Nonsense, Absolute: An Open Letter-- Let's be Happy for What's-Her-Name's 50 Shades Success

Dear Quality Book Readers/Writers,

Yesterday, on Valentine's Day, theaters premiered the much-anticipated film adaptation of E. L. James' Fifty Shades of Vanilla. Unless you live blissfully under a rock with hermit crabs that only bring you quality literature, you probably have read or at least heard of the best seller. Why has this book become the supposed love of horny housewives and the bane of serious writers' existences? Obviously, because it was financially successful without really deserving that honor.

This is simply a repeat of the successful best-seller, and then blockbuster, Sparkly Mormom Vampires series by Stephanie Meyers. Those of us who struggle to write quality, original literature that makes the reader think or at least stimulates their brains more than their groins, burn with envy that these "hacks" make millions off of something that it seems a sixth grader could write. (Though, to that sixth grader's credit, she sure understands marketing and selling a book to its highest potential.)

The difference between Twitlight and 50 Shades is the target audience. While the sparkling undead story could be found in the Young Adult section of your local Barnes & Nobles-- and therefor had the potential to hook both children and their parents-- 50 Shades is decidedly more adult in that its plot is basically around-the-clock boinking. Without the Disney Promise*-- the promise of a film/book that appeals to both kids and adults and therefor makes a millionpajillion dollars all over the fucking world-- it would seem 50 Shades would only have modest best-seller success. However, its influence has surpassed what would be expected. Especially for an erotic novel that is written so...uh...well, un-erotically.

If you have read it, you probably realize by now that it is not the end all, be all of erotic fiction. If it was your gateway drug into erotica, you have probably already discovered better written books that make it pale in comparison.

One does not simply write "vagina."

For those of you who have not read it, I recommend going over to the good ol' Youtube and typing in "Gilbert Gadfry 50 Shades" and allow yourself to be amazed by some of the least sexy erotic writing ever to become a bestseller.

For those of you who frequently read erotic fiction, you probably found it laughable. Especially in the sub-genre of BDSM, 50 Shades comes out looking like a Twilight Fanfiction. Oh, wait. It is a Twilight Fanfiction. Welp, so much for that comparison.

For those of you concerned with the state of the "romance" genre that 50 Shades has heavily influenced over the past years, bringing in more abusive assholes with whips and blindfolds, you will cite that what Christian does to Anesthesia is not romantic, but controlling and manipulative. (At which point I shall direct you to the entire history of romance novels directed towards women.)

To be clear: I am not a fan of this novel. I could not finish the first chapter without laughing and concluded that it was not for me. Though, I have known friends, avid readers, who were able to wing it and admitted it was "not very good." But none have gone out their way to protest its success. 

There is something to be said by those in the BDSM community who protest the book being considered BDSM genre. They have valid points, in that Christian does not follow the proper protocol for a sub/dom relationship. Because of Fifty Shades, some women (and men) may get the wrong idea about what BDSM is and is not. However, need we remind everyone that there are men who abuse their power in any relationship, be it BDSM or vanilla. On top of that, Christian is a fictional asshole just like Edward Collins, and assholes be assholes. If we want better romantic leads, it is time to look elsewhere or write them ourselves.

But to all this I ask for a moment of your time. Let us come together and reconsider before we bash James' success in writing a trashy romance novel with BDSM-themes in it. Writers, readers, protesters, and haters:

Here is a woman who decided one day to write a casual fan fic of Twilight. Somehow, by a divine miracle of sorts, this fan fic became its own erotic novel and gained a book deal. That book became so successful that this Twilight fan can probably live off the money she made writing. Love the book or hate it, this is one fan girl's dream come true. Whether you think this book deserves the attention it receives, you have to admit that James, like Stephanie Meyers, made it. They did what we as writers always secretly hope we can achieve one day. The ability to live off our book sales.

Let us also be forgiving. When she started this thing out, she had no idea it was going to become a national best-seller under the scrutiny of more skilled writers and readers who could easily tear it to shreds with a well-wrought critique. It is her first book series and often writers like this improve over time.

As I said before, I am not a fan. And I think the attention is misdirected while far superior erotica writers deserve it. But I also feel like if this is the fantasy women want to pay to read then that is their right and no amount of my bitching is going to change their mind. In fact, you'll find, if you bitch enough, people will avoid the things you suggest because your bitch-voice will probably be the voice they hear when they try to read your recommendations.

