# Fifty Shades



## TheYellowMustang (Sep 2, 2013)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, maybe it should be in the writer's lounge? Anyways, I have a question for you intelligent people. 

My father came home one day and dropped a book on the kitchen table, asking me "What the hell is this crap?" 
I look down to see the Fifty Shades cover. Poor man bought it without looking into what it was, as it was on the best-sellers shelf. So, after a few days of sitting next to it, I pick it up. I read a couple of chapters and decided it was pages upon pages of repeated descriptions and uninteresting inner monologue and stop reading the stuff between dialogue. I think I actually made it half-way through it before I realized nothing was happening. And I mean nothing. The only thing that stuck with me was this creepy feeling in my gut, like I'd read something wrong. And no, it wasn't the sexy bits that bothered me. It was the boring stuff in between. Something just wasn't right.

I forgot about the whole unpleasant experience until today, when I came across this article: 

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/...a-hiding-in-plain-sight-letter-from-a-reader/

It's very interesting, even if (like me) you haven't actually read the whole thing. I'm not sure if I agree or not, but I now know exactly what was so creepy about it. It has that vibe.. a 12 year old having sex with a grown up... yeah, that kind of vibe. 

If you've read it, or read parts of it, what do you think? It's become such a big deal, I find the whole book fascinating. Well, not the book, but all the fuzz.


----------



## bookmasta (Sep 2, 2013)

I don't know if I'm correct on this or not, but I think 50 shades of gray was self published? Anyways I haven't read it nor would I since its not in my genre, but you're not alone. A few of my friends who have read it have said the same thing.


----------



## Angelicpersona (Sep 2, 2013)

I agreed to be the guinea pig for some of my friends, and I read the books while I was unemployed with nothing better to do. I found it a bit like watching a car wreck. You know it's horrible and gruesome, and you absolutely want to look away, but you can't help but see what happens next, and root for the survivors. It certainly left a sour taste in my mouth.


----------



## SarahStrange (Sep 2, 2013)

Being a feminist, I think that it's utter _trash_ that perpetuates violence against women and the idea that all females wish to be 'dominated and subjugated'. ICK. Not to mention, it is just an _awful_ read. Here's a quote just to demonstrate the awful awfulness of the whole darned thing:



> "Are you ready?" He mewled smirking at me like a mother hamster about to eat her three legged young"



Wow. Great description there, buddy. Really, you're truly talented. 

I understand that women have fantasies. That's great. There's nothing wrong with that. What upsets me, is that no one seems to look past the kink to the stereotypes it is perpetuating.


----------



## tepelus (Sep 2, 2013)

The only way I've been able to read this dreck is through someone else via her recaps.

Much more entertaining than the books, too.


----------



## Blade (Sep 2, 2013)

SarahStrange said:


> Being a feminist, I think that it's utter _trash_ that perpetuates violence against women and the idea that all females wish to be 'dominated and subjugated'. ICK.



Not to cast an undue cheerfulness on the situation, as I have read nothing of it, but absolutely every reference I have seen about it has been distinctly negative. There used to be, and possibly still is, a genre called 'pulp fiction'. I think _Fifty Shades fits that bill._:stupid:


----------



## InkwellMachine (Sep 3, 2013)

The worst part of the novel isn't the writing style or the subject matter or the repetitive descriptions of _every insignificant detail. _No, it's something quite a bit more subtle than that. 

You can tell _why _the book was written. You can tell that it was supposed to be gritty and sexy and over the edge. The whole thing ends up reading more like a poorly-written and overly-sympathetic marketing ploy, and the worst part is that it's _advertising itself_ as sexy and gritty and over the edge.

As for the article, I think it's a pretty thin connection to pedophilia. I think the higher likelihood is that the writer just isn't very talented and writes at a sixth-grade level, even though the subject matter is intended for more mature audiences.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Sep 3, 2013)

InkwellMachine said:


> As for the article, I think it's a pretty thin connection to pedophilia. I think the higher likelihood is that the writer just isn't very talented and writes at a sixth-grade level, even though the subject matter is intended for more mature audiences.



Hey, hey, you actually answered the question. I don't think the writer planned it either, because I don't think she could've pulled it off. I mean masking a pro-predophilia story about a 12 year old girl and a grown man as a romantic and erotic novel for adults would've been pretty impressive. But even if it wasn't planned, I still think the book is creepy. She does sound like a lille girl.

