it's time to talk about Lolita. Both of them.

After years of weeaboo pipe-dreaming, I've finally bought myself a Lolita outfit - the Japanese kind, that is. I know at 22 I'm probably pushing the acceptable age limit for this subculture, but I already the child treatment for my appearance so I'm going to milk this young face until the end of time. I've already sweated it out twice in this outfit this month, once at the MCM Expo in London, and another at work. If anyone's wondering if three pairs of false lashes, an enormous frizzy wig, a temperamental bonnet and flared frilly sleeves are a good call for bartending, the answer is no, definitely not. To get the most out of my new outfit my first point of call was to trawl countless YouTube videos on Lolita make up and photo poses because  being asked for a photograph at Expo and having no idea what to do with your hands is pretty awkward. It definitely still happened, though.

Anyway, there are always hysterical YouTubers who flock to these videos shrieking, as much as one can shriek using a keyboard, things like: "DO YOU REALISE ALL THESE LOLITAS HAVE SUGAR DADDIES?!?!?!?!" as though they've busted some kind of kawaii conspiracy. The conflation of the Lolita style with Nabokov's infamous novel is based purely on the name - and it causes some to rant and rave as though lace and frills are inherently corruptive. There are even those within the subculture who won't use the name because the connotations are just too pervy; I did wear my outfit to an under 18s night to serve coke and lemonade to under 18s. COINCIDENCE? So is the shared name just just a random occurrence, or is there a darker side to the bows and ruffles? There's no official answer to the question of how Lolita fashion got its name, so let's look at some of the possible connections.

JESUS, 'PEOPLE MAGAZINE'!

When Vladimir Nabokov set out to write Lolita in the mid-twentieth century, modest knee-length skirts and petticoats were probably the last thing he had in mind for his female lead. She is instead characterised by her revealing, flirtatious clothing teamed with her bandy physique. This has become an iconic look all in itself. Lolita is a minor who lacks the innocence of her youth. She is described as a 'nymphet' - a girl between the ages of nine and fourteen that Humbert, the narrator, finds most appealing. As a girl resting on the cusp between childhood and puberty her interest in sex is apparent, boasting about her exploits to Humbert. However, her need to assert her apparent maturity only serves as a testament to how young she actually is. Humbert takes advantage of her during a point in her development where she is curious about sex, and uses it to trap her. He blackmails her with poverty and the orphanage if she doesn't perform certain sexual favours. He never refers to her by her true name, Dolores, instead renaming her 'Lolita', to signal her new life as his possession.

The name 'Lolita' itself is a more coquettish incarnation of Dolores, which was not only a popular girls' name in the novel's era, but also translates as 'sorrows', perhaps referring to the tumultuous relationship between Lolita and her mother. 'Dolores' also has Catholic connotations, associated with the Spanish title for the Virgin Mary, Mary of Sorrows. The name Dolores represents all who Lolita's mother, and in turn, society, expect her to be as a young girl growing up in 1940s suburban America - chaste and innocent. Her new name even gives him pleasure to say, thoroughly cementing her transition from straight-laced upbringing to paedofile's plaything:

"Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth"

There are those who still claim that Lolita is an equally guilty party in all this and that she encourages Humbert, but this is probably down to Humbert's narration bias - of course everything the twelve-year-old does is going to seem hypersexualised. Lolita doesn't need to give Humbert any encouragement. He is not only a paedofile, but a rapist. Before their first 'consensual' sexual encounter, he drugs and attempts to molest her, only failing because she wakes up. He even considers impregnating Lolita with a daughter with the intention of eventually a raping a child of her likeness when she is 'past it'. Oh yeah, this is the same book that Vanity Fair once called "The only convincing love story of our century." Thank God for the single life, right?

Here's one for you, 'Vanity Fair'

On the surface the Japanese style has nothing to do with this plot - this plot is not kawaii in the slightest. But undeniably, in both, there is a fixation on the beauty of youth. With Lolita clothing, it is often devoid of sexual intent, focused more on prettiness; there's something oh-so-becoming about a nice little bonnet, don't you think? On the other hand, Lolita is more concerned with, and I shudder to say “The sexy aspects of childhood”, but that's exactly how Humbert's twisted psyche views it.

