# Why has 50 Shades of Grey sold millions of copies when it is not great writing?



## J.R. Thomson (Mar 30, 2011)

Good article + audio interview..

"Why is a great story more important than beautiful language? In today's interview with Lisa Cron, we get into what makes a great story and how we can write more effectively."

http://www.thecreativepenn.com/2012/08/14/wired-for-story-lisa-cron/


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

I'll answer that question without even clicking your link. It's all about connecting emotionally to the characters. If the reader is sufficiently engrossed in their lives and what will happen, they will forget crappy writing skills. 

(Not saying those book have crappy writing, but I'm guessing that is what the subject is implying. I haven't read Fifty Shades, and I actually loved Twilight but only read it to screen it for my pre-teen and was shocked at how it pulled me in.)


----------



## Kwalker (Aug 23, 2012)

That is awesome. Awesome awesome awesome. I have said many times that my goal is not to write a book that is considered well written. My goal is to write well enough that I make my characters real and people cannot forget them.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Great writing is not a necessary condition for great communication.


----------



## Blue Bull Book Design (Sep 18, 2011)

Kwalker said:


> My goal is to write well enough that I make my characters real and people cannot forget them.


The whole should be greater than the parts. People forget that all the time, especially when they're passing judgment on "trashy" books. Technical skill and the power to move an audience do not necessarily go together!


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Give the people what they want? 

If you want to sell a lot of books, write to the masses.


----------



## Rusty Bigfoot (Jul 6, 2011)

From the interview...

"Writers are the most powerful people in the world."

I need to think about that one. I thought power and money went together -


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

> Why has 50 Shades of Grey sold millions of copies when it is not great writing?


I generally find statements like that unwarranted because the criticism of the writing is usually biased, coming from the attitude of a writer who thinks they themselves are better than author XYZ. I think that's just a counterproductive way to look at things.

I read the book "Eragon" a few years ago after reading criticisms of it being highly derivative, unoriginal drivel. After reading it, I realized that there was some truth in those comments, but it was also a fun and compelling enough read to entertain me (and I might add, a bestseller). I think it would be sour grapes for me to put that book down until I've sold at least as many books as it has.

You don't get bestseller novels nor blockbuster movies out of bad material, no matter what people say. Considering your audience stupid is a bad way to do business.


----------



## Error404 (Sep 6, 2012)

This thread may explain it all.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Her point about narrative being the framework by which we see our lives is really good. You can see that at work in how the ancients taught about life and morality via story and parable.

Anyway, I agree that the story itself is the important thing, but that isn't a justification to not strive for great writing as well.


----------



## Rusty Bigfoot (Jul 6, 2011)

I agree having a good story is the way to go, but if your language skills are so poor that the reader is always stumbling, that detracts from even the best of stories. Then there's the poor writer who uses so many flowery adjectives and such that you forget what the story was...

And yes, Mac, the thread you quoted says it all...when it's erotica, the rules change.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

It comes down to a very simple marketing truism:

Sex sells.

Even dirty, nasty, kinky stuff... apparently. Hint that at one point the characters were named Edward and Bella, giving it that sniff of Twilight-obsession, and... boom.

So, to mimic that formula for success...

I wonder if my next novel should be:

TEA, EARL GRAY, HOT

The tale of an aging ... umm ... sea captain, Jean-Paul Lucas, and his torrid romance with his submarine's chief medical officer,  Dr. Selena Wesley. They can get kinky with... medical instruments. Yeah! That's the ticket! 1,500 pages of barely-edited smut, released in five installments, then collected into a mammoth edition...

And whaddaya mean it started life as Star Trek The Next Generation fan fiction? Hey, them's fightin' words, bub! (shhh.... that's called planting the seed of the rumor...shhh)

 ROTFLMAO


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I wonder if my next novel should be:
> 
> TEA, EARL GRAY, HOT
> 
> ...


*jumps up and down and scrawls it on my to-read list*

....

Oh, you're _joking_.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I wasn't one of those readers - I wanted to slap the heroine half-way through the first chapter. Couldn't stand her. That strong dislike only served to highlight the less-than-stellar writing for me.


Perhaps it takes a very talented writer to evoke such a strong emotional reaction.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

CabanaBooks.com said:


> Good article + audio interview..
> 
> "Why is a great story more important than beautiful language? In today's interview with Lisa Cron, we get into what makes a great story and how we can write more effectively."
> 
> http://www.thecreativepenn.com/2012/08/14/wired-for-story-lisa-cron/


When Ernest Hemingway was first published many critics claimed that he was unskilled and barely readable, that his grammar and style was atrocious and suggested that he should go back to school and try to stay awake during English classes this time. He was the first mainstream writer (eventually mainstream) to use one word sentences - something which outraged many critics.

Now that I think of it, J.K. Rowling was met with much the same response. Many critics tore her work apart based on grammar and structure - ignoring her ability to tell a story.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

shelleyo1 said:


> *jumps up and down and scrawls it on my to-read list*
> 
> ....
> 
> Oh, you're _joking_.


 See? The formula works....

...oh I so hope to heaven that no one now actually expects me to write TEA, EARL GRAY, HOT... 

*snicker* I said hot. *snicker*


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

It all boils down to the fact that she obviously tells a good story.  Even the foundation of the books having already been popular as fan fiction backs up that interpretation.  She can't have been the only fan-fic author writing Edward/Bella erotic fan-fic - yet her stories were really popular.  She grabbed readers into her world.

I haven't read 50 Shades because it doesn't really sound like my sort of thing.  However, if I ever did, I'd be reading it with a view to looking at what she got right.  If you only look at something successful with a view to criticising it, then you'll probably miss the opportunity to learn from what that author accomplished.  Like most things in life - you're more likely to find something if you're actually looking for it.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

But how do you define great writing? Flowing, poetic prose that you can lose yourself in and in which the story is secondary? Or writing that gets the message across?

I've not read 50 Shades, but I have read novels by authors whose writing could never be described as great in the first sense above: Dan Brown is the most obvious one that springs to mind. I think that some of his prose is clunky, many of his cliffhanging scene/chapter endings contrived, some of his plot devices ludicrous (e.g the way Langdon escapes the helicopter in _Angels and Demons_). But, blow me, he takes a good story and he tells it.

To millions of readers, including me, that's enough. And as a writer, I'll settle for getting the message across.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> To millions of readers, including me, that's enough. And as a writer, I'll settle for getting the message across.


