Fifty shades of Grey

[Juliedang]

Hi guys! My name is Julie and I am new to the forum. I wanna know your thought of Fifty Shades of Grey. It can be about the novel or movie, even the differences among them. Thanks in advance!

[Anonymouswizard]

Tried, saw how terribly written it was, ran away screaming. Good, bad, horribly inaccurate portrayal of BDSM, it doesn't really matter because it's a piston to read


On the other hand Fifty Thousand Shades of Grey by S C Ashen is a masterpiece of English literature and should be read by everybody.

[Iruka]

I tried to read it but found it rather boring and clichéd. Did not like the writing style either.
I did however enjoy a rather hilarious Let's Read of it.
Can't comment on the movies, but i heard few good things about them.

I can however recommend Shades of Grey by Jasper Fford.

[An Enemy Spy]

The prose is so terrible that it becomes funny. Fun to read in snippets but quickly becomes tiresome. Christian Grey is an abuser who's mastered the art of gaslighting and psychological tactics to string Ana along into his creepy facsimile of love.

[Rater202]

It romanticizes rape and abusive relationships while screaming "it's just BDSM!" at anyone who points out that it's a horribly abusive and unhealthy relationship.

Notably, there's a scene in the book where the girl says the safe word, which is to say she revoked consent. Grey proceeded to keep going anyway, which in any other work would clearly establish him as an abusive rapist who is only hiding behind BDSM as a smoke screan but not in the mind of this woman who filed the serial numbers off of her AU Twilight Fanfic

[Cazero]

twilight fanficI'm legitimately curious. As far as I know (I've read neither novels) fifty shades uses different names and has no supernatural elements whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised that the author was inspired by Twilight (including blatantly copying plotlines, because as a talentless hack I'd do the same), but how is that making it a fanfic?

[Rater202]

I'm legitimately curious. As far as I know (I've read neither novels) fifty shades use different names and has no supernatural elements whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised that the author was inspired by Twilight (including blatantly copying plotlines, because as a talentless hack I'd do the same), but how is that making it a fanfic?
A woman writes twilight fanfic, removing supernatural elements and character backstories and replacing them with inaccurately depicted Kinky Sex.

The woman later changes the names of all the characters and has fanfiction published as a novel.

And thats how 50 Shades. (http://www.businessinsider.com/fifty-shades-of-grey-started-out-as-twilight-fan-fiction-2015-2)

[An Enemy Spy]

I'm legitimately curious. As far as I know (I've read neither novels) fifty shades uses different names and has no supernatural elements whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised that the author was inspired by Twilight (including blatantly copying plotlines, because as a talentless hack I'd do the same), but how is that making it a fanfic?

Fifty shades started out as a Twilight fanfiction called Master of the Universe written under E.L. James' FF.net username Snowqueen's Icedragon. She removed all the explicitly Twilighty elements and published it as an original story.

[Friv]

Hi guys! My name is Julie and I am new to the forum. I wanna know your thought of Fifty Shades of Grey. It can be about the novel or movie, even the differences among them. Thanks in advance!

Hi Julie,

Welcome to the forums! Sorry that your first topic is going to be such a contentious one.

Unfortunately, I have to side with the majority. Fifty Shades is pretty awful on a few major fronts. I'm not just saying this to hop on a Twilight-hating bandwagon, to be clear. There is some really unpleasant consent stuff going on in that book, on both sides of the crop.

On the one side, as noted by Rater202, Grey is a horrible abusive stalker rapist. He ignores a safe word, which is nuclear-level bad. He writes up a contract, which is not bad, but then continues pressuring her in the relationship despite the fact that she is clearly uncertain and hasn't signed anything. He uses his wealth to control her life without her permission, buying out companies that she works at and trying to keep her from dating other people (although that's mainly in the sequels, IIRC, and I may not because a lot of this stuff is second-hand).

On the flip side, Grey makes it clear in their first meeting that he's totally uninterested in an emotional relationship, and just wants a physical one. Ana proceeds to violate the hell out of the only boundary that her partner has, prying into his life and trying to unmask his secrets and develop an emotional relationship with him. So what we've got is a co-dependent abusive relationship in which one party openly states his intention to abuse and humiliate the other, regardless of her consent, and the other party openly states her intention to change him.

That's not great.

Finally, Fifty Shades wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants Christian's BDSM tendencies to stem from childhood abuse and pain - to be something morally bad - while also being something to titillate and amuse readers. It wants you to say, "Oh, that's so sexy, but the people who do it are so broken", which is prurient and repulsive.

Basically, it's like someone made a fanfic of Twilight after only reading the most hostile interpretations of Twilight.

[Anonymouswizard]

I have to say, as somebody potentially into the miller elements of BDSM (I likely have too low a pain tolerance to really get into it) I'm actually scared by what 50 Shades sells as BDSM. Although I've heard conflicting reports about the 'ignored safeword' scene from what I've heard of the books it wouldn't surprise me.

Now I'm off to try to find a young woman willing to tie up and hit me as hard as she can. See you after I fail.

[Rater202]

If it helps, by my limited understanding Fifty Shades is like, not how BDSM works at all.

[Anonymouswizard]

If it helps, by my limited understanding Fifty Shades is like, not how BDSM works at all.

If you're referring to what I talked about wanting, that was supposed to be more representative of 'dipping a toe in before diving into the deep end'.

If talking about what happens in the book, yeah that isn't BDSM in the slightest.

[lord_khaine]

If it helps, by my limited understanding Fifty Shades is like, not how BDSM works at all.

It isnt. As i recall the author did not do any research whatsoever into the subject.

[Reddish Mage]

Fifty Shades, regardless of whether its the book or the movie, is what vanillas know BDSM is not like.

Its a lot worse than just failing to be a great work about BDSM, its moral is escapism straight into the most obvious bad relationship trap. Despite somehow making kink mainstream, the entire point of the trilogy is that Christian Grey is cured of his master/slave "sadomasochistic" needs somewhere around book 2, simply because he loves Anastasia, who isn't into that stuff (well...at least not to the alternative lifestyle extreme). That message is fundamentally unhealthy regardless of whether or not kinks are some sort of psychodynamic response to sexual trauma (which is also a pretty strong theme).

Also the book is just badly written, reads like typical fan-fiction, and really gets plodding towards the middle. By the third book, the main conflicts have been resolved and the drama seems artificial, foisting a less-than fully-motivated conflict into a happily ever after epilogue.

If you want to read good stuff about BDSM I suggest Venus In Furs (although it's not especially sexy or romantic, and something of a cautionary tale of "don't do this"). Also, they say it has literary merits, and I read that the the stuff Marquis De Sade wrote is pretty racy.

For more modern stuff Anne Rice wrote some books under a pseudonym you could look up, but I think these books are basically BDSM porn rather than any sort of romance.

[Devonix]

Fifty Shades, regardless of whether its the book or the movie, is what vanillas know BDSM is not like.

Its a lot worse than just failing to be a great work about BDSM, its moral is escapism straight into the most obvious bad relationship trap. Despite somehow making kink mainstream, the entire point of the trilogy is that Christian Grey is cured of his master/slave "sadomasochistic" needs somewhere around book 2, simply because he loves Anastasia, who isn't into that stuff (well...at least not to the alternative lifestyle extreme). That message is fundamentally unhealthy regardless of whether or not kinks are some sort of psychodynamic response to sexual trauma (which is also a pretty strong theme).

Also the book is just badly written, reads like typical fan-fiction, and really gets plodding towards the middle. By the third book, the main conflicts have been resolved and the drama seems artificial, foisting a less-than fully-motivated conflict into a happily ever after epilogue.

If you want to read good stuff about BDSM I suggest Venus In Furs (although it's not especially sexy or romantic, and something of a cautionary tale of "don't do this"). Also, they say it has literary merits, and I read that the the stuff Marquis De Sade wrote is pretty racy.

For more modern stuff Anne Rice wrote some books under a pseudonym you could look up, but I think these books are basically BDSM porn rather than any sort of romance.


And if you want to see a good movie exploring the nature of these relationships. The good parts, the bad parts, and some ways it draws people to them. I highly recommend " The Secretary "

[AvatarVecna]

My admittedly-limited experience with the series in both mediums quickly turned me off of giving it more than the passing chance I initially gave. The twilight novels were, in a certain sense, okay (in that they weren't too incompetently written, as much as written for a demographic I was very much not a part of at the time); there were weird creepy implications even in the books, but it was largely fairly standard supernatural romance. 50 Shades is...different. That movie has a similar problem to the twilight movies (in that I feel the characters were cast more on looks than acting ability for a movie that's already needing to kinda sell these people as a couple to general audiences), but 50 shades removes all the "implication" parts of that "weird creepy implications" bit I mentioned earlier: the more I read/saw at the time, the more I hear about it now, the more it seems like Christian Grey has more issues than any other person on the planet.

One comedy-review I saw has a line like "Christian beats women in his dungeon...and has sex with women in his dungeon...and these two things are completely unrelated", which, if it's accurate, is...incredibly concerning, because there's a good line between sadomasochistic sexuality and...straight-up sadism. He hired detectives to follow her and collect potential blackmail material because he thought he might want her for himself? Did that really happen, because that sounds incredibly alarming. He also seems exceptionally shallow and paranoid from what I hear about him, to the point that I almost can't believe these things actually happen in what seems to have been an international phenomenon. Everything I hear makes it seem like Christian is less of a dom looking for a loving relationship with a sub (a relationship that's a lot more give and take, more two-sided than this makes it look like) and more just a jealous, controlling ******* with way too much money and way too little empathy who uses BDSM as an shield to mask his sadistic desires.

It's almost to the point where I'm thinking, if this guy really wanted a relationship like the one he's got in these movies...he could've just bought himself a nice obedient trophy wife from some third-world country whose decisions are not involved at any step in the transaction. I feel like there's a word for that, but I just can't think of what it is.

[Kish]

You're pretty much right. E. L. James wrote from the mostly-unstated perspective that BDSM is inherently messed up to the point where people who participate in it willingly barely qualify as human. That's a repulsive attitude, but one she's unfortunately far from alone in. What is seriously concerning, is that she appears to have done a fair amount of genuine research, not on healthy BDSM but on a particular kind of BDSM-subculture parasites who hang around the scene to prey on women who are interested in BDSM but know little or nothing about it.

[Scarlet Knight]

To be fair & transparent, I never got through more than a third of 50 Shades.

Yet, I cannot understand if the book is as horrible as previous posters make it out to be, how did it sell so many copies?

A Twilight rip-off that outsold Twilight?

An S&M book that middle-aged women were willing to be seen carrying around?

I know sales often does not equal quality, but give the book some credit. It must have done something right.

[Anymage]

Fifty shades started out as a Twilight fanfiction called Master of the Universe...

And depressingly few He-Man jokes were made based on that fact.


I have to say, as somebody potentially into the miller elements of BDSM (I likely have too low a pain tolerance to really get into it) I'm actually scared by what 50 Shades sells as BDSM. Although I've heard conflicting reports about the 'ignored safeword' scene from what I've heard of the books it wouldn't surprise me.

Now I'm off to try to find a young woman willing to tie up and hit me as hard as she can. See you after I fail.

If you want fantasy written by a kinkster who actually shows that positively without making too big a production out of it, Ferrett Steinmetz's Flex and its sequels have a character pretty much based on the sort of girl the author wants to beat him up. Bonus points for her never getting romantically involved with the male MC, for her not being a sexpot, and for her being the pop culture wisecrack character. It won't help you find a domme (that's a whooolle other thread), but it is notable for having kinkster characters without having that be the main thrust of their character or the story.


To be fair & transparent, I never got through more than a third of 50 Shades.