Hey, y'all! Read Claiming Sleeping Beauty and imagine my voice narrating it. So hawt!

Let's be happy for Elroy James and 50 Shades of Vanilla. The movie might even be kind of hawt.And the novel has brought erotica to the forefront of book sales, a kind of gateway drug to the "good shit." 

That is all. With love,
Hisses and kisses,

LB

nonsense, absolute: Beastality and Bullshit (trigger warning: off-putting topics)

In a digital notebook on my desktop is where I store miscellaneous links to news items and other scraps of factoids and weirdness that catches my attention. A browse through my latest poetry books will reveal just how much the internet news coverage/tabloids influences the subjects of my poetry. Because “fact” is stranger than “fiction.”

Except when fact is fiction, in which case we begin to bat a story around for clarity and some semblance of truth.

Lately people have been doing this with the Bill Cosby “sex scandal.” (“Sex scandal” is in quotation marks because RAPE is not a “sex scandal” it’s a “rape scandal,” yet some tabloids refuse to call it such in their headlines. Why they do this is beyond me since “RAPE” is  a stronger word than “sex” and “sex” implies consent.) Some of the most childhood-crushing news to ever hit the internet, beloved comedian and entertainer Bill Cosby has been accused of raping multiple women. The media circus in this case seems to not know how to handle this. Ultimately, people are turning to the women and asking why they waited so long to bring these accusations up, probably not realizing that when you are a rape victim of a famous person and think you are all alone you will most probably keep your silence because of the media. The media loves a wayward woman to skewer. Every photo you ever posted on the internet will suddenly appear in tabloids all over the world, along with your name and occupation. Suddenly you’re receiving the Monica Lewinksy treatment without even having consented to sex. (At least Lewinksy got a book deal out of it.) America loves questions like “What was she doing alone with the man at night if it wasn’t sex?” because we live in an age of anti-sexism. Asking questions like that are even more interesting than family-friendly entertainer who secretly rapes dozens of women. 

"Hmmm, Cliff Huxtable as a serial rapist? I don't know there's just no story here, Jim. Let's do the Lying Tramp story again."

If you are the rape victim of a person the world adores and you don’t realize you have fellow-victims out there who also suffered at his hands, media coverage is the last thing you want. But now that so many voices are raising up, it is probably far easier to confess to what happened. You are no longer alone. In the end, Cosby will still probably be found not guilty and write about how he did not do it but if he did this is how he would have done it.

However, this is not about the Cosby story and the slow, cruel and unusual death of my childhood. It is about a story I saw on the FailBook the other day. With a title like "Mother, 20, has sex with dogs at 13, incest fantasies." How, oh, how are you not going to read that?

This is the reason I bring up the media’s love of covering evil succubus women. Unless you are tragically desensitized to outrageous depravity because of the internet, this will cause your knee-jerk “WTF” reaction to kick high. Daily Mail reported on a 20-year-old mother whoclaimed to have sex with her dogs (when she was 13) and fantasize about incest. Already in the headlines of this story  scream sensationalist news. The sad thing is, I understand. As a former newspaper writer, I understand the pressure to find stories that seize people’s attention. Nobody wants to read about something ordinary. Nobody wants unemotional, statistic-obsessed, fact-happy storytelling. News stopped being about actual news quite a long time ago. We want something wild and out there. The story essentially sums up that an unnamed man (whose identity is protected despite the woman’s name being aired to the world) who dated the accused woman for a few months only to discover, by her own admittance, that she liked sex with dogs and had fantasies about incest. Instead of finding her psychiatric help—she does have a child to raise after all—he went to the police with this juicy story of a zoophilic, nymphomaniac. She has been accused of crimes against nature. (Somehow that sounds even worse that bestiality.) The story does not mention any charges concerning her incest fantasies because thoughtcrime is a thing of the future that Big Brother has yet to enforce.No mention is made of her possessing any pornography of illegal acts. Instead the ex mentions that she retrieved images off the internet for him to see.

Why does this story reek so much of bullshit to me? 