Exactly. I have always said that I know I won't win an award for great writing. I don't want to, I am not striving for allocades regarding how well I put together flowery words. What I want is readers saying that I write a damn good read. Make 'em think, make 'em feel. If I do that, I have succeeded.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

CB Edwards said:


> Give the people what they want?
> 
> If you want to sell a lot of books, write to the masses.


This.

I haven't read it, but I'm sure the writing is serviceable, or it wouldn't have been traditionally published.

For whatever reason, the masses want the story. It has that special X-factor that appeals to people. Lots of people, apparently.

If we knew exactly how to make that X-factor, we'd all be selling bazillions of books.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Um.
> Holds tongue, tries to not say judgmental things about an author I don't know (her, not you).
> You could be right, Terrence. Then again.....


It's actually a serious observation. I can see readers being bored, uninterested, or ambivalent to characters. That would seem to be the author's failing. But pulling the reader in so tight she hates the character is genius. Now if the author can only generate hateful characters, perhaps she needs a coauthor to balance stuff.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Caddy said:


> Exactly. I have always said that I know I won't win an award for great writing. I don't want to, I am not striving for allocades regarding how well I put together flowery words. What I want is readers saying that I write a d*mn good read. Make 'em think, make 'em feel. If I do that, I have succeeded.


You might not win any "accolades" either.  (Don't feel bad. Check out this site: http://www.devitaskincare.com/store/page_4.html) But I get your point.

I'd disagree that "good writing" has to be flowery, though. Kurt Vonnegut Jr. is anything but flowery, but he's a terrific and much-praised writer. Hemingway, too, is economical to a fault (some would say).

I've never read a poorly written book by John D. MacDonald, and he wrote thrillers and even pulp fiction. I could name a lot of genre writers who put out first class prose as well as telling damn good stories. Good writing doesn't have to mean "literary" writing.

Some books are popular despite being poorly written. (Not just by literary standards, but by, well, just about anybody's standards who has standards.) I don't think it's something to strive for, though, or that it's a reason to dismiss "good writing."


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

It's loaded with kinky sex and it gives its readers a tingle. Nuf ced.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Even dirty, nasty, kinky stuff... apparently.


ESPECIALLY dirty, nasty, kinky stuff!!!


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> The tale of an aging ... umm ... sea captain, Jean-Paul Lucas, and his torrid romance with his submarine's chief medical officer, Dr. Selena Wesley. They can get kinky with... medical instruments. Yeah! That's the ticket! 1,500 pages of barely-edited smut, released in five installments, then collected into a mammoth edition...


I would totally read this. 



> I haven't read it, but I'm sure the writing is serviceable, or it wouldn't have been traditionally published.


I think it's not unreasonable to say that it should have been given a good edit before being released by a trad pub. If nothing else, the use of numerous Britishisms in a book set in the Pacific Northwest should have been cleaned up. But since the book has sold several gazillion copies, I guess the publisher was right-- editing clearly wasn't really necessary.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

“Anticipation hangs heavy and portentous over my head…”

“‘So I brought you here,” he said phlegmatically.

“The ceremony takes another hour to conclude. It’s interminable.”

“Another mercurial mood swing; it’s so hard to keep up.”

“I’m lost in a quagmire of sensation.”

“I revel in his possession, his lust slaking mine.”

“Trepidation lances through me.”

“He’s got right under my skin, literally.”

“I turn into my pillow and the sluice gates open.”

“My subconscious is behind the sofa again, head hidden under her hands.”

“I look to my subconscious. She’s whistling with her hands behind her back and looking anywhere but at me.”

“My subconscious is nervous, anxiously biting her nails.”

“My subconscious has her Edvard Munch face on again.”

“My inner goddess is jumping up and down, clapping her hands like a five year old.”

“My inner goddess stops jumping and smiles serenely.”

“My inner goddess shakes her head at me.”

“My inner goddess pops her head above the parapet.”


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

I don't believe it is much of anything to REALLY do with whether or not she told a "good story".

I explain it best in my blog post - or at least my take on the whole situation.

http://stevevernonstoryteller.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/the-fifty-shades-of-grey-phenomenon/

Mind you - it's just my opinion. I'd love to hear what other people think on it.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

50 Shades has sex, but that can't be all of it. There are a great many books that have sex, but these don't become a hit. Why this one? Ultimately, it's all about story. Always has, and probably always will. It's not that good writing isn't important, but its function is to enhance the story.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> "Anticipation hangs heavy and portentous over my head&#8230;"
> 
> "'So I brought you here," he said phlegmatically.
> 
> ...


Oh, yeah. Yeah, baby. Oh. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh . . . oh . . . yeah.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> "My subconscious is nervous, anxiously biting her nails."


Even the subconscious sometimes requires editing. And, perhaps, a nice manicure.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

Great writing = great story and great characters that people can relate to and love. All that other crap that literary types talk about? Doesn't matter, because THEY don't matter.

Fifty Shades of Grey _is_ great writing. If it wasn't, it would not have sold in the quantities it has.


----------



## Rose Archer (Aug 27, 2012)

Sam Kates said:


> ...Dan Brown ...some of his plot devices ludicrous (e.g the way Langdon escapes the helicopter in _Angels and Demons_).


I'm so glad it wasn't just me. I almost threw the book across the room. I'm sorry, but Langdon died on page 500 of Angels and Demons.

Why is 50 Shades so popular? A friend of mine once suggested that being a YA author is generally a good place to start if you want to end up on the bestsellers list. Not because YA always sells, but because of the structure of YA books. Authors usually have to find the sweet spot between writing a fairly linear story and having just enough complications to keep it interesting.

She might have a point. (Maybe?) Patterson, Evanovich, Meyers, James... their books are all fairly straight-forward. I don't know if that's "writing for the masses", but I do know that an awful lot of books that show up in slush piles (like Authonomy.com), are often convoluted, not easy to summarize, not in a particular genre, etc.

It certainly isn't that sex always sells. (You can come look at my sales numbers. )


----------



## Cheryl Douglas (Dec 7, 2011)

As someone who's read all three books, I can say that the writing has received a bad rap, imho. It wasn't the best I've ever read, nor was it the worst. Bottom line, Christian was a compelling character. Strange, dark, but definitely compelling. Ana was utterly forgettable, and it was monotonous, reading about the same couple for 1600 pages, but E.L. James hooked you enough in the beginning that you felt you had to see it through to find out what happened to Christian. For me, it wasn't so much about the relationship, and it definitely wasn't the sex, which was pretty repetitive, it was about the evolution of a damaged character.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> ...E.L. James hooked you enough in the beginning that you felt you had to see it through to find out what happened to Christian. For me, it wasn't so much about the relationship, and it definitely wasn't the sex, which was pretty repetitive, it was about the evolution of a damaged character.