The continued association with the term 'Lolita' and sexual deviation is also in part due to its creeping in to the language of psychology. In his 1965 book The Lolita Complex, Russell Trainer (who is frequently criticised for being a pulpy amateur who doesn't know what he's talking about) describes a phenomenon where men are fixated on young girls, calling it - you guessed it - The Lolita Complex. The term was translated to 'Lolicon' in Japanese, which then became a horrific genre of manga and anime based around sexy depictions of child-like girls. I'm not entirely sure that was Trainer's intention.

Humbert clearly suffers from the 'complex', the same attraction repeating itself throughout his life. Even his name, Humbert Humbert, has at its core the idea of repeated behaviour, which is all linked to his psychosis. This perverse pattern in his sexual behaviour is seemingly linked to the death of his childhood sweetheart, Annabel Leigh. He recognises attributes of his lost love in Lolita, which aids his attraction to her. It that his obsession with so-called 'nymphets' is a way of coping of the loss of Annabel and returning to a more innocent time where his life was untainted by death.

The name, Annabel Leigh, is directly inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's poem, Annabel Lee, in which an unnamed narrator laments the loss of his childhood love:

"The angels, not half so happy in Heaven,

Went envying her and me -

Yes! - that was the reason (as all men know,

In this kingdom by the sea)

That the wind came out of the cloud by night,

Chilling and killing my Annabel Lee."

It all seems a bit too contrived to be true. Perhaps Humbert, who we know is a distinguished reader, is having a joke with us, making up a romanticised situation to explain his vile behaviour when in fact, he has no excuse. Perhaps he's preserving Annabel's purity with an obvious pseudonym so she remains untainted by the actions of the boy she loved. Or, perhaps Nabokov is showing us that Humbert is romanticising the situation with Lolita far more than he should, and we can all see right through it.

This morbidity in Humbert's intentions, to capture a youth, frozen in time, can be seen in the doll-like aesthetics of the Lolita. While some Lolitas take offence to the term "living doll", there are certainly some aspects inspired by dolls. In popular culture, the heterosexual man with a fixation on dolls in signal for sexual deviance. In The Simpsons, Smithers' huge collection of Malibu Stacy dolls is a running joke based on the camp aspects of his homosexuality. In American Horror Story: Coven, the moment we see the creepy doorman Spalding strap a Victorian bonnet over his greasy locks and retire to his china doll bachelor pad, alarm bells start ringing. Not only does he have an impressive and expensive antique doll collection, he also dresses dead girls in doll clothes and performs sexual acts on them. This obsession with youth is a particularly ghoulish one - the fascinations with the eternally beautiful yet passive dolls being the next step down from necrophilia, and the need to mirror this in the preservation of human beauty after death.

But then, the "creepy old man with a doll collection" is only a horror trope, and it's not a fair assumption to make of anyone with a doll collection in real life. Still, interest in childhood is often linked to paedophilia. Lewis Carroll, who created Wonderland as a childish haven, is frequently accused of being a paedophile, apparently harbouring an unhealthy fascination with a family friend, Alice Liddell. Incidentally, Alice's Adventure's in Wonderland is a particular source of inspiration for Lolita fashion. The word 'Lolita' was used in a spin-off Lolicon Manga comic called Stumbling Upon a Cabbage Field in the 1960s. Perhaps the link lies in Alice and Wonderland. Who knows?

But this is all just speculation. There are obvious links, but nothing to lose your rag and burn your petticoats about.

Fairy Tale Film Club: 'Maleficent' (2014)

Welcome to the first of a (hopefully) fortnightly feature, Fairy Tale Film Club. It's a bit of an ambitious and, let's face it, slightly desperate title because this 'club' just is entirely made up of just me, watching films, alone. I'm not film critic in any sense of the word (I think I’m blind to camera angles) so these posts are going to focus less on reviewing films and more on how fairy tales have expanded and been developed to fit the (slightly more) modern medium of film. Because of this, they're going to be packed full of spoilers - you have been warned.