Because I know the pressure to find sensational news stories. I know a writer’s need to embellish and deliver only the most absurd facts. And I know that exes, both male and female, can be some of the most unreliable narrators when it comes to their former partners. My debate teachers also learned me real good about critical thinking. When you see a story, especially a “he said, she said” one like this, you have to take it with a spoonful of salt. I also note the collection of selfie pictures the story decided to include of the accused woman in her bra and panties and in a kinky little outfit. One site even has a slideshow, despite the photos only proving that she is a typical 20-year-old taking selfies. Here is a woman who loves sex with anyone, according to ex. Therefor, she is also capable of dog-fucking and incest fantasies. Also, she’s 20, single and a mother already. Her father is trying to gain custody of his grandchild from her. How easy it is to cast her as the degenerate. And how fun it is. Now we have a wild story to spread around Failbook and discuss. It would be a useful gateway story into the discussion of animal rights. At least here someone is giving a damn that the dogs were sexually abused. That is certainly a plus for animal rights. But all of these elements combined into one story just feel overblown and full of plot holes, for lack of a better term, that another writer has to wonder.

Understand: I am not saying that the story is untrue. The world provides us with 100% true batshit crazy stories everyday. But in the media we use to navigate that world, nothing is ever quite what it seems. Who is the boyfriend? If he is concerned she will become a prostitute and has spoken to her father, why have they not arranged an intervention before going to the police and the media and ruining her life? Are the dogs okay? You may laugh, but animals can be as sensitive as humans to this kind of thing and I can’t help but wonder—if the story is indeed true—about their well-being. What about the child? Does a strong sexual appetite and freaky kinks truly make her a bad mother? Give us some examples of how she is an unfit mother before we turn her into a sideshow attraction. Did she suggest anything sexual in nature towards her own child? Some people have wild fetishes that are just that: fetishes. They get into roleplay with a consenting adult partner and pretend to be family members, school girls, dinosaurs or whatever the hell it is that turns them on. The most popular porn search term on the internet is “mother son.” Some food for thought. If you have a fetish for big boobs it doesn’t mean you are going to go around squeezing every nice rack you see. Practicing zoophiles, pedophiles, necrophiles and rapists are dangerous because they have no self-control and act on immoral urges. Am I suggesting that all humans are actually bubbling cauldrons of one disgusting fetish or another? Yes, I am. If someone tells you they have an incest kink it is not quite the same as someone telling you they actually want to have sex with a family member. If your partner walks in and begins showing you pictures of dead bodies and suggests where you two could rob a grave and have sexytimes with corpses, you have the right to run the other way. But if they show you weird necro-erotica that’s not quite the same as trying to plan a necro party with you. What I am trying to say through this ramble is that there is a difference between the fantasy and the action and most people are not nearly douche enough to be Ted Bundy.

Ancient zoophile porn because...why not?

If she did do what he said she said to those dogs then surely she deserves some punishment and the dogs should be properly cared for. Animals do not deserve to be used in yet another horrible way for a human’s selfish pleasure. If she really is a danger to her child, then something should be done.  But among these moral lapses that the story implies only ONE of them is illegal and that has yet to be proven:

1. ·         She had sex with two dogs when she was a minor.
2. ·         She stopped taking her birth control pills.
3. ·         She refused to take the pregnancy test.
4. ·         She has an incest fetish.
5. ·         She takes sexy selfies.
6. ·         She is 20 with a child.
7. ·         She likes sex. (Ex claims she is a nymphomaniac but also claims in the same breath that their sex life had been “suffering.”)
8. ·         She thinks she could get paid for sex because she’s good at it.
9. ·         She might be unwed and pregnant.

What do you think? Am I off my rocker for thinking this story smells of bullshit? Or do you agree this sounds to sensational to be true?

Childhood Creepfest: Muppet Christmas Carol

Wait. What is this?

Whilst researching the anatomy of fear used in childhood morality tales and media, I’ve been traveling down memory lane. The films and tv shows I am most interested in are the ones that frightened us in unexpected places or weird ways. A perfect example are the pink elephants in Dumbo. While researching I thought I would share some of my observations re-watching the films that I (or my peers) found creepy for one reason or another. Outright kiddy horror films like The Witches might be disqualified from this project since their sole purpose was to be scary. (But I will probably be lax with that rule.)

First up, the Muppet Christmas Carol. If you ask anyone from my generation they will probably tell that this is the version of Christmas Carol to watch. Hands down.

Intro

Nostalgia goggles have aged this movie well for me. I have seen various versions of Dickens' Christmas Carol (including some that stick faithfully to the original text) and none move me as well as this one. That may be pure nostalgia talking. Your first Scrooge is your best Scrooge and the first time you realize Tiny Tim has died will always hit you the hardest so it's hard to look at the competition without a little bias. But the thing I remembered most vividly about this film as a child was that it was fucking scary.

And not because a frog and a pig have babies. Amazingly enough.