Yet, I cannot understand if the book is as horrible as previous posters make it out to be, how did it sell so many copies?

A Twilight rip-off that outsold Twilight?

An S&M book that middle-aged women were willing to be seen carrying around?

I know sales often does not equal quality, but give the book some credit. It must have done something right.

What people like and what's actually good for them are two totally different things. Swing by work with a box of donuts and a bag of celery sticks if you want to see this play out.

Lots of elements of Fifty Shades are appealing for a reason. Being just so magically feminine that you manage to break through the bad boy's walls and fix him. Someone who knows what you want better than you do, and will push your boundaries just far enough to be titillating without being scary. Someone who cares enough about you to be protective, even to the point of a jealous rage, without being actually threatening to you or disrupting your life in any serious way. These are popular fantasies, and understandably so.

It's just that the real life equivalents are always at best somebody putting on an elaborate act to pull someone in (and who will eventually find the work required to maintain such an act tiresome), or else seriously unhealthy people who just happen to tap into popular romantic images. Neither of which is good in the long term.

[Reddish Mage]

And if you want to see a good movie exploring the nature of these relationships. The good parts, the bad parts, and some ways it draws people to them. I highly recommend " The Secretary "

Seen it, not impressed. He's an insecure control freak, she's drawn by his challenge, he likes what she can do for him. There's some big drama at the end that makes the relationship seem one-sided.

Then it ends with the suggestion the two morph into a perfectly boring couple. In other words, there's some hot scenes and then it doesn't follow up.

The Story of O is better and that is very stilted as a low-budget movie, and the book really ends on a note of and everything just falls apart when O is falsely suspect of infidelity, and then O commits suicide in a part we are not going to actually write.


One comedy-review I saw has a line like "Christian beats women in his dungeon...and has sex with women in his dungeon...and these two things are completely unrelated"

:smallbiggrin: Its funny, its not strictly true, but because the series really has a problem reconciling the two.


You're pretty much right. E. L. James wrote from the mostly-unstated perspective that BDSM is inherently messed up to the point where people who participate in it willingly barely qualify as human. That's a repulsive attitude, but one she's unfortunately far from alone in. What is seriously concerning, is that she appears to have done a fair amount of genuine research, not on healthy BDSM but on a particular kind of BDSM-subculture parasites who hang around the scene to prey on women who are interested in BDSM but know little or nothing about it.

Citation needed. I don't see how E L James could do any sort of homework and come away with the impression that Christian Grey is the example of anything. She couldn't have intended to make Christian a particularly bad, because he's supposed to be the best.

You know how Anastasia supposedly did weeks or research and then asked about the basic definitions of every clause of her contract? I have a feeling E. L. James research went something like that.

Christian is said to use a shoelace tie to suspend Anastasia from her wrist. The first lesson of knots is that shoelace ties are not to be used for anything serious.

Moreover, people who like this series are getting something else other than that Christian is sick. It seems from the conversations that people find it really sexy and enticing. Indeed, many of the BDSM-sex scenes are done without the judgment thrown in.

What's makes me see Christian as sick is in how he tries and tries to pressure Anastasia to sign a relationship contract she doesn't want to, and to live a lifestyle she will have no part in. That sounds like plenty of guys trying to push girls into plenty of things. However, this isn't what drive Anastasia away. No, Anastasia leaves when she discovers how much he really really likes to hurt hurt!

If only she googled sadist as part of her research, she could have been spared! :smalltongue:

Seriously, if Christian Grey seems like a predator, well, there are plenty of places to find inspiration for that. It seems wholly unnecessary that E. L. James researched real individuals living a real lifestyle. Given how unrealistic the portrayal of Grey is, I would be surprised to find out she had.

[Murk]

The third book is on my very, very short list of books that I started but did not finish. I thought I could barrel through this trilogy on sheer strength of will, but I failed.

The worst part about the books was that it wasn't sexy.
I knew it would be badly written, that it would be a stupid plot, that it would be boring at times - but I was also promised steamy sex scenes. I could have forgiven all flaws for some good sex.
But the sex scenes, damn, they were boring. It happened a few times that I put the book down to go do something else in the middle of a sex scene. If the book is basically porn for humdrummed housewives, and the porn is boring, you know the book has failed.

[Ibrinar]

Though I think how interesting sex scenes are to you can strongly depend on whether you are interested in the fetishes they contain, like I once read a web serial (Tales of Mu) which had a fantasy setting I found kinda interesting but it has lots of sex scenes and sex was bdsm and I found them super boring, but I don't think they were worse than other sex scenes I have read per se I just have no interest in all but the mildest bdsm. But with how bad fifty shades is supposed to be I guess they might just be boring in general.

[Anonymouswizard]

If you want fantasy written by a kinkster who actually shows that positively without making too big a production out of it, Ferrett Steinmetz's Flex and its sequels have a character pretty much based on the sort of girl the author wants to beat him up. Bonus points for her never getting romantically involved with the male MC, for her not being a sexpot, and for her being the pop culture wisecrack character. It won't help you find a domme (that's a whooolle other thread), but it is notable for having kinkster characters without having that be the main thrust of their character or the story.

I'll look it up.

But yeah, I don't want fiction that tells me I'm bad or weird for actually being interested in this stuff. I mean as long as I find a partner who is gone with it and we do it behind closed doors is it hurting anybody (well yes, but that's the point, it's not hitting anybody else). So yes, fiction that presents kinksters as 'normal' people and they ain't anything wing with goes on in that bedroom sounds good, I'll check those out.

[mariusz]

Watching this is eye-cancer

[Reddish Mage]

But the sex scenes, damn, they were boring. It happened a few times that I put the book down to go do something else in the middle of a sex scene. If the book is basically porn for humdrummed housewives, and the porn is boring, you know the book has failed.

Or, more reasonably, the housewives are really that boring, they haven’t read anything sexy. More likely this is their only exposure to BDSM and apparently those desires are more common (WSJ today has a story about sexual fantasies and power/rough sex/BDSM is one of the Big Three) and unaddressed in your Harlequin novels (must be disallowed or something).

[lord_khaine]

Or, more reasonably, the housewives are really that boring, they haven’t read anything sexy. More likely this is their only exposure to BDSM and apparently those desires are more common (WSJ today has a story about sexual fantasies and power/rough sex/BDSM is one of the Big Three) and unaddressed in your Harlequin novels (must be disallowed or something).

I think this is the case. I have some friends who are into the deeper ends of things. And who though force of will has managed to read the entire book.
They have all agreed on that; first the actual writing is -awful- on a technical level, the main character is a vacum, and that lastly all the suposedly kinky scenes are insanely dull.

[Eldan]

Man, the spam bots are out in force today.

[The Glyphstone]

https://xkcd.com/810/

(linked for language, but you know which one it is)/

[Themrys]

Or, more reasonably, the housewives are really that boring, they haven’t read anything sexy. More likely this is their only exposure to BDSM and apparently those desires are more common (WSJ today has a story about sexual fantasies and power/rough sex/BDSM is one of the Big Three) and unaddressed in your Harlequin novels (must be disallowed or something).

"Bodice Rippers", aka, the most common romance novels (that I despise) frequently feature a rape that's portrayed as romantic, that can't exactly be it. Perhaps BDSM as such is disallowed, violence against women definitely happens. (I admittedly stopped reading them after the third one that had a rape in it, realising that was a staple of perhaps even requirement of the genre, but I wouldn't be surprised if women were spanked or tied up under some flimsy excuse in those novels, too)

Whether E.L. James did research or not, I think it is self-evident that she was accidentally right about male rapists who use BDSM as an excuse to violate the boundaries of women who don't know that that's not how BDSM officially works. If something bad can happen, it eventually will happen. Doubly so if there's rapists who have an active interest in making it happen.

A subculture where violence against women is considered normal as long as you follow some rules (or claim to follow them, or claim to certainly want to remember them next time ...) is such a paradise for rapists, it would be a miracle if there weren't any.
And indeed, I have read some reports by women who were attacked by exactly that sort of rapist. Many who even say that Christian Grey strongly resembles the man who abused them.

So, yeah, I am sure men like Grey exist in reality. The "You can change him" is the unrealistic part.

[Anymage]

"Bodice Rippers", aka, the most common romance novels (that I despise) frequently feature a rape that's portrayed as romantic, that can't exactly be it. Perhaps BDSM as such is disallowed, violence against women definitely happens. (I admittedly stopped reading them after the third one that had a rape in it, realising that was a staple of perhaps even requirement of the genre, but I wouldn't be surprised if women were spanked or tied up under some flimsy excuse in those novels, too)

Whether E.L. James did research or not, I think it is self-evident that she was accidentally right about male rapists who use BDSM as an excuse to violate the boundaries of women who don't know that that's not how BDSM officially works. If something bad can happen, it eventually will happen. Doubly so if there's rapists who have an active interest in making it happen.

A subculture where violence against women is considered normal as long as you follow some rules (or claim to follow them, or claim to certainly want to remember them next time ...) is such a paradise for rapists, it would be a miracle if there weren't any.
And indeed, I have read some reports by women who were attacked by exactly that sort of rapist. Many who even say that Christian Grey strongly resembles the man who abused them.

So, yeah, I am sure men like Grey exist in reality. The "You can change him" is the unrealistic part.

First, if you want to trot out feminist ideas on how BDSM is ritualized misogyny, do you want to trot out feminist thought on how lesbianism is a political choice too? If the people behind these ideas have such a long history of being wrong, I'm uncomfortable taking their ideas without a heavy dose of supporting evidence. Bad actors exist in the BDSM scene, but bad actors exist in every scene and the BDSM scene is better than many at self-policing.

Second, neither 50 Shades nor Twilight before it made it so big because the elders of the phalluminati decreed it to be so. Both had massive word-of-mouth success amongst women before larger society paid them any attention. All these unhealthy ideas were part of the culture long before Stephanie Meyers started having weird dreams. Those Harlequin novels where she had to be forced to enjoy herself so she wouldn't seem slutty were a thing well before many posters here were even born. I'm not going to defend E.L. James's work on any level, but those books are symptoms rather than a cause.

[lord_khaine]

A subculture where violence against women is considered normal as long as you follow some rules (or claim to follow them, or claim to certainly want to remember them next time ...) is such a paradise for rapists, it would be a miracle if there weren't any.
And indeed, I have read some reports by women who were attacked by exactly that sort of rapist. Many who even say that Christian Grey strongly resembles the man who abused them.

This part is very, very wrong. Firstly there isnt any part of said subculture where violence is considered normal. Any more than rape is considered normal in the subculture that goes and drink their brains out each friday.
And since its also a culture that has very strong rules about drinking, and is rather tightly knit. Then it is likely to be more safe than most other places.

Also its not only womens there are on the recieving end. Its an equal opportunity culture.

[Vinyadan]

@Themrys, sexual fantasies involving rape are very frequent among women. Those books probably play on this fact. Why exactly so many women have fantasies about something they actually don't want to experience in real life is something of an open question, but it's possible that it depends on how women are under intense scrutiny when it comes to choices regarding sex: in a rape fantasy, they are free of responsibility and don't have to answer for it, which might be the actual fantasy.

[AMFV]

While I usually disagree with certain poster's viewpoints. I will say this:

BDSM is not some magic safeguard against abuse. There are probably plenty of BDSM folks who are *******s, the same as in the general populace. I would imagine that it's probably not more prevalent, but I have no information about that. The idea that 50 Shades is a poor representation of BDSM because the dude is an ******* is really bizarre, yes, Christian is not acting in good faith with the philosophy of BDSM, but that doesn't necessarily make him "unrealistic" because BDSM is not a perfect philosophy that all practitioners can force themselves perfectly into.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

While I usually disagree with certain poster's viewpoints. I will say this:

BDSM is not some magic safeguard against abuse. There are probably plenty of BDSM folks who are *******s, the same as in the general populace. I would imagine that it's probably not more prevalent, but I have no information about that. The idea that 50 Shades is a poor representation of BDSM because the dude is an ******* is really bizarre, yes, Christian is not acting in good faith with the philosophy of BDSM, but that doesn't necessarily make him "unrealistic" because BDSM is not a perfect philosophy that all practitioners can force themselves perfectly into.

