Embarrassingly, I listened to a youtube video where a woman read the book aloud (I listened for about 30 pages). She ended up hitting herself in the head about a dozen times because the writing is that awful.
Fifty Shades is pornography for women. IMHO that's the only reason everyone is clutching their pearls about the bad writing. Your typical male pornography storylines/cinematography are much, much worse - and yet they are typically spared the high-brow literary scrutiny.
In line with woah (minus the snark), male-focused porn is generally spared the scrutiny because it does not seek it. You won't read a review of Modern Whorefare (sadly a real thing) in the New York Times and you won't be able to pick it up at the grocery store. A difference in marketing and distribution amply explains the greater scrutiny, without resorting to implications of sexism.
The reason that 50 Shades of Grey is subjected to highbrow literary scrutiny, is that it pretends to be highbrow literature. Male pornography usually makes no pretense, being more along the lines of logjammin' "ich bin here to fix your kable"
Not really. The reason 50 Shades gets its scrutiny is because it has enough exposure. There's some damn good male pornography (yes, it's literary; yes, I read it) out there, but it's not for sale at Barnes & Noble.
That's the patriarchy angle, if you actually want it.
Maybe because your "typical male pornography storyline/cinematography" is considered neither a "cultural phenomenon" nor "literature", and does not feature in newspapers and magazine reviews...
Male porn is just porn, but "50 shades of gray" is presented as it is a regular book...