This is often what makes romance readers sit up and take notice. There are plenty of romances with heroines who are TSTL (too stupid to live) or bad cliches or Mary Sues-- heroines who are pretty much just standard-issue characters-- but what makes people love the books is the hero, who is dark and angry and tortured, and who can only be saved by the heroine's love. And no, I am not mocking romances; I love this sort of thing myself.  In real life, we all know we should steer clear of badly damaged men-- but in fiction, it's strangely compelling to read about damaged men who are saved by love. I'd say that's almost certainly 50 Shades' big selling point, right there. Exactly what made it take off and sell so many more copies than other books of this type, though, I can't tell you.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

Rose Archer said:


> I'm so glad it wasn't just me. I almost threw the book across the room. I'm sorry, but Langdon died on page 500 of Angels and Demons.


Phew... I was beginning to wonder if it was just me.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Rose Archer said:


> I'm so glad it wasn't just me. I almost threw the book across the room.


Me too!!!! Abysmal writing.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Michael Kingswood said:


> Fifty Shades of Grey _is_ great writing. If it wasn't, it would not have sold in the quantities it has.


Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ght. And Big Macs are great cuisine for the same reason.


----------



## Alan Ryker (Feb 18, 2011)

There aren't enough readers to create a huge bestseller. Bestsellers of the 50 Shades magnitude are created by the people who are gifted 1 book at their birthday, 1 at Christmas, and buy 1 a year at the airport before a flight. This sort of reader does not purchase a book because it is well-written.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> "Anticipation hangs heavy and portentous over my head&#8230;"
> 
> "'So I brought you here," he said phlegmatically.
> 
> ...


Okay, these are parody, right? I can't believe I have to ask.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ght. And Big Macs are great cuisine for the same reason.


For those who buy them, they are. And that's all that matters.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Michael Kingswood said:


> Great writing = great story and great characters that people can relate to and love. All that other crap that literary types talk about? Doesn't matter, because THEY don't matter.
> 
> Fifty Shades of Grey _is_ great writing. If it wasn't, it would not have sold in the quantities it has.


Sorry, but I absolutely reject your notion that great sales = great writing. Great sales may happen _because _of great writing, or despite the lack of it, but sales do not define "great writing" any more than McDonalds defines a great hamburger.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> For those who buy them, they are. And that's all that matters.


I buy Big Macs fairly frequently, but I don't think they're great cuisine. I read romances with enthusiasm, but I don't think most of them are great literature. (I'm not trying to write great literature, either, just good romances.) I don't think 50 Shades is great literature, and I don't even think it's a great romance or great erotica (YMMV, of course, and I guess we'll have to wait fifty years to see how it's regarded then!). It obviously has found a huge audience, but popular appeal and greatness are not necessarily the same thing.


----------



## Blue Bull Book Design (Sep 18, 2011)

Michael Kingswood said:


> Fifty Shades of Grey _is_ great writing. If it wasn't, it would not have sold in the quantities it has.





Kathleen Valentine said:


> Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ght. And Big Macs are great cuisine for the same reason.


To play devil's advocate, why should something that can provoke strong emotional reactions in millions of people _not_ be considered great? What better measure of a successful piece of artwork besides its ability to move audiences? And I say this as someone who rarely cares for Top 40 music or the fad book du jour.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

50,000,000 Million Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong


----------



## SBJones (Jun 13, 2011)

Why do fast food restaurants sell so much food.  They appeal to the masses and give them what they want.  Cheap food and delivered fast.  I don't think you will find many highbrow critics applauding the literary genius of Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, Game of Thrones and 50 Shades of popular.  There is an old Hollywood mantra.  You can make money or win awards.  Not both.


----------



## LilianaHart (Jun 20, 2011)

Cheryl Douglas said:


> As someone who's read all three books, I can say that the writing has received a bad rap, imho. It wasn't the best I've ever read, nor was it the worst. Bottom line, Christian was a compelling character. Strange, dark, but definitely compelling. Ana was utterly forgettable, and it was monotonous, reading about the same couple for 1600 pages, but E.L. James hooked you enough in the beginning that you felt you had to see it through to find out what happened to Christian. For me, it wasn't so much about the relationship, and it definitely wasn't the sex, which was pretty repetitive, it was about the evolution of a damaged character.


THIS! It was the same for me. I knew when I was reading that there were grammatical flaws and certain things that bothered me. But I couldn't put it down because the story drew me in. And it's not about the sex, dirty or otherwise. I'm sorry, but there was nothing in these books that was even remotely risque if you happen to read a lot of romance, or even other genre fiction, for that matter--Terry Goodkind has some crazy stuff going on in his Sword of Truth series. But with 50 Shades there's a compulsion between those two main characters that just grips the reader. It's chemistry at it's finest wrapped up in a good story.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> 50 Shades has sex, but that can't be all of it. There are a great many books that have sex, but these don't become a hit. Why this one? Ultimately, it's all about story. Always has, and probably always will. It's not that good writing isn't important, but its function is to enhance the story.


Its not the story, or at least not her story. Its the fan fiction connection. Ohh, its TWILIGHT, only really dirty...the TwiTeens grew up and wanted Edward to do more than bite Bella...


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Clare Horton said:


> To play devil's advocate, why should something that can provoke strong emotional reactions in millions of people _not_ be considered great? What better measure of a successful piece of artwork besides its ability to move audiences? And I say this as someone who rarely cares for Top 40 music or the fad book du jour.


As a former boss of mine used to say, they sell more corn than caviar.

(Okay, I'll take a fresh ear of corn over caviar any day, but you get the point.)



> What better measure of a successful piece of artwork besides its ability to move audiences?


Is four dogs playing poker a finer piece of art than, well, anything in the Getty Museum? I think not. Basically, if you have to ask this question, I can't explain it.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> Sorry, but I absolutely reject your notion that great sales = great writing. Great sales may happen _because _of great writing, or despite the lack of it, but sales do not define "great writing" any more than McDonalds defines a great hamburger.


Ok...