It goes well beyond that, unfortunately. It's not that he's 'not good', it's not even that he's a terrible Dom who would be labeled as 'does not play well with others' in ANY social group featuring BDSM. It goes about twenty leagues beyond that. We're talking he hit every single 'don't do this' button that I can think of. Every. Single. One. He broke EVERY rule. Not just one or two, every single one of them. Shattered them and left them behind and didn't even care. I mean, he ignored a Safe Word for crying out loud.

Unfortunately, he was also portrayed within the scene as a 'the best', which is the crux of the matter. You see, he WAS portrayed as 'acting in good faith with the philosophy of BDSM', even though nothing further could be the truth.

I could've handled something like this if he had been called out as someone outside the normal BDSM community, if someone had warned her about him acting badly in the past, if there was disapproval of his actions found somewhere, if it was called out as a negative example. There wasn't. There was zero hint that his actions were not how things are done, and everything in the series indicated that he was seen as a man above his peers in the field. Which is... asinine. It's actually worse than that, but words have failed me to be able to describe how ridiculous the very concept is, how antithetical it is to the very fundamental concepts and underpinnings of the practice.

The problem isn't just that he practices cruelty and abuse, not BDSM. The problem is that he does so... and this is portrayed as the norm for the community. That's what gets so many people's dander up. In real life, the community would have reported the abuse, if for no other reason than to avoid having his actions stain vanilla reactions to them, and Grey would have been in cuffs within twenty four hours of having ignored a safe word.

[AMFV]

It goes well beyond that, unfortunately. It's not that he's 'not good', it's not even that he's a terrible Dom who would be labeled as 'does not play well with others' in ANY social group featuring BDSM. It goes about twenty leagues beyond that. We're talking he hit every single 'don't do this' button that I can think of. Every. Single. One. He broke EVERY rule. Not just one or two, every single one of them. Shattered them and left them behind and didn't even care. I mean, he ignored a Safe Word for crying out loud.

Unfortunately, he was also portrayed within the scene as a 'the best', which is the crux of the matter. You see, he WAS portrayed as 'acting in good faith with the philosophy of BDSM', even though nothing further could be the truth.


I don't recall him as being portrayed as 'the best', except for by those in his circle of friends. Who would obviously have no reason to want to stay on the good side of somebody who buys out entire companies just to find out about a girl he barely knows and to prevent her from dating other people.

[Devonix]

I don't recall him as being portrayed as 'the best', except for by those in his circle of friends. Who would obviously have no reason to want to stay on the good side of somebody who buys out entire companies just to find out about a girl he barely knows and to prevent her from dating other people.

Judging by the theme of the story, and the fact that he doesn't get called out on it. It's quite obvious that the film and book expect the audience and readers to treat him as an expert in the field.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't recall him as being portrayed as 'the best', except for by those in his circle of friends. Who would obviously have no reason to want to stay on the good side of somebody who buys out entire companies just to find out about a girl he barely knows and to prevent her from dating other people.

Abusive inside and outside the playroom? Why am I supposed to find this man attractive again?

[Saintheart]

The most abusive thing about this awful book was the manner in which it was written, and the most satisfying thing about it was the meaty thud the book made when it hit my opposite wall.

[Eldan]

Abusive inside and outside the playroom? Why am I supposed to find this man attractive again?

Because he's filthy rich and very good looking, duh!

Also, he only stalks and abuses her because he loves her.

[Bohandas]

I prefer the works of De Sade

[Anonymouswizard]

Because he's filthy rich and very good looking, duh!

Also, he only stalks and abuses her because he loves her.

I mean, there's millions of very good looking men out there, can't I find one who doesn't want to abuse me?

I mean, I suppose that the filthy rich but it's harder, but when did money buy happiness? Plus what if I don't like the expensive car he buys me?

Now in all honesty, I get the 'rich handsome man' fantasy. Can't say I haven't had it myself. But even then there's a difference between fun, honest mistakes, and abuse (although as I've personally experienced honest mistakes can very easily lead to abuse, never again will I forget to discuss boundaries with my partner).

[AMFV]

Judging by the theme of the story, and the fact that he doesn't get called out on it. It's quite obvious that the film and book expect the audience and readers to treat him as an expert in the field.

Not being "called out" doesn't make a person a de facto "expert" in the field, in real life, why would it do so in literature. There are plenty of posers in all fields, not all of whom are publicly confronted. In Christian's case, he forces all people who are involved with them to sign a really scare NDA which should stop people from doing that with the threat of legal action against them.

Furthermore, BDSM isn't a "field" and doesn't have degrees of expertise in any real sense. It has a lot of internal snobbery though, which I suspect would be the real reason why people would want this book not associated with it. I mean there are bad doms and bad subs, and horrible in BDSM, just like in any community.


Abusive inside and outside the playroom? Why am I supposed to find this man attractive again?

You probably aren't the target audience. Why are the jerks in Bodice Rippers found to be attractive? I suspect the reason why is that you can have the positive qualities of that kind of relationship without the actual real life things. "He cares enough about me to follow me around and then save me when I get drunk" but without the parts of that that are awful. I mean you get somebody controlling your life for you, that's certainly got an appeal, there are even real examples of a select few people in BDSM that actually want that.

And you're not really supposed to find him attractive as he is. It's the fact that he changes himself completely for love that's the real kicker in these type of stories. But again, as trashy romance leads go, he's not bad. He doesn't rape her, he doesn't imprison her, which are not uncommon themes in that genre.

I'm not saying the books are well written I am saying that perhaps the commentary on them is not entirely appropriate considering that they are in, and the conventions of that genre.

[Kish]

He doesn't rape her,
Yes, he does.

[AMFV]

Yes, he does.

Not in the version I've read. It's possible that it happens in one of the later books though, I could barely stomach the first one and only read it as a favor to my significant other at the time. Mostly cause it was bad, but I've read other bad novels like that, and it's not especially bad.

I mean their first sexual encounter is definitely one that she wants and one that she essentially initiates. He winds up deciding to actually scale things back from what he would normally do when he discovers that she is not sexually experienced. Which does seem to be at least inconsistent with his characterization, but he's a wish fulfillment person for the author (and probably many of the readers) so consistency is not as important as the fulfillment of the wishy bit.

Edit: Actually the only scene that I can think of where he takes advantage of her in a physical way is the makeout scene in the elevator. The rest are mostly her idea. Even the "spanking" scene where she realizes that she can never really be in his world because she's not that way, and that he has to change himself to be with her rather than the other way around, is initiated by her, she demands to experience the actual BDSM stuff he talks about.

[Rater202]

The scene in the book where they're doing things, she says the safe word, and he doesn't stop.

That's freaky sex 101: Saying the safe word means you're done. Break character, stop what you're doing, the submissive has revoked concent for whatever you're doing.

The second he didn't stop when she said the safe word, it turned into a rape.

Also, IIRC there's a scene where she says no, she doesn't want to be with him anymore and he gets her back by breaking into her apartment and having his way with her, which is pretty clear cut rape.

[AMFV]

The scene in the book where they're doing things, she says the safe word, and he doesn't stop.

Fair enough, it's possible I missed that section given that I was kind of glossing over the whole thing at this point, since the sex scenes were so badly written (and the rest of it).

Also:

http://50shadesofregret.com/post/110533651041/asking-if-christian-ignored-safe-word-misses-50-shades-a

Apparently that doesn't actually happen in the book. Not that what he does isn't awful, as is described in the rest of that blog post. But he doesn't actually ignore the Safe Word



That's freaky sex 101: Saying the safe word means you're done. Break character, stop what you're doing, the submissive has revoked concent for whatever you're doing.

True, and if that scene was actually in the book it would count as rape. But it's worth noting that bodice ripper characters often physically and violently rape the ladies in their books, and are still presented heroically or anti-heroically. And as others have pointed out there are women who have this particular sort of fantasy, at least the ones who read bodice rippers probably do. Although they might not enjoy it in real life they enjoy the fictional version of it.



The second he didn't stop when she said the safe word, it turned into a rape.

But that scene isn't in the book, at least not in any of the material I've found.



Also, IIRC there's a scene where she says no, she doesn't want to be with him anymore and he gets her back by breaking into her apartment and having his way with her, which is pretty clear cut rape.

That's pretty clear cut breaking and entering, yes. That's pretty clear cut shady behavior (coercing someone to stay in a relationship by sex is pretty shady). But rape... no it's really not clear cut rape unless she objected to the actual sexual encounter. Also she had given him keys to her apartment and had previously allowed him entry, so I'm not even sure that you'd get clear cut breaking and entering.

The whole thing is a muddle, but breakups are complicated even in real life when you aren't dealing with manipulative jerks like Christian. Also could you point out where this scene actually takes place, it's just that you've previously described a scene that didn't happen in the books and therefore I am not sure that I am willing to take you at your word for it, and doing the amount of research I'm doing on this awful book is really not a lot of fun.

[Anonymouswizard]

At this point I get conflicted. It is completely fine for a book to have morally grey heroes and bad morals, and I don't want to say that Fifty Shades doesn't deserve them because I'm not a fan of it's genre and as such can't judge it by those standards.

But there's a point where I start to think 'woman, you're not going to change him that much, just dump him and find a less abusive man who'll let you have that control you want'. And Fifty Shades hits that point for me. Then again, I find the idea of 'I can fix him' problematic, and would rather have that theme gone from literature entirely.


I'm not getting into the rape discussion because I refuse to read the books enough to find out if it does happen. I've also heard everything from 'it does' to 'it doesn't', to 'it technically doesn't, but easily could have because whole the sexual act was wanted actual consent was never established'.

[lord_khaine]

Furthermore, BDSM isn't a "field" and doesn't have degrees of expertise in any real sense. It has a lot of internal snobbery though, which I suspect would be the real reason why people would want this book not associated with it. I mean there are bad doms and bad subs, and horrible in BDSM, just like in any community.

So.. you would also say that there isnt degrees of expertise in for example.. psychology?
And dont know about the snobbery. Never spottet it myself. But it can be cultural difference.

[AMFV]

At this point I get conflicted. It is completely fine for a book to have morally grey heroes and bad morals, and I don't want to say that Fifty Shades doesn't deserve them because I'm not a fan of it's genre and as such can't judge it by those standards.

Well I'm not a fan of the genre either, just aware of it's conventions. I think that the problem is that the genre itself has a lot of weird stuff that isn't stuff that the women who read it actually want, and interpreting it that way is a big issue.



But there's a point where I start to think 'woman, you're not going to change him that much, just dump him and find a less abusive man who'll let you have that control you want'. And Fifty Shades hits that point for me. Then again, I find the idea of 'I can fix him' problematic, and would rather have that theme gone from literature entirely.

But you aren't the target audience. All you can do is complain and not buy the books. But it has been a part of the literary world for a very long time, and I doubt it's going away. You even see that in some Gothic literature. And yes, in real life your advice would be good. But real life isn't fiction and treating it is as though all fiction is intended to model good behavior is pretty silly.