First up is Maleficent, a three-dimensional re-imagining of the Basile/Perrault tale and Disney classic, Sleeping Beauty. The film is centred on the croissant-headed villain from all our childhood nightmares and shows that she isn't quite as malignant as the original motion picture makes her out to be. Following Oz the Great and Powerful to the big screen by about a year, Maleficent is part of Disney's current string of live-action reinterpretations of classic films, often depicting the origins of popular culture’s most hated villains; Disney has always had a tendency to be quite black and white in their depictions of good and evil. By drawing on existing films, one could be accuse Disney of simply struggling to find new source material to work with, instead returning to the tried-and-tested favourites to make easy money at the box office. But I find it hard to be so cynical about Disney, a franchise that has, after all, largely been built on retelling other people's stories. Fairy tales, by their very nature, call for constant reinterpretation as they are passed down through different mediums, cultures and ages. Just as Sleeping Beauty reflects the romantic values of the 1950s, Maleficent manipulates the story so that it reflects Disney's updated twenty-first century values.

Anyone who appears in green flames HAS to be irredeemably evil, right?

And Disney's values are certainly changing. Once upon a time if you were a single princess, you were pretty much screwed if you met any misfortune. This is, most probably, because their interpretations closely followed the values in the original fairy tales. It’s little wonder, then, that we grew up thinking our lives are over if we get dumped - your life IS over if you haven’t found your ‘true love’ by the age of sixteen. This outdated reliance of romance, which usually occurs after very little dialogue between the couple, is finally being overridden by independence and more focus on platonic and familial love. The dangers of committing yourself to a man you barely know are evident in Frozen, and more Disney princesses are remaining single at the end of films, finding fulfillment independent of romance. So when, in Maleficent, Prince Philip fails to revive Aurora with his kiss, but Maleficent, who has developed a maternal affection for the girl, can, we see that 'love at first sight' pales in comparison to that between a mother figure and her child.

The loss of love is often attributed to a female character's turn to evil. In Oz the Great and Powerful, which serves as a prequel to Baum's work, we also became acquainted with a villain's backstory. We witness the doe-eyed, love-struck Theodora being left heartbroken by the Wizard and, as a result, turning green becoming the Wicked Witch of the West, bent on destroying everyone. And I thought my break ups were bad. However, this Wicked Witch origin story lacks the depth and originality of Gregory Maguire's novel, Wicked. Whereas Maguire creates a multi-faceted, witty heroine with politically and morally complex backstory, Disney relies on the tiresome 'spurned woman' trope. We all know that romantic, happy endings are important in fairy tales - literally a case of life or death - and it's understandable how the inability to fulfil this obligation could naturally lead to a life of evil. But this is the twenty-first century, can't we stop seeing female villains as such delicate flowers, incapable of malice without having been heartbroken, and just let them be greedy or evil for the sake of it?

Initially, Maleficent looks like it's going down the same heavily-soiled path. We are introduced to Maleficent as a forest-dwelling fairy child of the Moors, with startling cheekbones and trademark horns, but a pair of wings that aren't familiar with fans of the animated original. She's innocent, but to be honest, anyone who gives their child a name like Maleficent is just asking for trouble. She meets Stefan, with whom she shares 'true love's kiss' as a teenager, but he later disappears to pursue his ambition at the castle. As an adult, Maleficent uses her wings to protect the Moors from invaders from the kingdom, and when she mortally wounds the current king in battle, he pledges that the man who slays her will be his successor. Stefan visits Maleficent under the guise of rekindling their relationship, drugs her and cuts off her wings to return to the king as evidence of her demise. Heartbroken, Maleficent becomes the secluded (save for her human/crow companion, Diaval) queen of the Moors, fixated on revenge.

Although heartbroken about her lost love, Maleficent’s evil deeds are a result of her lost wings, and the freedom that came with them. Angelina Jolie herself has admitted that the act of drugging Maleficent and taking her wings was consciously conceived as a metaphor for rape, as her identity is bound with her wings in the same way that a woman's identity includes the freedom to choose whom she has sexual relations with. Like rape, it is the theft of a body. It is only through learning to love Aurora that Maleficent regains her original self, and relinquishes the need to avenge what she has lost. It is an ending that is concerned with love, but is not as restricting as the old-fashioned fixation on romance.