So what standard DOES define great writing? Or great anything? From what I've seen in life, there _is_ no definitive objective standard when it comes to "the arts". Therefore all we have to go on is people's opinion. Especially in a commercial enterprise (and _everything_ is commercial), if people don't like a thing and thus don't buy it, how can it be great? Conversely, if millions of people like a thing and buy it, how can it NOT be great?


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> As a former boss of mine used to say, they sell more corn than caviar.
> 
> (Okay, I'll take a fresh ear of corn over caviar any day, but you get the point.)
> 
> Is four dogs playing poker a finer piece of art than, well, anything in the Getty Museum? I think not. Basically, if you have to ask this question, I can't explain it.


The only reason caviar, or the art in the Getty museum, is considered better and more valuable than the other things out there is: 1) More people want it, and 2) there is less of it.

Supply and demand.

Yes, economics always applies, even to art.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Michael Kingswood said:


> The only reason caviar, or the art in the Getty museum, is considered better and more valuable than the other things out there is: 1) More people want it, and 2) there is less of it.
> 
> Supply and demand.
> 
> Yes, economics always applies, even to art.


The Longhorns just won and I've had several cuba libras, but I think you are mixing mediums, and more to the point, accessibility to the medium. People want Fifty Shades of whatever and they can get it. Doesn't mean it's good (but who defines good!).

If you want to sell a lot of books, write what sells. And don't suck terribly bad.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Why has McDonald's sold 50 Trillion burgers when it's not really good food?


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Michael Kingswood said:


> The only reason caviar, or the art in the Getty museum, is considered better and more valuable than the other things out there is: 1) More people want it, and 2) there is less of it.
> 
> Supply and demand.
> 
> Yes, economics always applies, even to art.


There is also perceived value. Is Veuve Cliquot better than Moet Chandon? Is one worth a dollar more than the other. My unrefined palette cannot tell. (But I'm a sucker for Grand Dame.) I have a hard time differentiating between a thirty dollar bottle of wine and a thirty-five dollar bottle of wine. But the difference between a ten dollar bottle and a two hundred dollar bottle? Even a rube like me can tell.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Personally, I think the REAL question here is...

Why hasn't THE SUMMER WE LOST ALICE sold millions of copies when it is, at the very least, very good writing and (once I read more of it), potentially even better than "very good." 

And I'm not joking. A lot of really good writers on these boards (Jan included, I am a fan of his work) write very well, far better than the novel we're all debating, and yet they don't come close to the success level of Ms. Fifty Shades.

Even folks who have some success, like David McAfee, don't come close.

I guess what Amanda Hocking once blogged is true: You just can't predict who reader will embrace, and who they won't.


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

In this world there are a few writers.

And an awful lot of people who like talk about being writers.


Same thing works as readers.

There are lot more people who like to be able to talk about the book that everybody is talking about - even if that conversation begins and ends with "Oh yes I bought a copy".

People HATE to miss out on anything.


Somehow or other this lady got everyone in the world talking about her book - so a large percentage of the consuming populace felt they'd better not miss out on this.

So they bought the copy.

I think - more than asking is E.L. James a "good", "great" or "so-so" writer we ought to be asking how in the heck she managed the trick of getting everybody in the world talking about her book at the very same time.

She didn't write a "good" novel.

She just "trended" awfully well...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Steve,

Again, it's a simple answer.

Sex and Twilight.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ght. And Big Macs are great cuisine for the same reason.


Actually, they are.

The combination of ingredients and taste sensations make them literally addictive, as in eat a few and most people will crave more of them.
You'd wish you could write books that are that addictive.

It's obvious not everybody can do that _or_ make a decent burger.


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

I disagree on the Big Mac.



It is neither a "great" burger nor even a "decent" burger.

And that's coming from a fellow who knows one heck of a lot more about good burgers than I do about good books.

I will give you that McDonalds sells one heck of a lot of Big Macs - so they MUST be addictive!


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Personally, I think the REAL question here is...
> 
> Why hasn't THE SUMMER WE LOST ALICE sold millions of copies when it is, at the very least, very good writing and (once I read more of it), potentially even better than "very good."
> 
> ...


Thank you, Craig, for the very kind words!

I think that _Alice_ is well written, but I'm not a "great" writer. _Alice_ will never be studied in a literature class (unless I teach it). It will never win a Pulitzer or earn me a Lannan grant. It could be a bestseller but only if something tipped it--like that mention by Oprah or if it were made into a major motion picture. Otherwise I don't see the strong hook that would plunge it like a knife into the public consciousness.

We talk about things "going viral." These things happen. People start talking about something and it presses a common button and suddenly millions of people are watching that YouTube video or buying a certain book. Then while lots of folks try to replicate that success by copying, somebody else does something completely different and _that_ goes viral.

If we want answers to why _Fifty Shades _achieved such fame, we'd do better to talk to epidemiologists than to writers!


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> Thank you, Craig, for the very kind words!
> 
> I think that _Alice_ is well written, but I'm not a "great" writer. _Alice_ will never be studied in a literature class (unless I teach it). It will never win a Pulitzer or earn me a Lannan grant. It could be a bestseller but only if something tipped it--like that mention by Oprah or if it were made into a major motion picture. Otherwise I don't see the strong hook that would plunge it like a knife into the public consciousness.
> 
> ...


Oh great.

Now I have to and Google "epidemiologist".

That's the problem with writers - always using way too many words.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

For my money, there is no better hamburger in the Los Angeles area than those sold at Shaka Shack (17th and Ocean Park in Santa Monica), a little hole in the wall place with tables made from surfboards or, if you'd rather, you can sit on a vinyl sofa and eat off a TV tray.

Their burgers are moist and delicious. You can choose Angus or Kobe beef. Their barbecue sauce is homemade. Buns are made of sweet Hawaiian bread. Two smaller appetites can split a burger.

The owners (one takes orders out front, the other is in the kitchen) do not make in a month what the average McDonald's franchise makes in a weekend. But no one except maybe an earthworm or a housefly would consider a McDonald's burger in any way, by any measure, superior to a Shaka Shack burger.

People may choose the McDonald's burger over Shaka Shack because McDonald's is closer (by several thousand miles for most of the country), cheaper, faster, you can drive through, or because the kids want the toy. McDonald's delivers processed food at a cheap price. You can read about why processed food is addictive in any number of books. But do sales make McDonald's "better"? No. 

Americans buy crap. They buy a lot of crap. Saying that something is good because Americans buy a lot of it is nonsense! Are WalMart shoppers the arbiters of taste in America? Please, say it isn't so!


