Customer Reviews

The Sheik

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

The book behind the famed 1922 movie starring Rudolph Valentino was in itself a major event, for it was the very first of the genre now known as the romance novel. An instant best-seller, its steamy and suggestive plot caused much controversy. In brief, Diana Mayo is a beautiful willful, tomboyish, aristocratic Briton with a taste for adventure who goes off on a lark for a month in the Algerian desert. She is abducted by the handsome, ferocious, barbaric, sophisticated tribal leader Ahmed ben Hassan, who ensconces her in his luxurious tents in mid-desert and ravishes her. Diana abominates her captor for two months, then falls madly in love with him. Along the way, she experiences a host of adventures, including getting captured and almost killed by Ahmed ben Hassan's hereditary enemy. Oh, and at the end we learn that Ahmed ben Hassan is really half-Spanish and half-British, and of noble birth on both sides.

Well written and fun to read eight decades on for its exoticism and over-the-top romance, The Sheik is both reflects and perpetuates the absurd clichés of its age about Arabs. "She was utterly in his power and at his mercy - the mercy of an Arab who was merciless." "He was an Arab, to whom the feelings of a woman were non existent." Asked if he loves anything, the sheikh replies, "Yes, I do. I love my horses." "That he was an Arab with Oriental instincts filled her with continual dread." "When an Arab sees a woman that he wants he takes her." And this, said by the sheikh to Diana: "We teach our women obedience with a whip." In addition to these many comments on male-female relations, the novel also contains a smattering of other prejudices typical of its time ("the pungent smell of the native" and the like).

(...)

I rather enjoyed the kitchy Valentino film based on this book so I decied to check it out. Also, I was curious to read a "scandalous" best seller from 1919.

What annoyed me was the instant about face of the heroine's principals. One page, she is a confident feminist. The next, she is breathless, whimpering and whining, deeply in love with an extremely abusive and domineering man.

I am all for old fashioned romance but this seems a bit much.

There is no catylist for this change in attitude, one minute Diana hates the Sheik's guts and them about halfway through, he shoots her horse out from under her and she figures that she can't live without him. This is especially disappointing since other passages in the book are psychologically accurate. The descriptions of post traumatic stress are realistic.

The prose is another problem. The book starts with readable prose but then descends into purple slush. I noticed that the author has about ten pet words that are used over and over again. (savage, brutal, cruel, slim, boyish, mutinous) I had a good time opening the book at random and finding one of these words. (This works about 95% of the time)

Also, can a book really be so good that pretty much advocates attempted suicide as a means to getting Mr. Right? I think not! The fact that this story is blessing a rather abusive relationship is in itself distressing. The title character is selfish, unpleasant and a general boor and I fail to see why he would be considered such a catch.

I realize I will be accused of being a rabid feminist (and get a flurry of NOT HELPFUL votes, all negative reviews do and its a bit sad since I'm voicing my opinion just like everyone else) but the truth of the matter is this: I demand psychological accuracy and interesting characters from the books I read. Almost any other sin can be forgiven. I love melodrama as much as the next girl but this book was way out there in terms of oddness.

This is an interesting period piece but most certainly not something I would normally read.

This book is absolutely horrifying.

I checked it out on Project Gutenberg, because I'd heard a lot about the Valentino movie and wanted to read the book on which it was based. What I hadn't known beforehand was that, while Valentino's Sheik didn't carry out his plans for Diana, book-Sheik did. More than once. Over about a month. That was horrifying discovery number one, but it only got worse from there. While at first Diana quite rightly hates him, halfway through the book she suddenly changes her mind and decides she's in love with him and couldn't ever live without him.

I don't know where to even start with all the other things wrong with this book. The fact that Diana goes from a confident, independent woman to a stereotypical weak, weepy heroine annoyed the hell out of me, and the fact that she was willing to utterly efface herself in an effort to please the Sheik just made it so much worse. She sits there and pathetically pines for his love, which to me was a completely contrived change of character on the part of the author.

It could easily be read as a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome, but as nobody knew what that was in 1919, that can't have been Hull's intent. Had it actually been presented that way, it would have been a lot easier to swallow, but it really was meant to be a complete 'change of heart' story--the taming (or, more accurately, breaking) of a strong, independent woman into a docile, obedient twit. I don't find that in the least romantic, just sickening.

All in all, the book disturbed me immensely. The movie handled it much better, since it's much easier to sympathise with Diana's sudden love for the Sheik, who himself is proven to be a noble character. Throw rape into the equation and it just turns into an unbelievable, psychologically terrible mess.

It seems like this is one of those books that polarizes people. People either love it, hate it, or don't get it. Of course it's dated, incredibly racist, and horribly demeaning to women, but it's also one of the most captivating books I've ever read. The book is so well written that it is hard not to enjoy even while being disgusted. I won't bother to summarize the plot because others here already have. Part of what makes The Sheik so fascinating is to watch Diana's painful and rather revolting transformation. The Sheik is not realistic or politically correct in any way, but it is a lot of fun.

The Sheik, as one of the first modern romance novels and as one of the most popular books of the 1920's, has had a very real impact on today's romance novels.

The whole Sheik experienced has been influenced and enhanced for me by the fact I'm reading my great-grandmother's copy that she recieved for Christmas in 1922. Reading and enjoying the books of yesterday makes the past feel closer and more alive. I like to think that a woman I never knew poured over the pages of the same book.