Naturally, there has been some moral outcry from militant parents who don't want their little darlings to be exposed to the story of a woman reclaiming her sense of self after an assault. However, the metaphor is veiled that it isn't evident to many adults, let alone a child with little or no knowledge of sex. The use of sexual metaphor in a film based on a fairy tale is hardly surprising considering the lurid meaning of much of the source material. In Giambattista Basile’s Sun, Moon and Talia, the original Sleeping Beauty tale, princess Talia is put to sleep by a splinter of flax; Basile must have thought that princesses were excessively fragile if they could be overcome by a plant. A passing king is enraptured by her death-like beauty, and so rapes her in her sleep. She becomes pregnant and gives birth to his children in her slumber, and only wakes up when one of her babies, searching for a nipple to nurse on, sucks on her finger instead and removes the splinter. After some nasty business with the king's wife - under which logic Basile chose to make her the villain instead a man who has sex with unknowing girls in their sleep, I don't know -Talia and the king live happily ever after. This debacle ends on the worst moral I have ever come across in a story:

"Those whom fortune favors

Find good luck even in their sleep"

Nope. violation and a resulting pregnancy is never "good luck", whether it’s by a king or not. Maleficent puts the blame back where it belongs - on the violator.

The spinning wheel, added by Perrault to replace the splinter of flax, is a simultaneously masculine and feminine icon, pertaining to the sexual acts in Sun, Moon and Talia. On one hand, the pointed needle is a phallic symbol, representing the dangers associated with sex. On the other hand, the circular motion of this domestic object reminds us of the perpetual nature of gender-assigned roles, confining the female to the home. Let's look at this in comparison to Sun, Moon and Talia. It is through the one-sided act of sex with the king during her sleep, a time where she has absolutely no say in the outcome, that Talia's domestic destiny is decided, as bearing the king's children automatically assigns her a place in the his home. She has no choice but to be overjoyed, because as a woman she must remain passive, her future decided by external forces such as licentious kings and splinters of flax. Had she not been happy with the king’s actions, would she have had a say in the matter?

Fairy tales, such as Little Red Riding Hood, are often used as metaphors to warn young girls about the dangers of men and sex. Still, Perrault depicts Sleeping Beauty as being, despite warning, drawn to the sharp point of the needle; she cannot sate her curiosity until she has touched it. Sex can be seen as damaging to a young woman because it could have bound them to a man through pregnancy and the resulting marriage – they could have as little choice in their life partner as a sleeping woman, yet would need to force themselves to be content with it. In the era of fairy tales, sex could bind women in the domestic cycle, limiting their personal choice. In the same way, Maleficent’s freedom to fly and protect her land is restricted after her violation, yet this time, it is viewed negatively. Contrary to Sun, Moon and Talia, the actions performed upon Maleficent in her sleep are not considered good fortune doesn't find good fortune in her sleep. In fact, any invasive action during sleep has no true benefits.

Maleficent is a critique of male entitlement to female space, the same entitlement that the king is guilty of in Sun, Moon and Talia. There is clear a dichotomy between male and female geographical spaces in the film. The Moors, where Maleficent rules, is a space related to femininity and the stereotypical role of reproducer and nurturer, as it is a wild, natural and fertile place where Maleficent discovers her maternal instinct. Stefan's castle on the other hand, is cold, angular and stone, relating to male warfare and power. It is entirely governed by men - the queen has very little screen time, her death going unnoticed in favor of Stefan's quest for power, and the fairies fulfil their duties away from the castle in the woods. These spaces are entirely built on stereotypes associated with the sexes.

It is not a criticism of men in general, but a criticism of the archaic attitudes towards female independence and allowing women to govern their own spaces. It is the inability of the male characters of power to accept that there is a space run by a woman, independent of male influence,  that makes them the villains. They try to take her land by force, as rape is taking a woman's body by force. By removing the wings that make her powerful, the castle are removing the threats associated with autonomous females in society. Maleficent reclaims her original identity, putting aside vengeance, when she learns to love Aurora, who is as irritating as you'd imagine anyone who's been blessed to never feel sad would be. She is therefore reconciling the idea of traditional feminity – maternal – with being poweful. Feminity and power do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The film has been criticised for forgoing a one-dimensional character for Maleficent in favour of an irredeemably evil male character. However, Stefan’s evil is necessary, showing how entitlement to female space is unacceptable and unnecessary to society, that putting too much emphasis on isolates your loved ones and, as Maleficent shows, it is possible to rule with compassion.