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Sex and Twilight.


But that's an incomplete answer at best. There are numerous rewritten Twilight fics are out there. A few have made it big (_50 Shades, Gabriel's Inferno_), but there are dozens of others that haven't gone viral. So much as I wish there were a single answer that would unlock the secrets of selling a gazillion copies of a book, "sex and Twilight" is not the answer (neither is 42, sadly).


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> THIS! It was the same for me. I knew when I was reading that there were grammatical flaws and certain things that bothered me. But I couldn't put it down because the story drew me in. And it's not about the sex, dirty or otherwise. I'm sorry, but there was nothing in these books that was even remotely risque if you happen to read a lot of romance, or even other genre fiction


Add me to this list. I very sincerely wish she'd done more editing, but I just got sucked in and ended up reading this into wee hours and such. It was a very compelling story despite the writing. On the writing itself, I don't think she ever contemplated this kind of success.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Why do we need arbiters of taste?  I know what I like and what I don't like (and I can try new things and decide for myself if I like or don't like them).  Who cares what someone else says about it?

I can't remember who said it (I think Grisham), but I love the quote (paraphrased here): "The moment my work starts getting good reviews from the critics, I know I've failed as a writer" 

A lot of times when someone says "taste" what they seem to mean is "inability to enjoy things"...


----------



## LKWatts (May 5, 2011)

Maybe it's to do with the taboo issues covered in the book


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Maybe it's to do with the taboo issues covered in the book


Nothing that hasn't already been covered by scores of other BDSM authors.

Well, except for the tampon and the toothbrush. Those may in fact be new.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Maybe it's to do with the taboo issues covered in the book


I thought people had gotten over the "newness" of reading about BDSM decades ago when The Story of O was being read by tons of people. I have not read 50 Shades, but I did read O. O was well written, in my opinion (and it is not the one on Amazon for .99. It is hard to find the book now. I have heard that one is advertised on Amazon but when you order it you still get the same .99 one and it is not the right book. I don't know if that is true and I don't care. I am just saying, don't order that one. If you want it, buy the actual book at a bookstore, if you can find it.) I can understand people reading anything they want to, but I can't understand people acting like a book like this is something new in the mainstream. It isn't.  I don't know if 50 has good or bad writing, but someone read it and talked about it on The View and that made every woman who watches that want to read it. They belong to that "group" or want to and must do what everyone else in the group is doing. Then they told friends, and other media picked it up. Boom. Best seller, regardless of if it is "great".

There can be a huge difference between a "great seller" and "great writing". Personally, I would settle for writing decently, but not being recognized as a "great writer" and becoming a "great seller" because people get lost in my books and the characters live on in their minds. But we each have our own goals.

As far as dogs playing poker being great art, give me a break. Paintings of Elvis on velvet aren't art, either. These are manufactured images that have nothing to do with an artist doing what they love. It is simply a business pushing out something that people will either find amusing (the dogs) or fans of Elivs will think is something they need to have. Even if someone painted the first one, it was contrived as something to be mass marketed. The Monkees are a great example of that in music. They were the dogs playing poker, as they lip sinced and WERE MARKETED TO BE A SUCCESS. After 20 years in advertising, I understand making people want something they don't need...even when it is tacky. Perception. Peer pressure. Lack of self esteem or self confidnence (If you don't buy this soap you will stink).

McDonald's? Not great at all (Sorry, Andrew). They do have ingredients that are addictive, it has been proven. So does crack. That doesn't make crack great.  They are cheap, so people with less money can go out to eat. They market (again, that marketing thing) to kids and kids drive parents nuts to go there. They are fast and America is all about fast. My God, people can't even swallow their food here before they talk. We get to watch the food spin around in their mouth like a front load washing machine.

Most people in America don't want great. For food they want cheap, fast, and greasy. In art they want something they pay under twenty five dollars for. Trust me, I know. I paint. Everyone wants an original, but they want it for the price of a print at Target. Ain't gonna happen. Therefore, they buy the print. Unless they have money. Then they will pay millions for fine art, EVEN IF IT IS A PIECE THEY DON"T LIKE! Why? Because peers have said it is worth a lot of money and if they own it they are important. Again, self esteem, building of self confidence (false building) and wanting to belong to an elite group. If they can sell it at a profit they don't hesitate because they have no feeling for the piece other than what it is worth.

I suggest listening to the song "In the Gallery" by Dire Straits. That pretty much hits it on the head in regard to creating art (any kind of art, including writing). Gastien whould agree with me.

Is 50 Shades badly written? I don't know, but I am happy for the author. Good for her! That is very cool for her. I just don't think it had much to do with the book and a whole lot to do with The View. Too many friends have read it and found it not that exciting, except for the friends that have not been real adventuresome in reading material in the past.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Jan Strnad said:


> For my money, there is no better hamburger in the Los Angeles area than those sold at Shaka Shack (17th and Ocean Park in Santa Monica), a little hole in the wall place with tables made from surfboards or, if you'd rather, you can sit on a vinyl sofa and eat off a TV tray.
> 
> Their burgers are moist and delicious. You can choose Angus or Kobe beef. Their barbecue sauce is homemade. Buns are made of sweet Hawaiian bread. Two smaller appetites can split a burger.
> 
> ...


I moved away from SoCal without trying Shaka Shack.

I thought you were going to say In and Out. There's a good burger!


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I thought people had gotten over the "newness" of reading about BDSM decades ago when The Story of O was being read by tons of people.


The media have done their best to spin this into something shocking and new. I've read several articles about 50 Shades in which people (who should have known better, like booksellers or agents) were quoted as saying something along the lines of, "Sex in books! Wow, what a great idea!" I admit this is part of my problem with 50 Shades-- it really ticks me off to see the media acting as if E.L. James invented the whole concept of BDSM, or even of sex scenes in general. Not her fault in the least, but it does tend to raise my hackles when the book is mentioned.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Cherise Kelley said:


> I moved away from SoCal without trying Shaka Shack.
> 
> I thought you were going to say In and Out. There's a good burger!


You might have left before Shaka Shack opened up. It's fairly recent...maybe a year or so old.

For fast hamburgers, In 'n' Out is indeed the place to go! They do a riproaring business with their fresh meat patties and fresh fries, sliced before your eyes. Prices are medium, and they always seem to be doing great business.

Caddy, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head!