If my family is held hostage by gangsters, getting a 240 and going to their base and murdering all of them is a really bad plan. But we see it in fiction fairly frequently. And this kind of fiction is all about experiencing a thing that you don't get in real life. For men, it's typically getting to be the powerful vigilante the one who rights the wrongs. For ladies (at least in the case of bodice rippers) it's about getting the guy who is a confident jerk and having him morph into a "nice guy" for her, because she is so amazing. Now I don't like even the idea of phrasing it that way, but I think that's the best explanation for it.


So.. you would also say that there isnt degrees of expertise in for example.. psychology?

Psychology is a field of study with specific and clearcut degrees of expertise bud. Like an LCSW is a specific title. Dom is at best self-appointed. And there are no specific qualifications required.



And dont know about the snobbery. Never spottet it myself. But it can be cultural difference.

You've never heard people say things like "Dom should always be capitalized whereas sub should always be lowercase, because that reflects the power structure?" That's a pretty snobby thing to say, and people complaining when that is not the case. There are other examples, but that's the one I've seen most that shows that the "scene" at least when you start getting into the social aspect gets pretty snobby.

And their response to the book and later films was one of snobbery. "Well it doesn't depict us correctly" is a snobby reaction, not one of concern. Because the concern was that people would think bad things about the BDSM community rather than that the book might lead people in the BDSM community into bad directions (because that could never happen, at least in their minds).

[Vinyadan]

Was the safe word "banana"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJBgzX2HMe8

[Anonymouswizard]

But you aren't the target audience.

True, at least until Fifty Shades of Gay is a thing.

But that's why I'm conflicted. I want to tell these things and tell people to stay away, bit the genre isn't for me. I want to tell this stuff, but I can't really judge the book by the merits of it's peers. I don't want impressionable young women to get the wrong is, but I also have the feeling that most impressionable young women won't want to read it.

[lord_khaine]

Psychology is a field of study with specific and clearcut degrees of expertise bud. Like an LCSW is a specific title. Dom is at best self-appointed. And there are no specific qualifications required.

Hmm.. a couple of things here.
A) Im not your buddy.
B) We were not talking about titles. We were talking about expertise. Anyone can indeed call themselves a dom. The same way that anyone can likely take a few classes at afrikan university and call themselves a Psychologist. That does not mean there cant be a massive difference in skill between those people, and someone who have spend a decade on different sorts of studies.


You've never heard people say things like "Dom should always be capitalized whereas sub should always be lowercase, because that reflects the power structure?" That's a pretty snobby thing to say, and people complaining when that is not the case. There are other examples, but that's the one I've seen most that shows that the "scene" at least when you start getting into the social aspect gets pretty snobby.

I have actually newer seen that myself. Nor heard of anywhere it was practiced.


And their response to the book and later films was one of snobbery. "Well it doesn't depict us correctly" is a snobby reaction, not one of concern. Because the concern was that people would think bad things about the BDSM community rather than that the book might lead people in the BDSM community into bad directions (because that could never happen, at least in their minds).

And thats certainly not snobbery. I think your allowed to be just a bit upset when something misrepresent you in a genuinly negative way.
Also.. the last bit? no, how on earth are the book going to do that, when its a laughtingstock for getting just about everything wrong?

[AMFV]

True, at least until Fifty Shades of Gay is a thing.

But that's why I'm conflicted. I want to tell these things and tell people to stay away, bit the genre isn't for me. I want to tell this stuff, but I can't really judge the book by the merits of it's peers. I don't want impressionable young women to get the wrong is, but I also have the feeling that most impressionable young women won't want to read it.

I have a suspicion that the gay community has their own brand of trashy stuff that they partake in and enjoy. I'm probably not familiar enough with it to know about it off-hand. But most communities have things like that. Things that are not positive but are enjoyed by the community.

I think that if you are impressionable in a way that 50 shades could really have a negative impact on your life, that even if you avoid 50 Shades, you're probably going to find something else that will have a negative impact in the same way.


Hmm.. a couple of things here.
A) Im not your buddy.

I'm not your guy.



B) We were not talking about titles. We were talking about expertise. Anyone can indeed call themselves a dom. The same way that anyone can likely take a few classes at afrikan university and call themselves a Psychologist. That does not mean there cant be a massive difference in skill between those people, and someone who have spend a decade on different sorts of studies.

My point was that you CAN'T call yourself a psychologist, without the relevant credentials. It's a field where you can learn things and have to actually apply those things to be called a psychologist. You can't just take a psych course and call yourself a psychologist.

Also what constitutes expertise? Human tastes being hw




I have actually newer seen that myself. Nor heard of anywhere it was practiced.

Then you must not have been around the BDSM community that I've seen. Because I've certainly seen that mentioned on forums and what-not. I mean I personally think it's ridiculous but there's also a very good bit of snobbery there. As well as the fact that you're implying that you can be "better" at being a dom. Which is not strictly speaking true, it's not about a skill you can improve, it's about being what your partner wants. So what one dom may do may be a complete turn-off for most people.

Even the implication that one person is better at something that is essentially interpersonal relationships is a snobby attitude to have. There's a lot of belief that things can only be done one way. I mean for years you had people who believed that to be a good dom you had to be a submissive first. Which is pretty categorically not the case. And there are people to this day who insist that people take on a role they aren't good at and don't enjoy to do something that isn't not related in terms of skillset, that's a kind of snobbery, no?



And thats certainly not snobbery. I think your allowed to be just a bit upset when something misrepresent you in a genuinly negative way.

Yes, you are.

But 50 Shades of Grey isn't a documentary. It's not "representing" the BDSM community, it's not showing people the real BDSM community any more than a bodice ripper is showing people how real nobles or pirates or bandits behave. It's a trashy novel. And most people from what I can tell didn't really associate it with the real BDSM community, with a few notable exceptions.



Also.. the last bit? no, how on earth are the book going to do that, when its a laughtingstock for getting just about everything wrong?

Remember how I said I read the book as a favor for a significant other? She was a lady in that community who recommended the book for me as a source for 'inspiration' in that area. So maybe off the high horse a little bit, because I have met people who were into BDSM who liked the book, and people who were influenced by it.

In fact the fact that you are acting as though that is somehow impossible, suggests to me that you're influenced by a little bit of that sort of snobbery. I mean, it's just a trashy novel. It's not a documentary, it's not a hit piece. It's a trashy novel. It's only as bad as others in that same field.

[Bohandas]

Everyone saying how unrealistically over the top this is needs to bear in mind that it is significantly less extreme than the Armin Meiwes/Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes incident (the one where the guy volunteered to be killed)

[AvatarVecna]

I'm fairly certain the reason 50 Shades gets a lot of flak from the kink community that other bodice-ripper questionable-consent sadistic love interest style books/movies get, isn't because 50 Shades does it worse, but because 50 Shades does it bad on a much bigger scale. The first movie grossed 500 billion dollars worldwide, just by itself. All three books seem to have been published in 2012, and by 2015 the first book of the trilogy had sold 125 million copies worldwide. Presuming that 90% of people didn't make it to book 2, while the remaining 10% read both 2 and 3, we can maybe call that 150 million copies total worldwide; presuming 20 dollars a book for a new copy of a hotselling book (probably reasonable?) that's ~3 billion dollars in 3 years. To put it in perspective, the overall "romance book" genre makes about 1.1 billion dollars a year, meaning that if my assumptions up there are even close to reasonable, the book series made about as much money in those three years as the rest of the freaking book genre combined.

That's why people give it flak for being bad representation; whatever else the series did, it did something right enough to become an international phenomenon, and that means the flaws it has - flaws it shares with a good portion of the genre, in fairness - are less tolerable, and more problematic, because they're reaching a wider audience, and by virtue of their runaway success, are apparently viewed as less problematic by society as a whole. As far as a good deal of the world is concerned, 50 Shades Of Grey is the face of BDSM, and Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele are a typical BDSM relationship. It's the Duning-Kruger effect in action, except that people who 1) spot the consent issues, creepy actions, and the ultimately very negative light the books portray the lifestyle in, and 2) aren't familiar with the lifestyle outside of 50 Shades, might very well assume these problems are a decent representation of the community, which is a problem for the community as a whole.

[lord_khaine]

I'm not your guy.

Yes.... thats what i said. And likely why you should not adress me with bud.


My point was that you CAN'T call yourself a psychologist, without the relevant credentials. It's a field where you can learn things and have to actually apply those things to be called a psychologist. You can't just take a psych course and call yourself a psychologist.

Also what constitutes expertise? Human tastes being hw

And my POINT was that titles dont have anything to do with expertise.

As for what constitutes expertise. Well it of course depends on what branch you move down. But both Shibari and impact play has some very clear markers for skill.
And the ability to read your partner is universal.


Then you must not have been around the BDSM community that I've seen. Because I've certainly seen that mentioned on forums and what-not. I mean I personally think it's ridiculous but there's also a very good bit of snobbery there. As well as the fact that you're implying that you can be "better" at being a dom. Which is not strictly speaking true, it's not about a skill you can improve, it's about being what your partner wants. So what one dom may do may be a complete turn-off for most people.


Well.. i live in a small country with less than 10 million inhabitants. So no it is unlikely we have seen the same communities.
And no. I am not implying something. I am straight out -saying- that you can be better at being a dominant. And that it -is- a skill.
I mean, look at something simular like cooking, where taste is also extremely subjective. Are you going to argue a trained chef isnt a better cook than someone else because a customer prefer the home style cooking her husband makes?


Even the implication that one person is better at something that is essentially interpersonal relationships is a snobby attitude to have. There's a lot of belief that things can only be done one way. I mean for years you had people who believed that to be a good dom you had to be a submissive first. Which is pretty categorically not the case. And there are people to this day who insist that people take on a role they aren't good at and don't enjoy to do something that isn't not related in terms of skillset, that's a kind of snobbery, no?

And its not snobby if its not interpersonal relationship, it isnt by the way. Not everyone is in closed relationships.
For that matter neither of those beliefs are being snobby either. The first is perhaps narrowminded, and the second likely come from it actually helping a lot to get into the bottoms mindset.


Remember how I said I read the book as a favor for a significant other? She was a lady in that community who recommended the book for me as a source for 'inspiration' in that area. So maybe off the high horse a little bit, because I have met people who were into BDSM who liked the book, and people who were influenced by it.

In fact the fact that you are acting as though that is somehow impossible, suggests to me that you're influenced by a little bit of that sort of snobbery. I mean, it's just a trashy novel. It's not a documentary, it's not a hit piece. It's a trashy novel. It's only as bad as others in that same field.

You seems to be sitting quite comfortably on your own though. But it then goes against your own concern about why people in the community should be concerned about the book leading people to bad practice. Since some as your ladyfriend apperently like it, so she should not be concerned about people learning from it. And everyone else i have ever actually meet think its flaming garbage. So they dont think its possible people learning from it.


In fact the fact that you are acting as though that is somehow impossible, suggests to me that you're influenced by a little bit of that sort of snobbery. I mean, it's just a trashy novel. It's not a documentary, it's not a hit piece. It's a trashy novel. It's only as bad as others in that same field.

It also seems like you generally just use snobbery whenever you encounter something you dislike. Being it ideas, behavior or actions. But im not certain it means what you think it does.
Here, a Wikipedia link Snob (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snob)

[War_lord]

If Fifty Shades had stayed an obscure romance novel, I doubt the BDSM community (which, I will point out for the sake of clarity, is not my thing) would care about it, because after all its problematic elements exist in almost every trashy romance novel aimed at repressed housewives. What makes Fifty Shades a problem, is that the book became wildly popular among the repressed housewife demographic. Much in the same way Twilight went mainstream for lonely teenage girls. In fact they both share a lot in common, they're both trashy romance, with all the tropes that entails. Which yes, are problematic, but I think most of the intended audience, or at least frequent readers knows that. It's a fantasy, so of course the actual logistics don't come into it.