From the article: The main character is described in pigtails, given words like “Holy Cow”  “down there”, “jeez”  “double crap” she can’t operate a computer (but is supposedly a college graduate), describes skipping and doing cartwheels, repeatedly says she is made to feel like a child, has her imaginary friend (inner goddess) feels shame, is spanked and slathered in BABY OIL, told what to say, what to eat, what to do, until finally and sadly so predictably, is physically beaten.  (But she returns to him soon after, which is again, a very common theme of abuse, including pedophilia)


----------



## InkwellMachine (Sep 3, 2013)

> From the article: The main character is described in pigtails, given words like “Holy Cow” “down there”, “jeez” “double crap” she can’t operate a computer (but is supposedly a college graduate), describes skipping and doing cartwheels, repeatedly says she is made to feel like a child, has her imaginary friend (inner goddess) feels shame, is spanked and slathered in BABY OIL, told what to say, what to eat, what to do, until finally and sadly so predictably, is physically beaten. (But she returns to him soon after, which is again, a very common theme of abuse, including pedophilia)


It's actually not uncommon within the S&M/bondage scene to subjugate a partner by treating them like a child. That's where the whole spanking thing comes from (I believe), but you can see it in several million other places (the least of these is flannel mini-skirts patterned after school uniforms).

My final opinion about the article is this that I think people enjoy having something to be up-in-arms about, and calling a book of raunchy "mommy-porn" pedophilia is, for some, too good an opportunity to pass up. The book itself seems far more base than all this psychology and supposed symbolism would suggest, and it draws on a lot of very common sexual tropes that aren't even real taboos to begin with.

If you really want to set your skin crawling, try watching some of the children's shows from the late eighties and early nineties--it's pretty impossible to deny all the disgusting underlying themes there.


----------



## Myers (Sep 3, 2013)

The “article” seems a little hysterical to me. Of course, pedophiles aren’t inspired to act by reading books, so I suppose the author's concern is some kind of mass desensitization toward pedophilia; and that’s not going to happen. You can look to the cited Sandusky case as evidence for that. So the question is, will the book affect how people behave? I seriously doubt it.

50 Shades is a fad, and like all fads, attempts to duplicate the success will fail, and inevitably the book will fade into obscurity. The less people talk about it, the faster it will happen.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 3, 2013)

I have not - and will never - read it.

From what I've gathered, part of the purpose of the book is to be controversial, so any discussion about it will only feed its desire to be 'talked about'. I believe the greatest service we can do for it is ignore it entirely.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 3, 2013)

Blade said:


> Not to cast an undue cheerfulness on the situation, as I have read nothing of it, but absolutely every reference I have seen about it has been distinctly negative. There used to be, and possibly still is, a genre called 'pulp fiction'. I think _Fifty Shades fits that bill._:stupid:



'Pulp' fiction refers to the magazines of the '40s, '50s, and '60s which used to use cheap (high pulp content) paper for their print runs. The magazines weren't the slick, glossy, high-end publications like The New Yorker, but were the bread and butter of the science-fiction, mystery, western, and horror genres. They were the breeding ground for writers like Isaac Asimov, Robert Block, Ray Bradbury, Raymond Chandler, and other great writers. There were sleazy, soft-core porn pulps also, but most of what is considered 'pulp-fiction' is remembered with great fondness in the literary world. Fifty Shades doesn't deserve to lick the boots of real pulp fiction.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 3, 2013)

If the book is so bad, why are people buying it? Because they're stupid? Because they have no taste? I'm sorry, but I get so tired of reading posts (here and elsewhere) bashing this book and the author, because basically what they're all saying is that readers are idiots (or some kind of deviant) for buying this thing. There are a lot of best-selling books out there that I don't care for, but obviously others do and I'm not about to imply that those other people are idiots because they like something I don't. If you know you're not going to like something, why buy it? Why read it?

I have not bought nor read this book. I don't intend to because I'm not into the subject matter. I'm glad another author was successful, and I hope one day I can make the same claim, at least in some small way.


----------



## InkwellMachine (Sep 3, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> If the book is so bad, why are people buying it? Because they're stupid? Because they have no taste? I'm sorry, but I get so tired of reading posts (here and elsewhere) bashing this book and the author, because basically what they're all saying is that readers are idiots (or some kind of deviant) for buying this thing. There are a lot of best-selling books out there that I don't care for, but obviously others do and I'm not about to imply that those other people are idiots because they like something I don't. If you know you're not going to like something, why buy it? Why read it?
> 
> I have not bought nor read this book. I don't intend to because I'm not into the subject matter. I'm glad another author was successful, and I hope one day I can make the same claim, at least in some small way.


I disagree, though. This isn't the sort of book that is so good everyone circulates because it _must_ be read, but rather the type f book that is _so very shocking_ that one must purchase and read it, if only to understand all the hubbub.