For more on the rape imagery in Maleficent, read Robyn Bahr's article here.

Next time: Red Riding Hood (2011)

Another TV break up? *Yawn*

(WARNING: Contains spoilers for New Girl, Glee, Sex and the City, Friends, Scrubs, How I Met Your Mother... seriously, how many shows have done this?)

I know this is supposed to be a book blog, but as constructing narratives comes in many different forms today I'm going to be looking at TV, because TV is great.

Today I was catching up with one of my favourite US comedies, New Girl, which I've been massively behind on due to forgetting that streaming exists, when the unthinkable happened: Jess and Nick broke up. But before you fall into a chasm of despair and start watching Dirty Dancing on repeat, remember: they WILL get back together. They are 'endgame' - the recurring relationship being such a re-used trope that it has its own title.

At least Glee are self-aware:

I think all the viewers knew how this was going to end, too *sniff*

TV, to a certain extent, reflects real life and unfortunately breaking up is part of that. The demise of a romantic relationship allows for the development of a character as a single person, or in a new relationship. It's a way of reflecting on the fact that not everything works out the way you'd like it or expect it to.

There are, of course, a number of couples who have broken up and gotten back together. Ross and Rachel, Carrie and Big, Ted and Robyn, JD and Elliot... the list goes on. I'm sure if Cory Monteith hadn't sadly passed away then Rachel and Finn would have fulfilled his character's "endgame" prophecy. This perpetually gives dumped losers like myself unfortunate doses of false hope. Not that you should look to ANY show where a columnist for a lesser-known New York newspaper can afford (seemingly) weekly pairs of Manolo Blahnik's and Prada shopping sprees for gritty realism.

But these are usually comedies, and we love a happy ending. In the case of Sex and the City's Carrie and Big, their turbulent off-on relationship was necessary. Carrie's never-ending quest for 'the One' turns a full circle, showing that her match was in front of her the whole time (it was obviously difficult to notice that when he was married to someone else and screwing her around, but oh well). It was the different experiences and development of both parties throughout the six series that made them realise they were right for each other in the end (I didn't entirely agree with that ending).

But what about contriving issues in already perfect pairing which leads to the eventual break up? Jess and Nick's break up left me scratching my head. It seemed to come out of nowhere, based on issues that up until that moment, weren't really evident to viewers. There comes a point in many long-running series where the writers may find themselves scrabbling for fresh ideas - and this may have been one of them. It creates a brand new conflict for when ideas begin to go a bit stale.

We love a good break up - well, not if it happens to us, obviously - but when it happens to a favourite couple it generates the emotional response the writers crave. Not to mention excitement. Will they? Won't they? Etc. Etc. And then the much desired happy ending when the estranged lovers eventually reconcile. And if you don't love a happy ending then I don't even know.

And when a couple have fought for their love, it seems in fiction land that the relationship is more meaningful. Passion and arguing go hand in hand, apparently. You're not soul mates unless you're fundamentally incompatible in some way.

But the main issue is, such contrived situations just seem like a cop out. It's like once a couple are together, there's no other way to develop them, or each part as individuals. There are plenty of other channels to explore, sources of conflict and excitement that deviate from this tired old formula - platonic relationships, careers, maybe even getting arrested. Just anything else. Otherwise you get characters that seem to primarily exist for their romantic possibility.

But some kind of relationship is obviously necessary. Because heaven forbid a character should find themself single when your show has run its course.

Fifty Shades of Harry Styles: The appeal of the tortured soul

I thought long and hard and that was the most compelling title I could think of. I'm sorry.

If you have an internet connection you probably noticed that the Fifty Shades of Grey trailer was released last month. That's two and a half saliva-inducing, or cringe-worthy (you decide, mine was the latter) minutes of watching Christian and Ana rendered cross-eyed by the weight of their desire. All for your viewing (ahem) pleasure.