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

SBJones said:


> Why do fast food restaurants sell so much food. They appeal to the masses and give them what they want. Cheap food and delivered fast. I don't think you will find many highbrow critics applauding the literary genius of Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, Game of Thrones and 50 Shades of popular. There is an old Hollywood mantra. You can make money or win awards. Not both.


The problem lies in confusing popularity with quality. They are not the same thing. There is a lot more money to be made creating something popular and there is nothing wrong with that. However most cultures maintain certain standards of quality which is often overlooked in the clamor for wealth and recognition. We are becoming a culture of "junk." Junk food, junk entertainment, physical junk, etc. If people want to contribute to that they certainly have the right to do that -- time will tell if their contributions are quality or popular junk.

My personal opinion is that 50 Shades benefited from two phenomenon: it was an open imitation of an already very popular series (Twilight) and it was loaded with sentimentality and titillation which got readers all hot and bothered to "see what would happen next." There is nothing wrong with any of this - it certainly worked for the author. I also think the covers helped a lot because, even though many people read on ereaders where no one can see the covers, there is still a cultural reserve on the part of many women (especially) that makes them shy away from covers with exposed body parts.

I had a talk with 2 of my sisters who are younger than I am and who both read the boos. Both of them are married and said that they thought the books were badly written but they read them anyway because they had never read anything like them. They admitted that they were turned on by the books (and that their husbands benefited from it.) I asked if they had read other erotica and they both said no, but they did not consider these book erotica, just sexy stories. They agreed they'd be too embarrassed to buy books with naked body parts on them. It seems odd to me but they genuinely did not equate the 50 Shades books with erotica.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

KayBratt said:


> I'll answer that question without even clicking your link. It's all about connecting emotionally to the characters. If the reader is sufficiently engrossed in their lives and what will happen, they will forget crappy writing skills.
> 
> (Not saying those book have crappy writing, but I'm guessing that is what the subject is implying. I haven't read Fifty Shades, and I actually loved Twilight but only read it to screen it for my pre-teen and was shocked at how it pulled me in.)


You're right on that target with that answer. If the characters are real, if the reader can relate to them, then you don't have to be Leo Tolstoy to sell. But luck also plays a big hand as in everything else in life.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Doomed Muse said:


> Why do we need arbiters of taste? I know what I like and what I don't like (and I can try new things and decide for myself if I like or don't like them). Who cares what someone else says about it?


I think we need them, as a society if not as individuals.

You can ignore them, of course, but I think it's helpful to listen to people who study a field, learn its history, attune themselves to its refinements, and have a wide enough experience in the field to know what is truly exceptional, what's derivative, and what's just plain terrible.

As opposed to an off-the-cuff and largely uninformed "I know what I like."

Judith Crist used to be a practically infallible film critic for me. If she liked it, I'd hate it. If she hated it, I'd probably enjoy every celluloid moment.

Film critics. Food critics. Art critics. Music critics. Book critics. Yeah, I think we need them. They won't all agree, which is good. There are no absolutes. But listening to the most informed people on any subject is good, even though they don't agree, even if you personally come an opposite conclusion.

Frankly, I can walk around the L.A. Museum of Modern Art and find one, maybe two, pieces that I appreciate. (I call it the "Museum of Stuff I Hate.") But I'm glad the museum is there and I'm glad we have artists who are willing to push the envelope and challenge artistic Luddites like me.

I know that a lot of what I enjoy is crap, but I'm also gratified that at least I _know _it's crap.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Jan Strnad said:


> *I think we need them, as a society if not as individuals.*
> 
> You can ignore them, of course, but I think it's helpful to listen to people who study a field, learn its history, attune themselves to its refinements, and have a wide enough experience in the field to know what is truly exceptional, what's derivative, and what's just plain terrible.
> 
> ...


Totally, totally agree!


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Frankly, I can walk around the L.A. Museum of Modern Art and find one, maybe two, pieces that I appreciate. (I call it the "Museum of Stuff I Hate.") But I'm glad the museum is there and I'm glad we have artists who are willing to push the envelope and challenge artistic Luddites like me.


Love this! As Gastien said in my 2nd book, the only art that fails is art that is ignored. As a painter I want to make people think. Most people don't really want to, so then I at least hope to get a reaction. Even a bad reaction legitimizes a piece of art. Thought. Feelings. Reaction. If one gets any of those, they have succeeded.

Personally, I am not a huge fan of realism. That is what a camera does.  Every talented painter can paint something exactly how it looks. Show me something different about the subject. Make me think, feel, react. And then, show me something that has no subject. Color. Texture. Shape. Make me think, fell, react.

Like you have said, liking one or the other does not mean one or the other is not great. It just means art lives and breathes, like a person. No person is loved by everyone.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> I know that a lot of what I enjoy is crap, but I'm also gratified that at least I _know _it's crap.


How do you know it is crap? Because someone told you it was? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

Jan Strnad said:


> Judith Crist used to be a practically infallible film critic for me. If she liked it, I'd hate it. If she hated it, I'd probably enjoy every celluloid moment.


I have a critic like that - my dad. If he recommends a film, I'm almost certainly going to hate it. If he tells me he hates a film, I just have to see it. It's a funny old world...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Why should we expect great writing to have great sales? The people who brand it great are a small subset of consumers.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Actually, they are.
> 
> The combination of ingredients and taste sensations make them literally addictive, as in eat a few and most people will crave more of them.
> You'd wish you could write books that are that addictive.
> ...


Oh, come one, Andrew. You're from Belgium, home of the great French fry, great beer, great chocolate and great food in general. And any hole in the wall _Friteuse_ makes better fries than McDonald's. Just as there are plenty of places that offer better burgers than McDonald's. The reason why so many Big Macs are sold is that they're ubiquitous and that you always know what you're getting, no exceptionally good nor abominably bad surprises. And hey, I eat them, too, on occasion, but great cuisine they're not. And if I had the choice between a hole in the wall _Friteuse_ and McDonald's, I know which one I would go for.

As for _Fifty Shades_, it's success baffles, since it's neither particularly good nor particularly new. The Harlequin Presents line has been peddling controlling billionaires and innocent virgins for decades (and I've always hated that trope) and erotica, including BDSM, has been going strong in e-book form for years now. It's not even the best controlling billionaire and innocent virgin books with hot sex and BDSM out there. Yet this one caught on for whatever reason.

I guess by now it's success is largely marketing and social reading driven. The people buying _Fifty Shades_ now are the ones who only read the books everybody is talking about. I know one of those social readers and I shudder when she'll start talking about _Fifty Shades_.