They both transcended the limits of the genre by achieving seeming ubiquitous presence in the target demographic. And they're both extremely problematic when you realize that there's a danger of inexperienced members of the target demographic treating them as instruction manuals and ending up in an abusive situation. Maybe some have forgotten, but at the apex of the Fifty Shades craze, the media was very much encouraging the idea of it as an instruction manual, not in the literal sense but in the "book as introduction" sense. Or at least that's how it seemed in my country.

[Scarlet Knight]

Does anyone know if "The Story of O" had the same problems in it's day? Can we use it to predict the effect of "50 Shades" among the general population?

[Anymage]

Moral panic, Story of O had it worse. A quick peek at wikipedia shows that there were obscenity charges filed.

Long term impact, for all the discussion here the truth is that Fifty Shades has largely run its course. Maybe a few more bored housewives tried googling BDSM, and a few more horny people tried hopping onto the bandwagon thinking that it'd get them laid easier. But the existence of the internet means that anybody with the least amount of curiosity can find way more information than they've ever dreamed possible. The curious can find local communities, and see whether or not the reality is for them. (There'll always be some people who want the fantasy without the humdrum reality bits that keep it from becoming dangerous, but as mentioned above trashy bodice rippers have always existed to feed those sensibilities. And predators have always been around to take advantage of them.)

This far down the line, though, everybody who might have been intrigued by it has already heard about the book. It's mockworthy since it's literally bad fanfiction with the serial numbers filed off, otherwise it's old news.

[Anonymouswizard]

Much in the same way Twilight went mainstream for lonely teenage girls.

While I'm struggling to think of one off the top of my head, there are other examples of a book exploding into popularity because it hits something with a very particular audience for one reason or another.

(While I'll sometimes claim this is true of Harry Potter, I believe the BBC gave it a larger initial media presence and it's appeal seems to be quite a bit more spread across a few audiences.)

At least in the case of Twilight, I can see some value in the imitators making up the (modern?) paranormal romance genre. I like the idea of fantasy stories that focus on romance instead of epic, even if I have trouble liking them myself. I'm not certain I can say the same for Fifty Shades, at least partially because erotica seems to be an established genre, with both kinky and nonkinky versions. I think the real question that springs to my mind is, are these books getting people to read other books, or are they just read Twilight/Fifty Shades?

If they are reading other books, no matter the quality, then these series have done at least one worthwhile thing. If not, then I'm not really sure I can see enough merit over a world where the series don't exist.

[EmperorofMankin]

Would Animorphs or Naruto fit the bill? :smallsmile:

[Mightymosy]

The third book is on my very, very short list of books that I started but did not finish. I thought I could barrel through this trilogy on sheer strength of will, but I failed.

The worst part about the books was that it wasn't sexy.
I knew it would be badly written, that it would be a stupid plot, that it would be boring at times - but I was also promised steamy sex scenes. I could have forgiven all flaws for some good sex.
But the sex scenes, damn, they were boring. It happened a few times that I put the book down to go do something else in the middle of a sex scene. If the book is basically porn for humdrummed housewives, and the porn is boring, you know the book has failed.

:smallsmile::smallsmile::smallsmile:

Maybe we are both just unlucky?

I had a very similar experience when thumbing through Book 1 Shades of Grey. It was lying around, I was horny and curious, so I flipped through the pages to find some sexy content - and didn't. Bah. :smallbiggrin:
After that, I never bothered reading or watching it. Maybe some day when it randomly shows up on free TV, I might watch it with my GF.

[Bohandas]

The third book is on my very, very short list of books that I started but did not finish. I thought I could barrel through this trilogy on sheer strength of will, but I failed.

The worst part about the books was that it wasn't sexy.
I knew it would be badly written, that it would be a stupid plot, that it would be boring at times - but I was also promised steamy sex scenes. I could have forgiven all flaws for some good sex.
But the sex scenes, damn, they were boring. It happened a few times that I put the book down to go do something else in the middle of a sex scene. If the book is basically porn for humdrummed housewives, and the porn is boring, you know the book has failed.

And that's why I prefer the works of the Most Hon. Marquis de Sade. Granted, not all of his stuff is totally titillating either, but it's at least interesting due to it's sheer bizarreness

[Slayer Lord]

Here's my two cents on it. Our romantic leads consist of:

1. An entitled, borderline serial killer who uses childhood abuse (that stopped when he was 4) as an excuse to beat and have sex with women who look like his dead mother, whom he refers to almost exclusively as "the crack whore." He rapes Ana at least five times over the course of the first two books. (Which doesn’t get the impact it deserves because she has the memory of a goldfish and either forgets it happens or re-writes history in her own head.)
2. A ditzy idiot who continues to pursue a relationship with an abusive stalker because he's hot and has money. Continually sluts shames other women (usually her best friend) when there's nothing to her relationship but sex. She’s a Lit major who claims to love literature but gives no sign of it besides pretentiously claiming that she never reads anything that isn't a classic (specifically British classics), all while continuously comparing her love for him to Icarus flying too close to the sun (which would be funny because he died while ignoring the warnings of others and from his own hubris. Unfortunately she doesn’t.) They both misquote Tess of the d'Urbervilles and have clearly never read those stories, or else completely missed the point.

Other major sins include:
1. Completely misrepresenting BDSM. Most of the stuff presented as hard core or kinky is stuff that many non-BDSM couples engage in. Frequently paints BDSM as being for people who are deeply troubled and something Ana has to cure him of. Christian actually refuses to explain safe words properly and gets mad at her whenever she tries to use them before ignoring them.
2. Romanticizing stalking and abusive relationships. Particularly the "It's okay if he's hot and/or is rich," attitude.
3. They’re boring as hell. Very little happens in any given book, any attempt at a plot is given less than a bare minimum of effort and shoved aside as soon as possible. Most of any given book is Ana and Christian arguing, Ana waxing (pseudo) poetical about how hot Christian is, and endlessly repetitive sex scenes.
4. The books are written at an elementary school level and the prose is just generally awful.
5. The book is written entirely in British English, including slang, despite all of the characters being American. E. L. James apparently had no one to beta read for this.
7. Poor grammar, especially punctuation. This despite it having gone through two separate publishing houses in its transition from fan fiction to (gag) international best seller. I’ve heard that James is such a diva that her second publisher actually told the assigned editors not to edit it for anything, content or grammar, to keep James placated.
8. E. L. James has apparently taken a page from Stephanie Meyer’s book and avoids research as much as possible. Pretty much anything she says about Seattle, BDSM, business, psychology, human behavior, or common sense is dead wrong.
9. Ana being a senior in college and being a virgin with no personal, religious, moral, or health reasons ever given. This is a done to death cliché in romance fiction, apparently so the audience doesn’t think the main lead is a slut for being sexually active before meeting her “one true love.” Rather than treating sex as a normal, healthy rite of passage, Ana is convinced that basic penis-in-vagina sex is something incredibly daring and perverse that she’s engaging in. At times, she actually comes across as asexual up until the first sex scene.
10. Ana being a senior in college and somehow being completely computer illiterate. Which wouldn’t be as awful if this was set in the time period where James grew up when computers were new. But this is set somewhere in 2010-2011 and constantly fetishizes the technology Grey gifts her (a laptop, a Blackberry, and an ipod being a few I can remember).
11. Ana’s inner goddess.
12. Ana has occasional bouts of lucidity where she realizes that Christian’s crossed a line but then never calls him out on it. Like when Christian stalks her to her mother’s home in Georgia when she said she wanted some time alone. Or when he bought the company where she works. Or stealing all of her personal information, including her bank account number, the day he met her.

And many, many more.

I’ve no interest in seeing the movies, but a couple of reviews I’ve seen for the first one show that the film makers actually tried to make some improvements. Like toning down Christian’s creep factor or Ana’s cluelessness. Probably so they’d be able to find work afterwards. But James threw a colossal hissy fit about it not fitting her vision and wormed her way into a producer role for the rest of the films (just like Stephanie Meyer did after the Eclipse film), so I can only imagine they went downhill from there.
For a much more in-depth analysis, I’d recommend checking out the DasSporking blog on Live Journal. They do a blow-by-blow examination of everything that’s wrong with this series. Plus, one of the reviewers is an on-and-off-again member of the BDSM community, so it actually has some firsthand authority when it comes to the BDSM fails.

[Anonymouswizard]

5. The book is written entirely in British English, including slang, despite all of the characters being American. E. L. James apparently had no one to beta read for this.

You call it a problem, I call it an unexpected good point.

In this case, yeah that is a problem. I've previously seen people complain against any book being written in British English (the pettiest I've seen was complaining about the use of Ma'am), but if a book is set in the US with all the major characters being American then US dialogue is appropriate (this is why, with the exception of one opening sequence, all my attempts at novels are set in the British Isles or off-world, and all star Englishmen). I guess it's the exact same thing that happens when I read an American work and people from the UK are shown speaking with American slang.


9. Ana being a senior in college and being a virgin with no personal, religious, moral, or health reasons ever given.

While I get your point here, as a person who went through university and is still a virgin without any personal, religious, moral, or health reasons beyond 'the only person I ever found who I wanted to sleep with that much had religious reasons' this is something that I'd like to be more common in other genres.

[Slayer Lord]

While I get your point here, as a person who went through university and is still a virgin without any personal, religious, moral, or health reasons beyond 'the only person I ever found who I wanted to sleep with that much had religious reasons' this is something that I'd like to be more common in other genres.

That's fair. And I get it. I didn't lose mine till well after college and it's grating to hear that subtext that there's something wrong with you everywhere you go. But with the romance genre, it's pretty much expected that the female lead remain virginal, no matter how implausible or how much sex there's going to be later. And only for the female lead. You hear people who go on and on about how revolutionary and sexually liberating for women these books are, but James really doesn't bring anything new to the table at all.

[Dragonexx]

For those interested, The Dom (name hilariously unrelated) has an indepth series of videos on the subject (currently the first two books).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nxAAu79oGk&list=PL4QtKjJdB8FT6I0Wwe_ueQPCKv1lejXO3


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nxAAu79oGk&list=PL4QtKjJdB8FT6I0Wwe_ueQPCKv1lejXO3

[Slayer Lord]

Second the motion on the Dom's reviews.

[Devonix]

Second the motion on the Dom's reviews.

Oh yeah I love his stuff.

[Olinser]

Hi guys! My name is Julie and I am new to the forum. I wanna know your thought of Fifty Shades of Grey. It can be about the novel or movie, even the differences among them. Thanks in advance!

The cliff notes on the book are as follows:

College girl meets guy. Girl dates guy. Girl finds out guy is into BDSM. Guy wants to spank girl. Girl lets him spank her. It hurts. She breaks up with him.

End book.

[Bohandas]

While I get your point here, as a person who went through university and is still a virgin without any personal, religious, moral, or health reasons beyond 'the only person I ever found who I wanted to sleep with that much had religious reasons' this is something that I'd like to be more common in other genres.

Same here, possibly, depending on what counts as a personal reason (interested in sex but not interested in dating and wary of illegal business transactions)

[Foeofthelance]

@Themrys, sexual fantasies involving rape are very frequent among women. Those books probably play on this fact. Why exactly so many women have fantasies about something they actually don't want to experience in real life is something of an open question, but it's possible that it depends on how women are under intense scrutiny when it comes to choices regarding sex: in a rape fantasy, they are free of responsibility and don't have to answer for it, which might be the actual fantasy.