Nearly everyone I've talked to whose read the book has admitted to buying it or borrowing it out of curiosity more than any compulsion to read it for the material's sake. Like I said, this books advertises its own sexuality and grittiness, and that's how it gets around.

I don't think the life blood of a good book should be that fact that it's a bit naughtier than everyone is used to.

- - - Updated - - -



shadowwalker said:


> If the book is so bad, why are people buying it? Because they're stupid? Because they have no taste? I'm sorry, but I get so tired of reading posts (here and elsewhere) bashing this book and the author, because basically what they're all saying is that readers are idiots (or some kind of deviant) for buying this thing. There are a lot of best-selling books out there that I don't care for, but obviously others do and I'm not about to imply that those other people are idiots because they like something I don't. If you know you're not going to like something, why buy it? Why read it?
> 
> I have not bought nor read this book. I don't intend to because I'm not into the subject matter. I'm glad another author was successful, and I hope one day I can make the same claim, at least in some small way.


I disagree, though. This isn't the sort of book that is so good everyone circulates because it _must_ be read, but rather the type f book that is _so very shocking_ that one must purchase and read it, if only to understand all the hubbub.

Nearly everyone I've talked to whose read the book has admitted to buying it or borrowing it out of curiosity more than any compulsion to read it for the material's sake. Like I said, this books advertises its own sexuality and grittiness, and that's how it gets around.

I don't think the life blood of a good book should be that fact that it's a bit naughtier than everyone is used to.


----------



## Lewdog (Sep 3, 2013)

I'm thinking of a new book called "51 Hues of Purple," based on an octogenarian's sexcapdes at the local retirement home.  Thoughts?


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Sep 3, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> If the book is so bad, why are people buying it? Because they're stupid? Because they have no taste? I'm sorry, but I get so tired of reading posts (here and elsewhere) bashing this book and the author, because basically what they're all saying is that readers are idiots (or some kind of deviant) for buying this thing. There are a lot of best-selling books out there that I don't care for, but obviously others do and I'm not about to imply that those other people are idiots because they like something I don't. If you know you're not going to like something, why buy it? Why read it?
> 
> I have not bought nor read this book. I don't intend to because I'm not into the subject matter. I'm glad another author was successful, and I hope one day I can make the same claim, at least in some small way.



Good points. I think what bugs me about Fifty though is that it's so "unedited", which you'd notice just by reading one random page. It just doesn't seem like anyone put any effort into it, not the plot or the language. That's the only thing that annoys me about it, really. It kind of reads like a first draft, with repeated words every other paragraph, contradictions, strange wording, simple language coupled with overuse of synonym-websites...  Other than that I just find it interesting to discuss simply because of its popularity, not because I find it enjoyable to bash something successful.

EDIT: Fifty was originally a fan fiction of Twilight posted on the internet. It was later removed, edited and published. The original story was Master of the Universe. MotU and Fifty, according to the website below, has a similarity index of 89%. 

http://dearauthor.com/features/indu...-versus-fifty-shades-by-e-l-james-comparison/


----------



## Blade (Sep 3, 2013)

InkwellMachine said:


> I disagree, though. This isn't the sort of book that is so good everyone circulates because it _must_ be read, but rather the type f book that is _so very shocking_ that one must purchase and read it, if only to understand all the hubbub.
> 
> Nearly everyone I've talked to whose read the book has admitted to buying it or borrowing it out of curiosity more than any compulsion to read it for the material's sake. Like I said, this books advertises its own sexuality and grittiness, and that's how it gets around.
> 
> I don't think the life blood of a good book should be that fact that it's a bit naughtier than everyone is used to.



Agreed but once the ball gets rolling the results can be rather lucrative. I see that Hollywood is planning a movie version that will likely do well on the same basis.

Anyone remember _Fanny Hill?  _:chuncky:


----------



## Lewdog (Sep 3, 2013)

Blade said:


> Agreed but once the ball gets rolling the results can be rather lucrative. I see that Hollywood is planning a movie version that will likely do well on the same basis.
> 
> Anyone remember _Fanny Hill?  _:chuncky:



They already cast the main roles.  Dakota Johnson the daughter of Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson, and Charlie Hunnam from "Sons of Anarchy" fame.


----------



## Blade (Sep 3, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> They already cast the main roles.  Dakota Johnson the daughter of Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson, and Charlie Hunnam from "Sons of Anarchy" fame.