This is one of the few movies I remember seeing in theaters as a child. I went with my family and a neighborhood friend who was a few years older than me and she led me out the theater just before the Ghost of Christmas Future waltzed in to give a generation of children nightmares. But years later I would watch the scene with my little brother and try to wear a brave face when it came. (Interestingly he was more unnerved by Christmas Past). Cutting through the Muppet fluff, there is something seriously creepy about those two ghosts and here I will try to examine why.

What was creepy?

If you get down to the basics, Christmas Carol is a spooky story. From start to finish, it is brimming with ghosts, threats of eternal damnation and death. Whoever decided to adapt it for children's media had the same issue Disney would have with the Hunchback of Notre Dame. We now (pretend to) have a rating system that requires things be not so extreme and scary for children. So how do you show the haunting of a greedy old man without creeping kids out too badly?

Throw some Muppets into the mix. Somehow, this works. Because the Marely ghosts are not scary in the least. One of the story's scariest moments becomes comedic by casting those grumpy old men as the haunters and they even have a catchy song to go with it. As a kid I was not sure what was going on. I knew the gist of it, but for the most part the scene was a pair of silly ghosts (like Casper).

The creep factor does not begin until the Ghosts of Christmas come in. The first one, a Muppet girl who would be innocent enough were it not for a ghostly light surrounding her, is creepy enough. But the real scare comes with the Ghost of Christmas Future, a hooded, mute figure who can only point. At least Gonzo and Rizzo give the parents in the audience a useful warning and high-tail it out of the movie until the end.

The message of the story comes across because of the intensity of the Ghosts. You could child-safety the story more but if the ghosts were tamed to the point of no threat then the moral might lose its punch. Though, arguably killing Tiny Tim off is message enough in any version. But children can take more intensity than modern movie-makers give them credit for.

Why was it Creepy? (For a Child)

Why were these moments creepy?

Well, firstly let's look at the fact that these are the Muppets. The most nonthreatening thing you could probably put on screen. These intense specters, Muppet-y as they look, are contrast to what the child is seeing throughout most of the film. Sandwiched in between jolly songs about love and Christmas are warnings of damnation and death. Rather than patronize the children by making all the spirits as nonthreatening as Marley and Marley, the creators took the risk of scaring them just a little more than necessary and it pays off.

Christmas Past looks like she could belong on Sesame Street if she was not floating and glowing. Something about taking a Muppet and turning it into a ghost is almost the opposite of what the comforting Muppets are supposed to stand for. She is also slightly more realistic than the usual Muppet and I remembered her looking more "real" as a child. It might look silly to you now but for a child it was eerie.

Apparently Scooter was going to be the Christmas Past originally.*

Imagine if I took your favorite stuffed animal from childhood and gave it this treatment. You might just call it weird or stupid but I bet if it appeared to you in the dark it might raise your hair just a bit.

Do I need to explain why Christmas Future is creepy? The character is horror-worthy no matter who you cast. And I have yet to see a version where the ambiguity and unanswered questions are so well portrayed in the faceless specter. Interestingly what makes this version exaggerated is what makes it creepiest. The robe opens to pure darkness. Most other versions show basically the Grim Reaper. Everything about the scene is intense and the film decides not to hold out. The better question is why wouldn't a child be creeped out by this?

Still creepy?

Christmas Past comes out looking like Casper's cousin to me now. There is simply no way I would be legitimately creeped out by her. But the design is fascinating and makes you wonder how all of the Muppet cast would look as heavenly ghosts. There is also something to be said about any glowing, floating doll. It still has the potential to be creepy.

An honorable mention to Christmas Present for aging. While the filmmakers sanely took out some of the characters darker lines and moments, they still allowed the character to grow old and ultimately die. As a child it might not hit you. But when you are older your realize just how much slipped past your radar as a child.

Christmas Future, while no longer creepy to me in this movie, is still an emotional scene to watch if not for the stellar acting from Michael Cane. I still prefer this film's take on Future instead of the straight-out Grim Reaper that most movies choose. And I can't shake the nostalgic creepiness I feel when it first appears.

Thoughts

This is probably just the right amount of scary for a children's movie. With no fear at all a child won't learn how to cope, after all. It's still one of the best Christmas Carol adaptations. Unless a child is particularly afraid of ghosts they should be able to handle it.

Also it has Gonzo claiming to be Charles Dickens with a straight face.

You Might also like:

Facts You Didn't Know About Muppet Christmas Carol