I don't know what's more horrifying: this book, or the reviews talking about how "romantic" it is to read about a woman who's kidnapped and raped until she falls in love with her rapist.

I first discovered this book one summer when I was a teenager in among my mothers stash of old books upstairs. It was old and falling apart, the copyright was 1921. But I fell in love with it! It is passionate and romantic in a way books are not written anymore. This book inspired me to start writing on my own. About every year I start wanting to read it again and since is it so old and the pages no longer stick to the binding it is time for me to get a new one. This book is for everyone who loves passionate, old fashioned romances. Boy sees girl, boy kidnaps girl and forces her to be his love slave.......

I too found this book in my parent's collection. It was first published in 1921 and is beginning to show it. I read it first in my early twenties...wow! I could not put it down! Even though it is about kidnapping and forced affection (to say more would ruin it), it was terribly romantic! An easy read, but so enthralling! I still read it every year or so. I am looking for Sons of the Sheik and not having much luck. I've tried used book stores as well as online...I'll keep digging!

To be honest, I had difficulty getting through this one. The characterization of Diana changes drastically, too drastically. She begins as a strong, adventurous character and then turns into a grovelling, wimpering, whining creature as soon as she is abducted. I don't believe that such a drastic change can realistically happen in one night. However, this is an interesting look at the female reading material of the period and gives some interesting insight into attitudes toward women and attitudes of women of themselves (if I remember correctly, the author is female).

In "The Sheik" E.M. Hull has produced a very well written, very romantic, and very exciting page turner that will keep you riveted until the very last word. Be forewarned, though, this book is not for monosyllabic twits. It's not Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, but it is for those readers who possess intelligence.

A thoughtful reading of this story makes it obvious that Ahmed is very much like the Byronic hero (dark, arrogant, cunning, perceptive, sophisticated, mysterious, magnetic, moody, has a troubled past, is powerfully seductive, sexually attractive, cynical, but displays a good heart in the end). Hull also shows us a woman need not compromise her femininity and sexuality in order to be liberated, nor does she have to adhere to socially accepted norms of what constitute a proper romantic relationship with a man and/or a proper marriage (especially if said proper marriage/relationship is a loveless one). Best of all, the romance and passion in this story are very intense without any lurid or graphic details.

To the detractors, I offer this advice: this book demands a close reading. READ BETWEEN THE LINES and you will see that Ahmed loves Diana as much as she comes to love him and that in conquering her, he is conquered by her. As for the charges of "rape", again, when read between the lines, it is an intensely passionate seduction. Rape is a brutal act of violence, a sexual attack against another human being. Ahmed DOES NOT inflict violence against Diana: he never strikes Diana, menaces her, threatens her, or brandishes a weapon to force her into submission. True, he does not take "No" for an answer, but neither does he tear her clothes, attack her, throw her across the room, drag her across the floor, or batter her. On the night of her abduction, when he carries her into his bedroom, he sets her down gently on soft cushions, whispers to her "Don't keep me waiting long" right before he leaves, and when he returns a short time later to find a still fully clothed Diana, in a calm voice tells her "Must I be valet as well as lover?" before he takes her in his arms. Yes, the morning after Diana awakens to an aching body, but not because she has been bruised and battered by Ahmed. And also that same morning, by Diana's own admission ". . . . .she wished she had scorned him." Obviously she did not scorn him, the implication being there is perhaps consent on her part, however slight it might be.

Of course it also helps that Ahmed is incredibly handsome, has a magnificent physique, is well groomed, is very intelligent, strong willed, powerful, brave, has "abnormal strength," is well spoken and well educated--all qualities not lost on Diana who finds herself increasingly attracted to him because of these attributes. How many women fearful of being victimised take into consideration their attacker is incredibly attractive with a phenomenal physique, and like wise are impressed the attacker wears robes that are impeccably clean, has hands that are likewise impeccably clean, and well manicured nails?

Even from the first moment Diana sets eyes on him, and even when she didn't (won't give away too much plot detail) it's obvious Diana feels an attraction to Ahmed and his passionate nature that she won't readily admit to herself. What Diana truly resents is that she fears Ahmed's passionate nature and, although she fights her true feelings for him, she also fears not being in control of the situation, as well as her own newly emerging passionate feelings.

Is Ahmed a brutal, violent savage? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Is Ahmed a saint? NO, he has flaws. Is he forceful? YES. Is he passionate? INTENSELY. Does he love Diana? COMPLETELY-- he is drawn to her for her beauty as well as her strong will. This is what women loved and still love about "The Sheik" and its title character, and what I love about both.

Whew, Ahmed Monseigneur! I have never feared a couple not ending up together as I did with Diane and Ahmed! Up until the last page you are left in agonizing suspense. When Diane loves or hate it is with such a passion that defies all reasoning. In the beginning I was amazed by the hatred she had for the hero and couldn't see the way out of such blatant malevolence. The animosity she had towards him was so great at times that I despaired of her ever falling in love with him. My agony was unwarranted as she fell in love with him with such compelling passion that u are blown away by its intensity! You feel everything the poor girl was feeling straight to the heart! The transition from hate to love was non existent. The author does not coddle the reader . There were no softening of her feelings until the moment she fell. Ahmad the cruel brute was also a wonderful complex character, seeing him bought to his knees by Diane was beautiful to watch. Their story was told in a prose that was enthralling . To say the least this book was gripping. The last chapter was something to behold! The author flipped the script in the end with something that you never see in romance these days. I read the chapter twice just to feel the passion again. I'm sure I'll read this one again in the near future!