In the unlikely event that you're unfamiliar with the plot, here's a quick run down. Ana Steele (geddit) is an English major who has never before experienced sexual attraction, let alone imagine herself strung up by her ankles in anyone's "red room of pain". This all changes, of course, when she meets Christian Grey, a sexually-driven stalker - sorry, I meant hottie - who “doesn't do” relationships. His broodiness is such that he feels compelled to play melancholy, post-coital sonatas on his million-dollar piano. Overwhelmed by a sudden, unfamiliar desire Ana signs a contract which essentially allows him to own her, thus reducing her body to a commodity and their relationship to a business transaction. And who said romance was dead?

It all sounds too contrived to for a realistic story, as though James is setting up a modern day Beauty and the Beast fable, with whips, chains and archetypal characters, that we're only meant to take as symbolic fantasy. And that's exactly how the story goes. As the trilogy progresses, Ana becomes more sexually “liberated”, while her love heals Christian's tortured souls until he's more partial to playing jolly post-bondage gavottes. Hurrah. 

This is not to be confused with the Twilight series or, more recently, Anna Todd's soon-to-be-published online trilogy After. If the popularity of these books is anything to go by, emotionally-damaged love interests, a la Christian Grey, are flavour of the moment in romance. James' association of Christian's desire to be sexually dominant with his emotional trauma has been criticised for promoting a generally incorrect stereotype of those who enjoy BDSM.  But these male leads, far from being portrayed as men in need psychological help, their issues are fetishised.

In the Fifty Shades of Grey trailer Ana (played by Dakota Johnson) dully describes Christian (Jamie Dornan) as “intimidating”, as though she's reeling off shades of beige from a Dulux colour chart. This single word hints at the fantasy of dominance, which is a major selling point of the film, whilst alluding to the sinister potential of Christian's wealth and power. His obsessive personality becomes apparent in the early stages of their relationship, and he exhibits “dominant” behaviour before Ana even signs the contract. I get the impression that it doesn't matter to Christian whether Ana agrees to be his submissive or not; he will not take no for an answer. While chewing over the idea of signing away her autonomy Ana phones him, drunk and laughing, from a nightclub. Thinking she MUST be in danger, he shows up like an embarrassing parent to nip that independent merry-making right in the bud. Luckily, he's just in time, as he's able to intercept her male friend's sexual advances. Again, it's a highly contrived situation, but with it James attempt to justify Christian's over-reactive and overbearing behaviour and make him some kind of white knight figure because of it. You can imagine someone reading it, thinking “Well, what was she thinking, going to club and drinking (dancing provocatively, no doubt), unaccompanied by her (billionaire) male chaperone?” That's exactly what Christian, the modern woman's fantasy boyfriend, is thinking. It's 2014 and we're trying to unravel dated ideas about victim blaming. Perhaps Christian should just get back to the Round Table.

That's not even the worst of it. In Fifty Shades Darker, Christian finds himself jealous suspicious of Ana's new boss. He remedies this, not by examining his romantic insecurities and perhaps reading a self help book, but by BUYING THE COMPANY. Again, James shows that he's completely correct in his paranoia and saves the day once more. But a billionaire boyfriend isn't so appealing when he can use his money to gain control over your life and stalk you with his private helicopter. 

So by depicting Christian as some kind of danger-sniffing blood hound, James implies that his tenacious behaviour is not only acceptable, but necessary. In Ana she creates a traditional damsel figure who requires Christian's heroic intervention whenever she steps out and behaves like the adult she is. It's significant that he "rescues" her from the nightclub during the period where she is deciding whether she wants to be his submissive - the only kind of sexual relationship he will have with her. It cements one idea in her mind: she needs him, she needs him to tell her what to do, or who knows what would happen. 

We know that women don't need men to keep them on the straight and narrow, but that doesn't seem to be the kind of relationship James wants us to fantasise about; so much for liberating the female readership.

After also features an excessively-controlling male love interest. The trilogy centres on Tessa, another virginal English major, and her turbulent relationship with an emotionally-abusive moron. It's totally cool, though, because that very moron just so happens to be no less Harry Styles, therefore legions of young fans are jumping to his character's defence. He's another brooding, modern-day interpretation of a Byronic hero, but the kind that laughs at his girlfriend when she's on her period. Okay then. And yes, there is a lot of sex in it, and I really struggle to imagine Harry Styles in a sexual context. Every time I walk past 1D merchandise (which is all the time) and see all their many happy eyes bore into me I spasm with embarrassment. It's like they know.