Plus, booksellers are doing their best to cram the book down everybody's throats. I was at a local brick and mortar chainstore last week and while I was browsing I overheard a woman from the central office telling the staff to put up bigger and more visible _Fifty Shades_ displays, because "that thing will still be selling come Christmas". Afterwards, I approached the woman and told her that while I understood that they had to sell Fifty Shades and other annoying bestsellers, not everybody liked the book and that those of us who don't like the book would be happy to have a wide variety of other books available apart from _Fifty Shades_ and its copycats. The lady was a very good bookseller BTW (probably why she was some high up person with the head office) and handsold me a book.

But we still don't know what made _Fifty Shades_ gain so much momentum in the first place. It probably was the fanfiction connection which started the first word of mouth.

The thing that bothers me most about _Fifty Shades_ is the influence it will have on the romance genre. The romance genre was infested with controlling and abusive heroes (some of whom were outright rapists) and doormat heroines well into the early 1990s and now that we're finally free of those tropes, they come crashing back with a vengeance. Considering that I don't like controlling heroes and virginal doormats and that the Cinderella fantasy doesn't work for me, this isn't good news for me as an occasional reader and writer of romance.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Why should we expect great writing to have great sales? The people who brand it great are a small subset of consumers.


I don't think that's true. "Brand" What an odd word to use. Quality endures. If you don't know the difference between silk and polyester then by all means enjoy the polyester. But there will always be a market for silk.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I don't think that's true. "Brand" What an odd word to use. Quality endures. If you don't know the difference between silk and polyester then by all means enjoy the polyester. But there will always be a market for silk.


Quality endures? That would imply we can brand something as great writing as soon as it is published and test to see if it endures. Perhaps it works the other way. People lead from behind, and brand what endures as quality? They might never know about all the quality that moves through the remainder tables to the industrial shredder.

Maybe great writing has little correlation to sales. That's probably not a welcome idea, but in commercial terms, it's certainly worth asking.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> ...It will never win a Pulitzer or earn me a Lannan grant. It could be a bestseller but only if something tipped it--like that mention by Oprah or if it were made into a major motion picture. Otherwise I don't see the strong hook that would plunge it like a knife into the public consciousness....


Jan,

My point is, a novel doesn't need to do those things to be great writing. (And, in fact, some books that win Pulitzers or earn Lannan grants are trying too hard to "sound" like literature and end up being quite boring, actually. Not all, but some.)

By "very good" or even "great" writing, I simply mean that the author in question knows how to write economically, minimizes "bad writing habits," understands story, plot, pace, motivation, etc., and whose work is generally well edited enough that mistakes are rare, not an every-page occurrence.

(And even some trad-pubbed stuff doesn't measure up to those basic standards. Heck... 50 Shades is trad-pubbed these days, so....)

But there are a lot of "very good to great" writers who DO achieve all those goals... AND even come up with interesting stories on top of it.... and yet don't achieve the success of the poorly-written stuff we know as 50 Shades.

Which is sad.

Because I'm not splitting hairs here between "genre fiction" and pretentious "literature." I'm just saying it'd be nice if well-written genre literature (there are many examples of that here on KB) would find a bit more success than something of 50 Shades quality.

There are people here saying "maybe she's a great storyteller," but I've seen little evidence of that, and few such claims of "great storytelling" by those who've read that behemoth tome.

In fact, the only real claim of skill I've seen consistently related to her writing, that she can claim as her own achievement, is one I read a while back and has been since repeated by others:

"She really knows how to write great sexual tension."

Okay, we'll give her that.

But the quality of the writing isn't great, the characters are paper-thin, motivations are sketchy, I guess we have to give her pacing on the merits of sexual tension, but there's a lot of telling instead of showing and I'm not sure the plot is much of a draw either... being carbon-copied, as it is, from Twilight.

Does that make E.L. James hopeless? No. Obviously she's tapped into some marketing wisdom or something, and the combination of politically incorrect smut, Twilight appeal, sexual tension, and marketing savvy was enough to get the ball rolling.

Is that it? Or did she pull a John Locke at some point and buy some reviews to get the ball rolling? Who knows? Who cares.

Point is, there are lots of books that are better-written. And it's too bad that doesn't count for something. Something that translates into sales.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> For my money, there is no better hamburger in the Los Angeles area than those sold at Shaka Shack (17th and Ocean Park in Santa Monica), a little hole in the wall place with tables made from surfboards or, if you'd rather, you can sit on a vinyl sofa and eat off a TV tray.


I'm new to the Portland area.

But in my year or so of living here, the best burger I've found to date is served at RAM at the Clackamas Town Center Mall.

It's their Mammoth Burger... a full pound of antibiotic-free, homone-free, grass-fed local beef, smoked and seared to perfection and cooked to order just like a steak would be. My wife and I have to go for the gluten-free bun, but it sports Tillamook cheddar and whatever else you want on it. I always have it served with a side of garlic fries, then spoon the extra roasted garlic from the fries onto the burger.

Here's the nicest bit:

The gluten-free buns are small, so if you trim off the over-hanging beef, you get about a 1/2-pound of beef that way... more than enough, with the fries, to be very filling.

Then, you get to take home a bun you've not touched at all, still stuffed with a 1/2-pound of all that goodness, ready for you to heat up another day as leftovers.

The Mammoth Burger (at least I think that's what they call it) at RAM in Clackamas Town Center.

Best burger I've found in Oregon so far. Though the search, as always, continues. (Recently visited The Rendezvous Grill in Welches, which is a close second.)


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Here's a test you can do at home. In one minute, jot down the titles of ten books you remember. Now, do you remember the story or the writing? _Stranger In A Strange Land_ was my first. I don't remember squat about the writing. _Canticle for Leibowitz_ was #2. I don't know how he wrote.

Follow-up. For those who do remember the writing, how does it differ from one book to another? Write down the differences to see if you really do remember the writing. I failed. Zero.

Now, maybe I remember the story because the writing was so great. I don't have a test for that one.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Well, T.L., I blame Stephanie Meyer. And vampire romances in general.

Aren't vampire romances just the precursor to the more-blatant 50 Shades, anyway?

Sure, Edward sparkled and lacked bite.

But he's hardly the only "My Boyfriend Is a Vampire" hero.

