I spent a lot of time last week explaining how I felt about reviewing this book (50 Shades...) and I don't want to repeat myself, but I recommend you have a read of this before you continue forward. This is a contentious book and I want to keep my corner of the blogosphere friendly! So if you haven't read this, then go do it...honestly...it's kinda necessary!
I am excited to be answering this week's question as it allows me to
rant explore the character of Ana, well as far as it is possible....once again, if you want to know nothing of the book, don't click read more. Only named and non-offensive comments will remain published.
So the question is...
"Ana seems to be weak but yet is argumentative with Christian. Do you feel as if the author was trying to draw her a backbone and make her appear to be stronger in Christian's eyes? Do you feel that by her doing so Ana's innocence was lost a bit?"
I might start to sound like a raging feminist again, but the whole idea that Ana is some helpless victim, whose innocence is ruined by a more dominant male drives me absolutely bananas! I thought we'd moved on from the 'knight in shining armour' routine...well I had, even BEFORE 'Shrek'. It would be hilarious if it essentially wasn't painted that way in the novel. If I didn't know it was written by a woman I'd have thought Ana's 2-D character was the product of a man who sits in the dark and his only experience of women is through a headset or his sister. (I can't believe that any female's fantasy is to be corrupted by a man, unless there was a drastic difference in the last Disney movie...)
Ana isn't so much innocent at the beginning; she is just someone who has never felt any kind of desire for a man. (Odd in itself and possibly a medical problem by her early twenties.) When Christian appears in front of her, I was worried about spontaneous combustion - the phrase 'whatever floats your boat love' takes on a whole new meaning. (see last week for why I don't 'get' Christian's attraction)
Ana's refusal to sign the contract and abide by Christian's rules doesn't necessarily give her a backbone. It gives her some common sense. I am not sure if it's ironic that Christian really only falls in love with her because she can say 'no' to him. I am also not sure if this is the author's attempt to show how you should always have principles you stand by...either way I think she's just a bit boring.
Some people might be hooked by the turmoil she goes through while deciding what depths she is prepared to deprave herself by to have the 'beautiful' Christian Gray. But I just want to know - why do we need another mercurial, deep male character and yet another simple, almost stereotypical female?
If anyone could let me know, that would be awesome!
Until next time folks.