Harry (the fictional one) treats Tessa appallingly. He deceives her, and reacts aggressively towards any man who talks to her. He constantly appears at her workplace and even makes life-changing decisions on her behalf so he can keep her to himself. He reels her in and spits her back out again, acting interested and then insulting her and calling her desperate for reciprocating.  Despite this, he has her hooked from the first time he verbally degrades her. And, obviously, he becomes better through her love.

After was a far more compelling read than Fifty Shades of Grey, but I read it like I read Lolita – I wanted her to get out of that relationship as fast as possible. I'm not on Team Harry or Team Zayn, but Team “make some friends and join the literature club, Tessa, you're 21. Seriously”. And does she actually write her assignments? Because it seems that her whole university life is consumed by Harry with little time or thought for anything else. Honestly, Todd has woven a pretty good plot. In Harry she's created a character who I want to reach through my computer screen and strangle, and that's quite admirable.

Todd depicts Harry's behaviour as a byproduct of his traumatic past. He mistreats Tessa because he can't handle the weight of his love for her. When Tessa feels betrayed, yet again by Harry her friend (none other than Liam Payne of One Direction fame) claims that Harry really is deeply in love with her. Well, that's okay then!

(It's actually not okay).

This all boils down to the dual fantasy sold to women in these two novels. There is a trade-off: sexual experience for emotional salvation. In this respect, the male protagonists become mentor figures who exude a kind of parental control over their female partners. At the same time, it also offers female readers a "maternal nurturer" fantasy. Both Christian and Harry (I'm still not used to writing about Mr Styles as a fictional character) are deeply disturbed. James attributes Christian's need to dominate his female partners to his troubled youth; his mother was a drug addict who died when he was very young, and he entered into a sexual relationship with a much older female dominant, Elena, while he was underage. James' depiction of Elena, as not only being a dominant, but one who commits statutory rape. This depiction relates to the gender roles assigned in the novel; sexual dominance is a male role, and in a female it is viewed unnatural. Christian is "redeemed" at the end of the novel, whereas Elena is disgraced.

Ana then, like the female submissives who preceded her, receives punishment on behalf of the women who Christian feels have wronged him (in the case of Elena, this feeling is repressed). It is a way for him to regain the control he lost in his youth. He will not let Ana touch him, indicating his deep mistrust towards women. James takes a situation where Ana is repressed and places the blame on other women, further attempting to justify Christian's behaviour. 

It is up to Ana to atone for the perceived wrongdoings of her sex, and “love Christian better”. As she is correcting the behaviour of the women who were in positions of care she becomes a maternal substitute, adding a whole new meaning to that awful term "mommy porn". Freud would have a field day with this book. Because of this, Ana agrees to continue being punished by Christian, although she abhors it. She does not enjoy being his submissive, but feels a sense of obligation and pity, and because he will not pursue a "vanilla" relationship with her. And she needs him, right?

In After, Harry's behaviour is also affected by a childhood trauma. His father was an alcoholic, and was too drunk to protect Harry's mother when she was violated. The young Harry witnessed this event, powerless to stop it, and has since been plagued with nightmares recalling the events. Naturally, the only thing that can stop these nightmares is sharing a bed with Tessa (I think I'm going to need a contrivance bell). Though it's his father he resents, Tessa still serves as a maternal substitute, providing the security that was stripped from Harry as he watched his mother's abuse. Tessa, like Ana, feels guilty for leaving Harry after his terrible behaviour. She frequently references images of a young boy “crying for his mother”, associating the state where Harry needs her with his infantile self, therefore feels she cannot leave him alone with his nightmares.