This is a statement that needs to be picked apart, because its one that strikes hard to into the heart of the conversation. The majority of women have fantasies about forcible encounters, not rape. It may seem like splitting hairs, but its a very important distinction. A forcible encounter is one where the woman's partner is stronger, in control of her if not entirely in control of themselves, but is also someone the woman would want to experience the encounter with. This is where most romance stories try to rely on things. Its less about being taken against your will and more about being considered so desirable that your partner can't help themselves, and while the time and place may not necessarily be of the woman's choice, its still an encounter where she actively and happily participates, and where the partner is focused on the woman's pleasure as much as their own. This is where BDSM expands on things, because, no matter the flavor, the Dom is in someway fulfilling the Sub's needs.

Actual rape fantasies involve the woman struggling against her partner and losing. What pleasure she might get out of the encounter is accidental, rather than deliberate. Those are much rarer and not what the greater BDSM community encourages, even if individual couples may play with the theme. The overall arching dogma of the various flavors is, "Safe, sane, consensual." Those who can't follow those simple rules are drummed out, and where necessary reported to law enforcement.

And this is why 50 Shades screws everything up. Because it is a good forcible fantasy. The narrator receives a lot of pleasure, and Grey spends a repetitive amount of time on her needs. He is, likewise, rich, handsome, and all around described as desirable. But then the author decided to use BDSM without even bothering to use Google first, which creates a nightmare scenario that gives honest practitioners the screaming heebie jeebies as well as a massive headache from all the face palming.

[Slayer Lord]

And this is why 50 Shades screws everything up. Because it is a good forcible fantasy. The narrator receives a lot of pleasure, and Grey spends a repetitive amount of time on her needs. He is, likewise, rich, handsome, and all around described as desirable. But then the author decided to use BDSM without even bothering to use Google first, which creates a nightmare scenario that gives honest practitioners the screaming heebie jeebies as well as a massive headache from all the face palming.

And Grey fails at the being devoted to her needs bit. He loves using orgasm denial on her, gets mad at her for stupid things, sets her up to fail so he has an excuse to punish her, etc. He's a creep to her from beginning to end.

[Anonymouswizard]

For those interested, The Dom (name hilariously unrelated) has an indepth series of videos on the subject (currently the first two books).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nxAAu79oGk&list=PL4QtKjJdB8FT6I0Wwe_ueQPCKv1lejXO3


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nxAAu79oGk&list=PL4QtKjJdB8FT6I0Wwe_ueQPCKv1lejXO3

Throwing my weight behind The Dom (being one of his subs-eh, beautiful watchers [despite not being that attractive)].

[dehro]

I have not read the books or watched the movies. That said, back when the first book came out, I was considering picking it up but every woman (and quite a few men) I knew who were into bdsm to various degrees were seething because of how badly it missrepresents bdsm, the rules of consent and how the whole thing is a mess both from literary pov and because it normalises rape and abuse under a missplaced patina of bdsm.
I personally saw the fallout of it when suddenly a lot of women got "curious" and logged onto websites dedicated to bdsm, only to be approached like some sort of "easy prey" by all manners of creeps. I sincerely hope that none of those women were so enthralled by the missguided notions those books may have planted in them that they would miss the red flags those creeps usually rise. Then again, that's exactly what happens to the female protagonist, or so I'm told.
all considered, most of the people I've since talked with still have not changed their minds about the franchise, so I saw no reason to go watch the movies when the time came for them.

[Foeofthelance]

And Grey fails at the being devoted to her needs bit. He loves using orgasm denial on her, gets mad at her for stupid things, sets her up to fail so he has an excuse to punish her, etc. He's a creep to her from beginning to end.

Like I said, that's where it gets screwed up. I know several people who love denial. That and general masochism require the utmost attention of the Dom for the sub. It's not just saying, "No, you're not allowed", its making sure you can keep your partner at a sort of peak sensation without either pushing them over the edge or burning them out. So in that case, Grey is paying attention to her needs. Or would be, if the author had any idea how most of this worked. Which is why I said it works on the forcible fantasy side, but fails on the actual content. Because to the average reader, who has about as much experience and knowledge as the author, you have this rich, powerful, handsome man who is (supposedly) in complete control, playing with the (reader's) body in a way the reader would almost never experience in real life, either because they don't know how, wouldn't want to, or are afraid to ask. And as long as the reader experiences the desired outcome, the fantasy is fulfilled.

But pop the surface bubble of the fantasy with any sort of knowledge or experience and you get a couple of characters who need counseling at best and jail time at worst. Heck, add in a few good murders and this entire thing has all the hall marks of a psychological thriller. Instead its a popular bathtub read with some absolutely horrifying implications that fly over most people's heads when they read it.

[Bohandas]

You know, it seems like a lot of complaints could have been avoided if Grey had still been a vampire in the published edition like he was in the original version. A supernatural element excuses excess. Nobody ever complains that pinhead or slaanesh is doing BDSM wrong.

[Anymage]

You know, it seems like a lot of complaints could have been avoided if Grey had still been a vampire in the published edition like he was in the original version. A supernatural element excuses excess. Nobody ever complains that pinhead or slaanesh is doing BDSM wrong.

Neither Pinhead nor Slaanesh are presented as admirable role models. If Fifty Shades were written as a psychological thriller instead of a romance, people would be reacting to it differently.

And having the original Edward and Bella version on my kindle, I didn't see anything about him being a vampire in the bits I flipped through, or anything supernatural at all. Given that the Twilight story of them meeting in high school and the fanfic story of them meeting in an interview are mutually exclusive, it's just loosely inspired characters with no fangs or sparkles implied.

[Anonymouswizard]

You know, it seems like a lot of complaints could have been avoided if Grey had still been a vampire in the published edition like he was in the original version. A supernatural element excuses excess. Nobody ever complains that pinhead or slaanesh is doing BDSM wrong.

I have to point out that even in Master of the Universe (that's what it was called right? I sure hope Grey had a magic sword) Grey/Edward was a human.

Also I have to agree. Focusing on Slaanesh and his followers because I've not seen Hellraiser, the BDSM elements aren't portrayed overly favourably. They resort to them because they can't feel anything 'normally exciting' any more, and so descend into extremes just to get those feelings again. But part of the reason that people don't complain about the 'so far over the line we don't want to be associated with it anymore' thing is because it's not portrayed as a good thing to tear your face off and staple it back on.

[Mightymosy]

You know, it seems like a lot of complaints could have been avoided if Grey had still been a vampire in the published edition like he was in the original version. A supernatural element excuses excess. Nobody ever complains that pinhead or slaanesh is doing BDSM wrong.

Since I have not seen the movie and only thumbed through one of the books for like2 minutes or so:

Do the works actually CLAIM to present BDSM properly? Or is that something the media tacked onto it later?
I know the book is supposed to feature BDSM scenes (although so few that I didn't happen to find one by chance, appearantly) - the question is does it say that this is how it really works?

Or is it possible that it INTENDS to extend into fantasy space?

I have little idea of BDSM so forgive me if my example is stupid:

As far as I know there is this safeword business - which means you can get out of trouble the instance you say it, right?
So a work that describes real BDSM would tell you exactly that, right?

But - as I have read in a forum once - one of the appeals of BDSM is the (percieved/roleplayed) loss of control, for the sub part.

In order for that to be safe, you NEED the safe word to get out.
At the same time, though, that also means the "illusion" is not 100%: the sub still HAS control - the control to stop the play whenever they want. Which is good in reality.

In fiction, though, you could leave that out - if you read and fantasize about being dominated, you don't need no safeword, you can just stop, and put the book away.

To be precise: is it possible that the author decided to have her dom character override the safeword, in order to create a more complete domination fantasy - while at the same time deciding NOT to give an accurate depiction of REAL BDSM?

[Foeofthelance]

Since I have not seen the movie and only thumbed through one of the books for like2 minutes or so:

Do the works actually CLAIM to present BDSM properly? Or is that something the media tacked onto it later?
I know the book is supposed to feature BDSM scenes (although so few that I didn't happen to find one by chance, appearantly) - the question is does it say that this is how it really works?

Or is it possible that it INTENDS to extend into fantasy space?

I have little idea of BDSM so forgive me if my example is stupid:

As far as I know there is this safeword business - which means you can get out of trouble the instance you say it, right?
So a work that describes real BDSM would tell you exactly that, right?

But - as I have read in a forum once - one of the appeals of BDSM is the (percieved/roleplayed) loss of control, for the sub part.

In order for that to be safe, you NEED the safe word to get out.
At the same time, though, that also means the "illusion" is not 100%: the sub still HAS control - the control to stop the play whenever they want. Which is good in reality.

In fiction, though, you could leave that out - if you read and fantasize about being dominated, you don't need no safeword, you can just stop, and put the book away.

To be precise: is it possible that the author decided to have her dom character override the safeword, in order to create a more complete domination fantasy - while at the same time deciding NOT to give an accurate depiction of REAL BDSM?

The biggest problem is that life imitates art. Its one thing to have a scene where a safe word is created even if its never used, but its an entirely different thing to present it something that is necessary and valid, provide it with explanation, and then have a character completely ignore it when it comes up. Even if you're trying to push a more "complete" fantasy, you've just had a character explicitly ignore a request to stop in the middle of a sexual act. And not even a general protest, "Oh, we can't, this is wrong for whatever reason X" sort of protest, but a request that explicitly means, "We need to stop because I no longer feel safe/comfortable with this action." And even if the author doesn't intend so, people will read it and think that behavior is perfectly okay.

[warty goblin]

I mean, we are talking about a romance/erotica novel here. It's not exactly a genre known for its impeccable track record on enthusiastic consent. As in, there's entire categories devoted to the putative hotness of various acts of sexual aggression that would, in reality, be considered sexual assault.

Which generally strikes me as basically OK. I mean one of the hallmarks of fantasy is that the bad parts don't exist, even in the case of something that in reality one would consider basically 100% bad. A pretty typical thing in romance novels is the male lead being so overwhelmed by the heroine's hotness that he can't control himself, and this is ok because it's a book and that is fun as a fantasy*. No different than how the hero of a fantasy novel clearing his name and getting revenge by killing his enemy in a judicial combat is. It's a really badass fantasy; but enjoying it doesn't mean you think that trials by combat should be making a comeback anytime soon. For one thing, in an actual trial by combat you'd probably be looking at a 50% chance of ending up painfully dead, a problem not suffered by fantasy adventure novel heroes because we the audience know that Gorhan the Barbarian is going to win and the vile sorcerer Villious is evil and totally deserves to get stabbed. Or how in reality a person having sex with you after you tell them not to is terrible, but in a book it's hot because we know Scott McSixpack is a good person who would never hurt our heroine, Allison the Virginal Sex Goddess, and she's actually into it anyway.

Or, looked at differently, a novel that's built around a particular sort of fantasy (sex, power, whatever) isn't an accurate depiction of the world as it is, or a moralist fable showing the good people behaving well and getting rewarded and the bad people doing bad things and getting punished. It's built around a sort of contract between the reader and the author, where you buy into the fantasy, and they provide a hopefully well written and snappily paced execution of its particular tropes. Criticizing it for not being realistic, or not making any sense when read as a morality play is entirely missing the forest for the trees.

*If you're into that sort of thing. If you're not, it isn't. Sex stuff is like that, which is why I generally avoid criticizing other people's sex fantasies.

[Legato Endless]

Ignoring of any merits of the work, or lack therein, the author of the series is a pretty unpleasant person to be around. Stephanie Meyer, regardless of what you think of Twilight, still conducts herself reasonably in public. E.L. James responds actively to criticism online, including condescending (https://youtu.be/qzk9N7dJBec?t=622) to a rape survivor on Twitter. She was also extremely inflexible for the film makers of the adaption to work with, and is a good illustration on why having executive oversight on a creator might be a good idea at times.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzk9N7dJBec

Excellent essay on the original book and film.

