Now, I’ve only read the first book in the series, and quit the sequel halfway through because of how disappointing it was (and made me see the first one as a stand-alone), but I still wonder: Why is *Flowers in the Attic* considered “trashy”–to vampire romance *Twilight*, for that matter?
*Twilight* being considered as such, I can understand. There’s no deep message, no significant character development Bella goes through; she’s willing to throw her normal life away to be with Edward.
*Flowers in the Attic*, on the other hand, is a sad and disturbing novel about child abuse, as these group of kids are being held hostage for a number of years. Cathy and Chris have to act as parents to their younger siblings and keep each other sane, all while dealing with their horrific grandma.
Is it because of the messed-up incest aspect? The fact that many read this as children as a source of taboo? The way all the characters spoke so formally?
by Dominik528
29 Comments
It’s exploitive. The book isn’t just about child abuse. It really dwells on the subject in a way that strikes some people as problematic. I don’t consider the novel trash. It’s brilliant in its own way. A gothic masterpiece.
It probably has to do with the fact that every novel under Andrews’ name was incest related, that’s the image people have of them all now, just trashy taboo stories
Melodrama that speaks to multiple generations engaged in incest tends not to be literary.
I don’t understand either. I thought the incest aspect in the first book was treated realistically and respectfully. I did not find it titillating at all, just sad, very very sad.
I wonder if there had only been the first book and that was it, would that have changed the way the book is perceived?
I have not read it, but did read a thorough plot summary once. My guess is that it is gets lumped in with the type of books that produce an emotional response in the reader by taking them to a place that very predictably will create an emotional response. Abused children, is one. Dying dogs is another. The holocaust is another. It’s not that these things can’t be written about skillfully or that there’s nothing meaningful to say about these topics, but some writers choose these topics because there will be an emotional response regardless of the quality of the writing. As a reader I find it kind of cheap and manipulative.
It is probably considered trashy mainly because of the incest. Later books Cathy and Chris actually marry and raise Cathy’s two sons together, totally normalizing a troubling/unhealthy situation. The writing of the book can be considered trashy depending on who you ask. But if anything, it’s the romanticizing the incest as a result of child abuse that would label the books as “trash.”
Incestuous relationships are a taboo subject, then you add in the multi-generational incestuous relationships and the books were directed at younger readers.
Because all the series are basically the same which is not her fault because she died and they had a ghostwriter churn out series after series of the same format .
I think our ‘trashy’ novels back then were just maybe a little less formula that the trashy novels now. Flowers in the Attic was kind of unique back then too, but endless series of the same book seems to be more popular now with teen and young adult novels.
First, the plot is trashy. Generational incest and rape, but written to be sexy somehow. Gross. It is exploitive of victims of child and sexual abuse. Its like torture porn.
The writing is just terrible. So, also trashy.
Superficial garbage – no larger message, no quality writing.
Because they are trash. I read them in the 8th grade and my English teacher saw it on top of my books and said, “Oh, not you, too!” Like she was disappointed in me. I was 13!! That’s the age to embrace trash and think it’s okay.
But they really are total trash – poorly written trash. Get one if you like, but you were warned. 🙂
I got my hands on this at a library dime sale when I was about 9 and totally read it as both taboo and “sexy”… in a dirty way that I hid from my mother and friends. I then binged what I could until the novelty wore off. I haven’t read any of her books since, but my residual impression remains, 30+ yrs later as “trashy”.
I believe Vc andrews only wrote like 5 books. After those, the storylines are just plug and play with new characters in new books. I think if the books had stopped after the first five, they’d have less of a trashy reputation
Cause flowers in the attic use serious themes like abuse, and incest for shock value instead of actually examining the topics or having anything interesting to say about them
Because it takes a serious subject (child abuse and incest) and turns it into a purple-prose “romance” novel. Ergo: trashy.
Because the author thought it was trashy? VC Andrews wrote ordinary YA romance novels before ‘Flowers In The Attic’. When the original version of *Flowers* was submitted to the editor it was rejected as “boring”. So she more or less went ‘I’ll show you!’ and added about 100 extra pages of the most scandalous crap “her mother warned us not to speak of” that she could think of to basically troll the editor. The publishing company loved it and a hit was born. The VC Andrews brand was so successful that after she passed away the family brought in ghost writers to keep churning out scandalous trash.