OK. :read: I just caught the casting story out of the corner of my eye somewhere but was not really paying attention. This is the kind of thing that Hollywood shoud do well with though as they can select out material and then make it graphic and edgier. :grey:


----------



## tepelus (Sep 3, 2013)

Blade said:


> OK. :read: I just caught the casting story out of the corner of my eye somewhere but was not really paying attention. This is the kind of thing that Hollywood shoud do well with though as they can select out material and then make it graphic and edgier. :grey:



Wonder what they'll do with the tampon scene.


----------



## Blade (Sep 3, 2013)

tepelus said:


> Wonder what they'll do with the tampon scene.



:surprise: That sounds vaguely risky doesn't it.:icon_monkey:


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 4, 2013)

InkwellMachine said:


> Nearly everyone I've talked to whose read the book has admitted to buying it or borrowing it out of curiosity more than any compulsion to read it for the material's sake. Like I said, this books advertises its own sexuality and grittiness, and that's how it gets around.



Given the controversy surrounding it, do you really think people will admit to buying/borrowing/reading it for any other reason than just plain curiosity? (I wonder how many bought _Lolita _"just out of curiosity".) That's not how it became a best-seller, or why it's being made into a movie.


----------



## Blade (Sep 4, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Given the controversy surrounding it, do you really think people will admit to buying/borrowing/reading it for any other reason than just plain curiosity? (I wonder how many bought _Lolita _"just out of curiosity".) That's not how it became a best-seller, or why it's being made into a movie.



Well it is being made into a movie because it is a $$ making opportunity, strike while the iron is hot, which is a different thing than why it became a best seller, I think.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2013)

Blade said:


> Well it is being made into a movie because it is a $$ making opportunity, strike while the iron is hot, which is a different thing than why it became a best seller, I think.



And why is it a money-making opportunity? Because the producers think people will want to see the movie as much as they wanted to read the book.


----------



## KJSinclair (Jun 21, 2014)

The real problem I have with this series, is not the subject matter, the fetish industry is actually huge money I have written a number of short stories surrounding the BDSM scene, nothing heavy but I have friends that actively live the lifestyles that are supposedly portrayed in this fiction. The actual problem I have is the lack of consent, the emotional mind games, the fact that the 'Dom' is an egotistical bar-steward without any respect for his subject. 

See in real life, 'the scene' as it is called, is a feminist society, the women (subs) are the one that holds all the power, that do instigate all scenes, they play or live as equal partners, at any point the sub can withdraw their consent, the males are respectful, they play to the limits of their partners. 

The community of women that I got to know during my time writing for various publications were enthusiastic about 'Fifty' because they were hoping that it would truly illuminate their lifestyle, in fact is did the opposite, it ridiculed it, make it icky and strayed so far from the truth that, instead of allowing the fetish community out of the shadows it has plunged them deeper into darkness. 

BDSM is about love, lust, respect, consent and caring. Even the harshest of scene are played with complete consent, even lifestylers (people that live it 24/7) know that there is no real control, there is no abuse and it's not at all icky. 

So I hate 'Fifty' it pretty much dried up my creative cash flow and caused my friends shame where there needs to be none.


----------



## theredbaron (Jan 3, 2015)

This is an old post... however

Numerous [there's one website saying 1 out of every 3] BDSM submissives say that their safe words are ignored and they themselves violated or pushed past their limits. Sounds lovely, doesn't it? 

50 Shades of Grey wasn't far off from what many submissives go through - those with low self esteem and self confidence issues whom are specifically targeted by the perverts that specifically join BDSM communities so that they have the ability to abuse & rape women [or men] without any real penalty. 

 Either the submissive comes from an abusive household and knows no better, she/he possesses such little self esteem / respect that they will do anything to appease their masters / dominants, or they [like Ana Steele] are brought into the world of BDSM by the wrong sort of person / people and never learn what REAL BDSM relationships are like. 

There's many doctors, psychologists, etc., whom compare it to stockholm syndrome. The submissive is essentially "groomed" [yes groomed, like a pervert with a preteen] into believing that the dominant will only do "good" things. That the "bad" things happen because the submissive was "bad" and needed to be "punished". In all essences, the "bad" things are done for the "good" of the submissive. 


The problem is, is that most of these "dominants" [perverts] shame their submissives into keeping quiet so rape cases, etc., are rarely reported. 

And of course main stream society's mindset about BDSM is that "you signed up for this" and "what did you expect" so there's little help and less sympathy out there than that for a woman from a normal / "vanilla" world who would experience the same sort of thing. 



A proper BDSM relationship is about trust. However, there's far too many exactly like 50 Shades of Grey and far too many women accepting of such vile treatment.


----------



## Cindyj (Apr 29, 2015)

Just goes to show that anything can be published. I read a page or two at the local supermarket and I felt like 3 minutes of my life had been wasted.


----------