[Mightymosy]

Good afternoon. I watched this movie at the cinema with my boyfriend. I really liked this movie. My guy did not like this movie. I believe that this film is for women.

Maybe because the female lead is boring? She sounds like boring to me, from summaries. Did he tell?

[Foeofthelance]

I mean, we are talking about a romance/erotica novel here. It's not exactly a genre known for its impeccable track record on enthusiastic consent. As in, there's entire categories devoted to the putative hotness of various acts of sexual aggression that would, in reality, be considered sexual assault.

Which generally strikes me as basically OK. I mean one of the hallmarks of fantasy is that the bad parts don't exist, even in the case of something that in reality one would consider basically 100% bad. A pretty typical thing in romance novels is the male lead being so overwhelmed by the heroine's hotness that he can't control himself, and this is ok because it's a book and that is fun as a fantasy*. No different than how the hero of a fantasy novel clearing his name and getting revenge by killing his enemy in a judicial combat is. It's a really badass fantasy; but enjoying it doesn't mean you think that trials by combat should be making a comeback anytime soon. For one thing, in an actual trial by combat you'd probably be looking at a 50% chance of ending up painfully dead, a problem not suffered by fantasy adventure novel heroes because we the audience know that Gorhan the Barbarian is going to win and the vile sorcerer Villious is evil and totally deserves to get stabbed. Or how in reality a person having sex with you after you tell them not to is terrible, but in a book it's hot because we know Scott McSixpack is a good person who would never hurt our heroine, Allison the Virginal Sex Goddess, and she's actually into it anyway.

Or, looked at differently, a novel that's built around a particular sort of fantasy (sex, power, whatever) isn't an accurate depiction of the world as it is, or a moralist fable showing the good people behaving well and getting rewarded and the bad people doing bad things and getting punished. It's built around a sort of contract between the reader and the author, where you buy into the fantasy, and they provide a hopefully well written and snappily paced execution of its particular tropes. Criticizing it for not being realistic, or not making any sense when read as a morality play is entirely missing the forest for the trees.

*If you're into that sort of thing. If you're not, it isn't. Sex stuff is like that, which is why I generally avoid criticizing other people's sex fantasies.

Its less a question of a morality, and more a question of detail. Recast the story as an action/adventure and you run into a similar problem. We all know that murder is bad, that we shouldn't go around gunning down mobsters and gangsters as well armed super-vigilantes. Yet there are a lot of novels that operate on that same premise. Common Everyday Ex-Special Navy Beret turned Teacher who goes out and picks up a couple of guns and proceeds to blast their way through a couple of dozen . These stories can often be written by someone who has absolutely no military training and has maybe shot one or two guns in their entire life, and they can be told well, but it depends entirely on the author. Either they do a ton of research into every little aspect, interviewing people, studying things, and pay attention to the details or they keep things juuuust vague enough that the reader knows what is going on without tripping over errant details. The first might describe an AR-15 with a Leupold optic enhancement, while the latter will describe the same thing as, "a semiautomatic rifle with a scope".

A [I]bad author, on the other hand, one who does only the bare amount of research and really doesn't know what they're talking about is going to fill in pointless details or details that are plain wrong. Like calling something a .700 revolver equipped with a barrel shroud and hundred round clip. At which point anyone who doesn't know a thing about guns is just going to nod and keep reading about bad guys getting blasted away, while anyone who has a passing knowledge is going to feel their jaw drop in stupified amazement. Especially once the main character decides to scratch his temple with the barrel of said gun after ripping off a thirty round burst.

50 Shades falls into that last category. If the characters were just playing with the toys or sticking to the surface ideas, it would fall into that easily escapable fantasy and all the problems which get glossed over. Instead EL James goes to the trouble of portraying BDSM culture as if she had a check list of how things aren't supposed to be done and then decided her characters should do exactly that. And then proceeded to sell millions of copies of said book. Only unlike the action/adventure example above, there are people who are or have read 50 Shades who think, "This sounds like fun! Let's go do this as its portrayed here!" The best ones go do the research, realize how screwy the book is, and ask for advice from people who know better. The ones who don't... Well, let's just say that a lot of hospitals reported a spike in foreign body injuries after the books came out. Much more than the standard increase that comes with natural population growth.

[Mightymosy]

Really? Do you have a link for that part with the hospitals? That's new to me, and I'd like to read.

[Anonymouswizard]

Its less a question of a morality, and more a question of detail. Recast the story as an action/adventure and you run into a similar problem. We all know that murder is bad, that we shouldn't go around gunning down mobsters and gangsters as well armed super-vigilantes. Yet there are a lot of novels that operate on that same premise. Common Everyday Ex-Special Navy Beret turned Teacher who goes out and picks up a couple of guns and proceeds to blast their way through a couple of dozen . These stories can often be written by someone who has absolutely no military training and has maybe shot one or two guns in their entire life, and they can be told well, but it depends entirely on the author. Either they do a ton of research into every little aspect, interviewing people, studying things, and pay attention to the details or they keep things juuuust vague enough that the reader knows what is going on without tripping over errant details. The first might describe an AR-15 with a Leupold optic enhancement, while the latter will describe the same thing as, "a semiautomatic rifle with a scope".

A [I]bad author, on the other hand, one who does only the bare amount of research and really doesn't know what they're talking about is going to fill in pointless details or details that are plain wrong. Like calling something a .700 revolver equipped with a barrel shroud and hundred round clip. At which point anyone who doesn't know a thing about guns is just going to nod and keep reading about bad guys getting blasted away, while anyone who has a passing knowledge is going to feel their jaw drop in stupified amazement. Especially once the main character decides to scratch his temple with the barrel of said gun after ripping off a thirty round burst.

50 Shades falls into that last category. If the characters were just playing with the toys or sticking to the surface ideas, it would fall into that easily escapable fantasy and all the problems which get glossed over. Instead EL James goes to the trouble of portraying BDSM culture as if she had a check list of how things aren't supposed to be done and then decided her characters should do exactly that. And then proceeded to sell millions of copies of said book. Only unlike the action/adventure example above, there are people who are or have read 50 Shades who think, "This sounds like fun! Let's go do this as its portrayed here!" The best ones go do the research, realize how screwy the book is, and ask for advice from people who know better. The ones who don't... Well, let's just say that a lot of hospitals reported a spike in foreign body injuries after the books came out. Much more than the standard increase that comes with natural population growth.

I'd also say an important point in writing is to know people who are willing to make sure things you write about are plausible.

I write science fiction, and have a degree in electronic and electrical engineering. This means that while I understand enough about electronics to get the details right enough (there's a lot of stuff I would change and simplify if a plot depended on electronics, because I'd want to make it accessible) if I want to check if a rocket is plausible I'll talk to my friend who did aerospace engineering. Without going into excessive detail in either case, while I might pull out phase shift keying or something like that I wouldn't bother explaining how it's different to frequency shift keying.

So I'd say 50 Shades is the kind of research where you look around the internet and take the high level ideas, but you don't bother to get in touch with anybody regarding your conclusions.

[Foeofthelance]

Really? Do you have a link for that part with the hospitals? That's new to me, and I'd like to read.

Sure. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/sex-toy-injuries-surged-after-fifty-shades-of-grey-was-published/?utm_term=.30bb80524a64

2005-2010 there's a fairly level average, climbing a little the more the years go on. 2011 50 Shades gets published, and there's a midsize jump, the 2012 as it gets popular there's a larger one.

[dehro]

I just walked into a library and found out there are more books than just the three I knew about.
:mad:

[Themrys]

Neither Pinhead nor Slaanesh are presented as admirable role models. If Fifty Shades were written as a psychological thriller instead of a romance, people would be reacting to it differently.


This, exactly.

If "Lolita" had been published as romance, people would have very different opinions on it.

And FSoG would actually be a very good psychological thriller - I have read many survivors of abusive relationships comment on how realistic the portrayal of an abusive relationship was.

As for the "But it's a sex fantasy, don't kink-shame me!" argument ... well, if it were marketed as porn, people who are not into rape fantasies wouldn't read it. But FSoG, and romance novels are marketed as romance, not as porn. And I (started to) read about five cheap historical romance novels before realizing that they were porn, just porn. (The plots were made to look like they might be interesting - pirates, and werewolves and all that ... and then, out of nowhere, rape fantasies. 12 year old me had expected a cheesy love story and was not impressed AT ALL)

People should be more honest about what they are writing. If you write rape porn, admit you are writing rape porn, don't pretend it's romance.

[Anymage]

People should be more honest about what they are writing. If you write rape porn, admit you are writing rape porn, don't pretend it's romance.

Semi on topic, semi not. There's a lot of appeal to what's basically rape porn, because it allows you to have the pleasure without having to acknowledge or take ownership of it. (This tends to work out horribly in the real world, of course, but a huge number of fantasies have horrible implications if you think them out in the real world.) That, and the fact that stuff written decades ago when that outlook was even more prominent, is why sketchy consent seems so popular.

I wouldn't know where to find better sources. I tried a few suggestions from different people, and while there is plenty of stuff that doesn't make me want to chuck it across the room, there also wasn't much that matched my tastes. (Which, in fairness, plenty of stuff across genres doesn't match my taste.) I guess I'm just saying that it really helps to have someone in the know giving pointers before trying to browse the romance aisle, and wishing there were better ways that people just looking to get their feet wet could find such pointers.

[Scarlet Knight]

...
Or, looked at differently, a novel that's built around a particular sort of fantasy (sex, power, whatever) isn't an accurate depiction of the world as it is, or a moralist fable showing the good people behaving well and getting rewarded and the bad people doing bad things and getting punished. It's built around a sort of contract between the reader and the author, where you buy into the fantasy, and they provide a hopefully well written and snappily paced execution of its particular tropes. Criticizing it for not being realistic, or not making any sense when read as a morality play is entirely missing the forest for the trees.


I agree with the above; it is no different than critizing Captain Blood for not being an accurate portrayal of pirates & their captives.


...
50 Shades falls into that last category. If the characters were just playing with the toys or sticking to the surface ideas, it would fall into that easily escapable fantasy and all the problems which get glossed over. Instead EL James goes to the trouble of portraying BDSM culture as if she had a check list of how things aren't supposed to be done and then decided her characters should do exactly that. And then proceeded to sell millions of copies of said book. Only unlike the action/adventure example above, there are people who are or have read 50 Shades who think, "This sounds like fun! Let's go do this as its portrayed here!" The best ones go do the research, realize how screwy the book is, and ask for advice from people who know better. The ones who don't... Well, let's just say that a lot of hospitals reported a spike in foreign body injuries after the books came out. Much more than the standard increase that comes with natural population growth.

That is why I mentioned The Story of O earlier. Did it cause real problems in the S&M community due to lack of realism? (Unless it was realistic for the 50's when the book came out or the 70's for the movie)

[Reddish Mage]

I don’t think it so much the lack of realism that makes 50 Shades uniquely bad. It’s that it’s transparently amateurish.

The BDSM fiction mentioned is hot twisted extreme and meant to invoke all sorts of emotions and see things turn dark.

This story, on the other hand, is missing these extreme turns. Instead, it’s presents Christian as a master sadist who gets the fundamentals wrong.

Reading the others stories is a tour de force. No one stops to critique the knot-work.

Reading 50 Shades is like listening to a self-declared expert drone on for hours while getting the basics wrong.

[Foeofthelance]

That is why I mentioned The Story of O earlier. Did it cause real problems in the S&M community due to lack of realism? (Unless it was realistic for the 50's when the book came out or the 70's for the movie)

Admittedly, the Story of O predates me by about 30 years and the movie by more than 10, so I can't give you any first hand impressions. That being said, I think there are two major differences between O and Fifty Shades of Grey.