I thought it was pretty good.
Fun, slightly related fact: Edward Kemper (a serial killer who murdered co-eds in Santa Cruz and eventually his own mother) has spent a ton of his life sentence in prison recording books on tape for the blind. You can find his recording of Flowers in the Attic if you dig, and it’s definitely a very interesting listen.
Read the prequel at least if you don’t finish the series. I enjoyed learning why the grandmother became what she was. My sweet audrina is really good too. The books after the ghost writer took over aren’t as good.
The incest partly. The prose is a bit saccharine and the dialogue is kind of stilted, yet, there’s this bizarre quality about it, and once you start you cannot stop. I remember reading a hundred or so pages in one sitting as a ten-year-old (!!!!) when I first read it.
It’s trash, but it’s *good* trash.
Chris rapes Cathy in the first book, everyone wants to forget about that……
2nd book Cathy’s only 2 “healthy” relationships are with an older man that started when she was still a minor and with Chris (who, may I remind you, is her brother/cousin and rapist).
Her other two relationships are with physical abusive man and her stepfather whom she has an affair with to get back at her mother.
I never knew about these books or author. But under another sub someone mentioned how their mother was obsessed with the movie and would make her kid watch it with her. So I looked it up I’m a sucker for the classics, but this seemed a tad out of my comfort zone.
It’s all about the incest aspect.
The first novel treats it as it should: it’s driven by desperation and it’s a source of horror. As the novels went on, it felt more like exploitation and empty shock.
Flowers in the attic was the first big series I read and personally loved it. It’s the incest, but like you said the book is more so about the development of *why* they are the way they are: abuse. And how they try to live with the way they’ve grown up. It’s almost akin to Stockholm syndrome and the fact that people live what they’ve normalized regardless of society’s perspective, abuse included. It’s a work of art even though I understand how it can be misconstrued as trashy. At face value, it seems that way. Imo, it’s a taboo masterpiece.
I don’t know the answer to your question, but my mother-in-law was an English teacher and once berated me for “only reading for entertainment”. She scoffed at my love for Stephen King novels. She did her Masters thesis on Flowers In The Attic. I might bring up that it’s considered trash.
I found the incest thing to be pretty mild and barely there in book one – I think it gets overplayed in discussions about the books. For me, it is more the misery-porn element that was a downer… and the series gets worse… like how much miserable hardship can one person/family suffer. Dead siblings all over the place.
I don’t think they’re trash, I just find them entertaining. I read them when I was a child and it never crossed my mind that they were trashy, just different for those times. I would recommend that you read My Sweet Audrina next.
I’m sleepy and dyslexic. I totally misread this as Flowers for Algernon is trash… I didn’t remember there being any incest in that book either.
Well I’m glad Flowers for Algernon isn’t considered trash with hidden incest. Good night everyone.
I believe Stephen King posited that the popularity of movies such as “I Was a Teenage Werewolf” was the idea of “Sure I may have a few zits and be socially awkward, but at least I don’t have hair sprouting out all over face and I don’t savagely attack people while howling at the moon”.
I think “Flowers in the Attic” is/was popular for the same reasons: it could always be worse. “My parents are jerks and I love someone I shouldn’t, but at least I’m not locked in an attic by psycho mom and getting it on with my own brother.” It could always be worse.
As far is the sex thing; of course I was titillated but not because of taboo sex, but because of …sex. Becoming aware of one’s own sexuality is a weird and wonderful time and wherever it is found is going to grab the YA audience in all the right places.
Yeah, sorry, it is trashy. It’s just high quality trash, because it’s such a memorable compelling story, but it’s also so over-the-top with all these sensational unsolvable problems like Daddy’s will and what else do you do with four secret children except put them in the attic? I mean, boarding school is a thing. And so is challenging wills.
If Flowers was a stand-alone book, it might have a better reputation, but it jumped the shark when they escaped from the attic and Cathy almost instantly became a world-famous prima ballerina even though she hadn’t had a formal lesson for years.