Both these trilogies offer a fantasy of need: to both need, and be needed. The dynamics of the relationships shift constantly: the male is paternal and controlling, or the female is maternal or nurturing. It's like a set of unbalanced scales, and equality can not be achieved in either relationship. The idea of being needed by a man, and being so special to change the unchangeable compels Ana and Tessa to stay, and is being sold to readers of the books. The “bad boy” status of these male love interests, and their eventual change, not only provides an obstacle that makes the stories interesting, but affirms the strength of the romance. Because if Tessa or Ana fell in love with someone who is nice to everyone, that clearly wouldn't be so significant. These two novels, not to mention Twilight, are based around the idea that for a young woman, there's nothing more significant than having a boyfriend who needs you. Getting the emotionally-unavailable man to commit is a source of self-esteem that they inspire readers to wish for. This isn't really my idea of a modern love story.

After sells this fantasy to a particularly young market. By using Harry Styles and therefore attracting One Directioners, she sells this fantasy to a young audience who see her depiction of Harry Styles as the ideal because he's Harry Styles. Some have even accused Tessa of being too picky, like she should take any kind of emotional abuse and control because it's Harry bloody Styles. Similarly, I've always wondered if Bella Swan would have been as okay with it if she had woken up to find bespecktacled, pockmarked Jimmy from the bleachers watching her sleep rather than a sexy constipated-looking vampire. Probably not.

Perhaps this is why Ana and Tessa are both English students who adore nineteenth-century romance. Direct parallels are drawn between Harry and Tessa and Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy. It's a testament to the enduring popularity of stories about the redemptive power of love. Mr Darcy? Saved. Mr Rochester? Saved. And apparently Edward Cullen's namesake. Heathcliff? Okay, terrible example, but you get the idea.

In the Victorian novel, changing a man has been a sign of female triumph. In Beauty in the Beast, the Beast's love of Beauty enables him to return to civilised society. Post-Victorian romance (this theme has probably been kicking around before that) this transformation and civilisation is represented by marriage and the eventual domestication of the man. These gender-based ideas are still around in the modern day, with heroines like Tessa and Ana desiring love and marriage, while their male partners do not. The references to classic literature refer to their stereotypically female desire for romance and a happy ending, as outlined in the classics, but also shows that these kind of scenarios are, alas, largely fictional.

Oh no, they did not

In reality, love is not about being selfish, but it's not about losing yourself in another person's needs, either. These novels rely too much on a relationship as a source of happiness and fulfilment, and forcing something until it fits. It's this fantasy of self-worth that makes the "bad boy" so appealing (in some literature, at least, I'm not going to leave open an opportunity for some self-confessed "nice guy" to whine about how women don't want nice men, because I don't buy that at all). It's not realistic, and it's certainly not healthy. I'm not sure if similar novels exist where the gender roles are reversed, if there are they aren't as mainstream, but I'd definitely be interested in reading one to compare.

So forget Harry Styles' whinging, and go and watch a bit of Colin instead.

Back in The Shire

Now what?

I feel a bit awkward introducing myself on the internet, but it seems like the done thing, so hello! Thanks for stopping by my new literature blog. I say "new", but I've had this Blogger account for about three years now. I had big plans for it when I was eighteen and about to head off to university. Then, inevitably, university got in the way of my blog dreams (not that I'm complaining) and any writing about literature was done in anxiously-typed essays.

Now I've left Aberystwyth and come home "for good". It's a strange feeling. My life is now a blank page, undefined by deadlines, and that's both exciting and terrifying (and a perfect time to restart this blog). I know it's supposed to mark a new chapter in a student's life, but leaving university was a bit anti-climatic. Even though this is a literature blog, I won't use a cheesy book ref- wait, yes I will. Coming back from Aberystwyth (which was an adventure in itself, with all those hills and stomach-churning Welsh roads) made me feel like one of the Pevensie children after stumbling back through the wardrobe after their adventures in Narnia, sitting down with a mug of fruit tea, loading Skyrim and thinking "Damn, my life was awesome back there, now I'm an unemployed graduate."

Here's hoping that this blog will prevent me making the rather tragic decision of trying to relive my university days by using my teddy bears to recreate the book club I used to run; I'll just talk to the internet instead! I've gutted the blog's original content, which wasn't very good anyway, and am starting afresh. I'll try to update it as often as possible though, and I don't mean to oversell myself here, I'm probably the world's slowest writer. That aside, I hope you enjoy the upcoming posts when they, very slowly, crawl out of my brain.

Happy reading!