As far as “50 Shades of Gray” goes, the reason it was published is it was published as an e-book, it sold like 100,000 copies, became a phenomenon, and a publishing house bought the rights, and the rest is history. I haven’t quite figured out if all the sales were people curious, if it was a bunch of sexually repressed housewives having it as a ‘naughty’ secret (one other theory put out there), but whatever it was, it fed on itself. In terms of the plot, it is pretty much a standard romance plot, the broken person fixed by love…I think that a lot of it was the (mostly women) reading about sex as a kind of play and seeing something different, and for that, I can’t totally trash the book , and hopefully there will be better written books put out there that treat sex in all its forms:)
One thing I would tell people, don’t think that all romances are necessarily the same as Harlequin bodice rippers of the past, there are a lot of people writing romances these days that know how to write, and while they follow standard romance forms, actually have characters and plot that them fun to read…so I wouldn’t be so fast to denigrate someone writing romances, they ain’t what they used to be (and some of them, despite being relatively formulaic, are fun, like Kirsten Ashley,cause she has fun characters).
Generally when I hate books that are fiction, it is because I can’t get my head around any of the characters or care about them, Gone Girl was like that, there was no one in that book I liked, or even could admire as a bad guy (anti heros are fun), Wuthering Heights and Great Expectations come to mind. I also hate books that are badly written but also have this pretension about them (anything Ayn Rand wrote was like that, it was piss poor writing, the characters were cardboard, and that is not even getting into the meaning, or lack thereof of the books).
There are books that aren’t great literature I can enjoy reading, as badly written as they were, I enjoyed the Mickey Spillane Mike Hammer books, and I absolutely loved reading Robert Ludlum…but neither ever pretended they were anything but what they were. Books that in the reading, you can see the author smugly standing there looking over your shoulder proclaiming how great they are drive me up the wall, too, anything that sets itself off as ‘great’ likely isn’t…people have claimed that about Hemingway, but while I don’t necessarily turn to him for easy reading, I never got the sense of it from his books, even though he was a world class ego.
With non ficition, books that generally end up on my hate list are books that seem to spend a lot of time, not on the subject at hand, but showing how others who have written on the subject were so wrong and they were right. I enjoy when they discuss other’s takes and talk about their own and contrast them, but when they spend time, as a book on WWI I recently tried reading did, with “the Guns of August”, trashing what others wrote over trivial details, it will earn my ire. I hated most of Stephen Ambrose books, because I think he was so into hero worship and projecting himself into the ‘glory’ of his books (most specifically, his books on WWII), that it seemed more about him and his hero worship rather than telling the story of the people who actually were there. I also hate books of history written by history professors that seem to think writing a book of history means it has to be boring, written for Mycroft Holmes or something (and for them, I would tell them to read “The Battle Cry of Freedom”, by MacPherson, written by a professor, but not boring)…