First, O isn't a romance story, its a personal growth story. While both tales are rooted in sexuality, particularly BDSM flavored, O is more about the main character exploring the scene and growing to like it. That's compared to Grey, where the story is about the two characters building a relationship together with BDSM being the spice for the particular dish.

Second, there's a radical difference in how the individual stories could be approached. There was no internet back in the 50s/70s, so if someone did find themselves interested in exploring more, they had to put more effort into connecting with the community. Compare that today where the average reader could pick up a copy of Grey off the internet, with Amazon helpfully offering, "Interested in this book? Why not try some of these toys as well?"

As for the last bit, I'm not sure Grey can be said to have really damaged the BDSM community outside of causing a few headaches. It didn't cause some moral outrage or panic; quite the opposite. It just shouldn't be taken as representative of the BDSM community in anyway, anymore than Strike Witches should be taken as an accurate portrayal of World War II combat aircraft.

[Reddish Mage]

You talk of community as if Story of O was at all grounded in reality or a group that was't upper-class, highly-secretive and invite-only. The Roissy Chateau is a 24/7 live-in dungeon used to introduce O in what amounts to jumping in head-first. She's also given away by her lover immediately. That's all just in the beginning.

This is not about how no one could check this against the internet, this is about a deep imaginary exclusive environment that's well beyond anything Grey knows. The stuff that happens to O is so many more times extreme than a little spanking. Grey is just a rich guy with a room. O's master has a hidden castle and a network of masters that share.

Also, depending on the version the books ends either abruptly or very darkly. This book is one that provokes a reaction to its audacity, not criticisms that the author doesn't know about sex.

[Foeofthelance]

You talk of community as if Story of O was at all grounded in reality or a group that was't upper-class, highly-secretive and invite-only. The Roissy Chateau is a 24/7 live-in dungeon used to introduce O in what amounts to jumping in head-first. She's also given away by her lover immediately. That's all just in the beginning.

This is not about how no one could check this against the internet, this is about a deep imaginary exclusive environment that's well beyond anything Grey knows. The stuff that happens to O is so many more times extreme than a little spanking. Grey is just a rich guy with a room. O's master has a hidden castle and a network of masters that share.

Also, depending on the version the books ends either abruptly or very darkly. This book is one that provokes a reaction to its audacity, not criticisms that the author doesn't know about sex.

And? I never questioned that O wasn't fantasy. Heck, Anne Rice's Sleeping Beauty trilogy is darker and more complex than Grey. So are lots of other stories. My point was that in that time people, real people, had to actually make contact with other people to get more information on how to participate in such scenarios. People who could point out where the risks lay in certain actions, help more clearly define what could be attempted and what should remain purely in the realm of fiction. When I talk about community in the 50s/70s and I don't mean that people had to hop on a plane, fly to France, then track down some remote chalet. I mean that they had to track down a local shop or club, where there were actual, living breathing people who could look at they were purchasing and ask, "Hey, do you know what you're doing? We have these lovely instruction manuals, gatherings, meet-ups, shows..."

You compare that to the modern environment that Grey exists in and that level of contact is no longer required. You might go looking for forums and such if you are willing to ask the questions, at which point the people who are answering are an unknown quantity. They're not standing in front of you, where you have the option to say, "Show me." Instead you can order everything off an Amazon wish list, at which point, Buyer Beware. Not only of the quality of the products that you're ordering, but how you plan on using them. Accidents can, do, and will happen and if you're not prepared for them the consequences can range from an embarrassing story on a medical forum to crippling and life threatening injuries.

Now, again, I wasn't there for the 50s and 70s. I know a few people who were, I've heard their stories. I'm not trying to hold these periods up as some shining pinnacle, a golden age of some sort. There were more than a few tales of real people who could give entirely fictional Christian a run in the scumbag department. And yes, accidents did happen. BDSM can be a lot like mountain climbing, in that the higher level you go, the more risky it becomes. A first time climber might twist their ankle going up a hill in a state park, while a far more experienced climber might kill themselves tackling Everest. But back then, when accidents happened people talked about them. They were known events inside the local communities and people learned from the mistakes, kept them in mind. Now, if someone disappears from a forum, well, that happens. People move on, life changes. Some stories are shared, others just wander away. In other respects, common knowledge is much more readily available, with entire "How To" guides available for free. Pros and cons to both.

And that is why I said that I didn't think Grey had done any damage to the BDSM community. It hasn't done it any favors, but most of the damage being done is to first timers who aren't part of the community and are getting in over their heads trying to replicate scenes that weren't written well to begin with.

[dehro]

My experience of the effects of the books is that around the time they came out there was, to my perception, something of a spike in presence of completely "new" people on the dedicated websites, looking for a hookup or to give it a go... Now, most of these were flakes who were there because the books titillated their fantasies. They ran away fairly quickly after the first couple of dozen creeps tried to pose as some sort of poor man's Grey.
A fair number of them hung around and either fell to the lures of one of those creeps, or bumped into someone nicer, who could see how damaged/inexperienced/naive/vulnerable they were being and gently urged them to reconsider, after explaining the basics of consent and consensual non consent to them, which they had not understood from the books (and how could they?).
This is not elitism, but genuine concern over the well-being of some of those girls.
As for how it was received by most online communities I found people debating it in, most of the reactions were of people seething with rage. These were people who had done a lot of soul searching, has gone through a fair number of experiences, several of them not so nice, had has their share of bad encounters/dates/sessions, and who were feeling that the book trivialised and misrepresented their journey and tribulations... An at the same time, those who were out with their friends about being inclined towards kink, were being asked constantly if the books actually described what they were doing, with a focus on the abuse, the sexual side of it, the weakness of the characters which was equated to a moral judgement on their own persons...
No.. Some of the people I talked to really were unhappy about those portrayals.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don’t think it so much the lack of realism that makes 50 Shades uniquely bad. It’s that it’s transparently amateurish.

Therefore logically the perspective flip books must be better!

Although I've heard that those have to take place in an alternate universe, because the dates don't match up. Unless....

No, the only other theory I can come up with is completely insane. Alternate universe it is.

[Reddish Mage]

And? I never questioned that O wasn't fantasy. Heck, Anne Rice's Sleeping Beauty trilogy is darker and more complex than Grey. So are lots of other stories. My point was that in that time people, real people, had to actually make contact with other people to get more information on how to participate in such scenarios.

I get the point of community, not sure it’s relevant to the context of talking about O. Also, I think you might underestimate how hard it was to reach out to a “community” in the 60’s and 70’s the way your talking. It’s not just a matter of going to an adult toy shop and striking up a conversation, the whole activity is underground and niche. There was a few poorly circulated magazines, a niche area of the already closeted gay community, some private clubs that was mostly word of mouth and I surmise the hippies were cool with whatever but weren’t exactly into the same stuff.

Again not sure what any of this happens to do with anything, but I happen to think the difficulty of finding niche interests the period before the internet is interesting (and there’s a question of exactly how open the 60’s were, in our era of LGBTQ awareness).

Now Sleeping Beauty as more complex than 50 Shades...I mean...wow we share the opinion of how poor 50 Shades as literature but Sleeping Beauty is unabashedly pornography written out to form of a trilogy. Yes, occassionallly it connects the progression of novel sex scene with a suggestion that the characters are seeking their own sort of self-fulfillment journey, the answers to which lie in finding ways to make sex more fulfilling.

It’s just that with the many BDSM novels out there that are romance or self-discovery or something...sleeping beauty is clearly more concentrated on the stuff that takes it way beyond R rating.

[Mightymosy]

Now I know nothing about the communities you people are talking about, but I really have a hard time believing that in the time of Internet and Wikipedia and all sorts of forums, plus the abundance of magazines (this case: women's magazines and the like) it would be MORE difficult to find information about a topic like BDSM than decades ago.

Especially, I DO NOT think that the requirement to have to talk to a human to understand stuff furthers information accessibilty. In actuality I think the reverse is true.

Regarding the point of creeps using Shades of Grey: I do genuinely think that it must have been WAY EASIER to trick people into believing wrongs things BEFORE they could just fire up wikipedia and say "Waaaait a second, this is NOT how a safeword is supposed to work!"

[Anymage]

Now I know nothing about the communities you people are talking about, but I really have a hard time believing that in the time of Internet and Wikipedia and all sorts of forums, plus the abundance of magazines (this case: women's magazines and the like) it would be MORE difficult to find information about a topic like BDSM than decades ago.

Especially, I DO NOT think that the requirement to have to talk to a human to understand stuff furthers information accessibilty. In actuality I think the reverse is true.

Regarding the point of creeps using Shades of Grey: I do genuinely think that it must have been WAY EASIER to trick people into believing wrongs things BEFORE they could just fire up wikipedia and say "Waaaait a second, this is NOT how a safeword is supposed to work!"

An abundance of information also means an abundance of disinformation. Back before the internet really took off, ideas like the moon landing being faked or the earth being flat wouldn't be able to spread to anywhere near the audience that they can now.

And as touched on before, lots of the ideas in 50 Shades were popular amongst the culture before. I've seen plenty use various relationship styles to justify some really sketchy behavior before.

Which gets back to the main issue. After it's been out so long, it doesn't really have any cultural cachet beyond being a punchline. At the time, though, it sent people into a community after filling their heads with abuse friendly ideas. If you claim to be a realistic look at something and you get it horribly wrong, that's bad writing. If following your advice puts people in potential danger, doubly so.

[Mightymosy]

An abundance of information also means an abundance of disinformation. Back before the internet really took off, ideas like the moon landing being faked or the earth being flat wouldn't be able to spread to anywhere near the audience that they can now.

And as touched on before, lots of the ideas in 50 Shades were popular amongst the culture before. I've seen plenty use various relationship styles to justify some really sketchy behavior before.

Which gets back to the main issue. After it's been out so long, it doesn't really have any cultural cachet beyond being a punchline. At the time, though, it sent people into a community after filling their heads with abuse friendly ideas. If you claim to be a realistic look at something and you get it horribly wrong, that's bad writing. If following your advice puts people in potential danger, doubly so.

I'm not arguing that Fifty Shades misinformed people or not - since I haven't read it.

My point is that I don't believe people where more at risk believing misinformation than people 50 years ago were.

In fact, once you google up "propaganda" you will quickly find egregious examples of how lots of people were successfully manipulated by misinformation, during a time where the free internet did not exsist yet.

[Foeofthelance]

I'm not arguing that Fifty Shades misinformed people or not - since I haven't read it.

My point is that I don't believe people where more at risk believing misinformation than people 50 years ago were.

In fact, once you google up "propaganda" you will quickly find egregious examples of how lots of people were successfully manipulated by misinformation, during a time where the free internet did not exsist yet.

The difference is that its much easier to believe misinformation if you don't know its misinformation.

Let's take it from a different angle. Let's say you're learning to cook for the first time. You decide that you're going to bake a cake. After searching online, you find a forum where people are raving about this one particular recipe. The author of the recipe has a huge number of posts on the forum; lots of other people on the forum are raving about how much they loved the cake. They've even helpfully written down the recipe for you to try!

Only, there's one minor typo. Instead of 1 tsp of salt, it says 1 tbsp.

You follow the recipe to the letter and this awesome, amazing cake comes out like crap. You don't understand why, you followed all the instructions exactly as they were, did everything right. You even made a second cake, just to see if you'd made some mistake and it all comes out exactly the same way.

Now imagine instead of going online, you enroll you in a local cooking class. As you're starting to bake the cake you reach for the tablespoon instead of a teaspoon. At which point your teacher sees you about to make a mistake and corrects you.

That's the difference I was trying to emphasize. Not that people are more gullible; just that previously you had to have more human contact to get involved, which produced a more direct safety net.