Most vampire boyfriends are closer to the dominating type you mentioned here... they are "Damon Salvatore" or worse. The Stefan Salvatore types almost always fall by the wayside for the more controlling ones.

So, is E.L. James fully to blame? Or does it fall on the heads of Stephanie Meyer and L.J. Smith and Charlaine Harris and those lot? 

Take away the vampirism, and it's simply the return of that familiar old trope.

And who are the heroines in vampire romances, if not some low-self-esteem wallflower who never knew she was desirable until she has two vampire boyfriends (or variations on that theme) fighting over her... little of which she makes any effort to curb.

Basically, Bella Swan and her ilk exist simply to be desired by controlling, jerky vampire boyfriends and have no life outside of being wanted by these cretins.

A mild modernization, sure, but still doormat heroines. Didn't Bella try to convince Edward to return to her by jumping off a friggin' cliff or something? How much more gothic-cliche-romance can one get? How much more doormatty?

"Life without Edward isn't worth living! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!" *splat*


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Now, do you remember the story or the writing? Stranger In A Strange Land was my first. I don't remember squat about the writing.


Love Heinlein, read tons of his books in my childhood, and yes, I can absolutely tell you all sorts of problems with his writing. Unrealistic dialogue that speechifies, characters that are basically the same trope across numerous books, poorly written female characters, a tendency to preach instead of move the plot forward... yep, the writing is a big issue for me. But his ideas are interesting enough (or were in the time in which they were written) that they tend to pull the reader past the writing flaws. Some writers can write stuff that's compelling enough to rise above technical flaws.



> I've heard for a few years now how much Twilight is influencing young women to look for men with the same personality as Edward. Who apparently, though I can't say for certain without having read the books, is not good for Bella psychologically speaking.


I'd like to think that women are smart enough to realize that what appeals to them in fiction is not necessarily good for them in real life. I don't like doormat heroines, but I do like tortured heroes in my fiction. I avoid messed-up guys in real life, though.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Amen to this! I've heard for a few years now how much Twilight is influencing young women to look for men with the same personality as Edward. Who apparently, though I can't say for certain without having read the books, is not good for Bella psychologically speaking. Or would not be, assuming they were real people.


I'm with you and Cora. I could't even get through the first _Twilight_ book because Bella was so godawful stupid. I HATE that in female characters. I hate it when an author uses devices like the female character stupidly putting herself in danger so the man can rescue her or the woman taking umbrage at something he did to pitch a hissy fit and stomp off so he comes after her.

You'd think that at his stage of human development writers could stop presenting women as total idiotic saps......


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Love Heinlein, read tons of his books in my childhood, and yes, I can absolutely tell you all sorts of problems with his writing. Unrealistic dialogue that speechifies, characters that are basically the same trope across numerous books, poorly written female characters, a tendency to preach instead of move the plot forward... yep, the writing is a big issue for me. But his ideas are interesting enough (or were in the time in which they were written) that they tend to pull the reader past the writing flaws. Some writers can write stuff that's compelling enough to rise above technical flaws.


Well, our two person sample reveals a 50% chance of remembering the writing. The margin of error on the sample is 69%, so we might not want to publish yet. But perhaps we simply find different behaviors among consumers. I suspect I could look for the things you mention and find them. I definitely am very aware of them in writing, but in reading I find the writing is just the road the story travels on. I'm looking anywhere but down. I haven't read _Shades_, but maybe there are a few more like me, and we're doing all the buying because we find it a compelling story? Our group of lowbrows could be sufficient to propel a best seller regardless of the fact that those who look for the writing are wearing garlic around their necks in the bookstore.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Well, T.L., I blame Stephanie Meyer. And vampire romances in general.
> 
> Aren't vampire romances just the precursor to the more-blatant 50 Shades, anyway?
> 
> ...


How many paranormal romances or urban fantasy novels have you read? Cause I've read a lot of them for academic purposes and even if you narrow it down only to those featuring vampires, you get a wide spectrum of heroines and most of them are not passive doormats, though the passive doormats do exist. Christine Feehan writes quite a lot of those.

Sookie Stackhouse may suffer from low self-esteem at the beginning (there are reasons for this), but she's not a doormat and lets her vampire boyfriends know just what she thinks of attempts to control her. The Elena from the novel version of _The Vampire Diaries_ is quite a bit tougher than the TV version. And even Bella is not quite as passive as everybody makes her out to be. Because throughout the Twilight series, the same pattern repeats over and over again. Bella decides that she wants something. Bella's Dad/Edward/Jacob/the Cullens don't want Bella to do what she wants because it's dangerous. Bella goes ahead and does it anyway. She may need Edward or Jacob or the Cullens to rescue her, but she gets everything she wants. The big problem with Bella is that what she wants (Edward, getting married right out of highschool, babies) is hugely problematic and regressive. But she's not as passive as she's made out to be. That said, _Twilight_ is not a very good example of the genre and I'm baffled why that one became a million seller, while much better books languish in obscurity.

As for E.L. James, she took the most problematic aspects of Bella and Edward, magnified them to the max, added some BDSM sex and created _Fifty Shades of Grey_.

But don't blame the entire paranormal romance and urban fantasy genres for what one writer distilled from the most problematic elements of a not very good series.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> But don't blame the entire paranormal romance and urban fantasy genres for what one writer distilled from the most problematic elements of a not very good series.


 Well and fairly argued.

Just as a note: I'm a huge Charlaine Harris fan and have pretty much everything she's written. Except for shorts in anthologies.

I struggled through part of Twilight and decided to just give in an experience it via the movies.

I've also struggled through part of a Vampire Diaries novel before giving up and letting the TV series be my guide.

I've read a half-decent number of other urban paranormal/vampire romances/etc., but it's not my favorite genre. My wife loves much of the stuff, though not 50 Shades...


----------



## LilianaHart (Jun 20, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> The thing that bothers me most about _Fifty Shades_ is the influence it will have on the romance genre. The romance genre was infested with controlling and abusive heroes (some of whom were outright rapists) and doormat heroines well into the early 1990s and now that we're finally free of those tropes, they come crashing back with a vengeance. Considering that I don't like controlling heroes and virginal doormats and that the Cinderella fantasy doesn't work for me, this isn't good news for me as an occasional reader and writer of romance.


And at the same time, there are a lot of readers out there who enjoy the controlling hero. I don't enjoy the abusive ones, but I do like the very strong alpha male. I'm not alone. And I'll never care as much about a heroine as I will the hero, so she is less important to me. This is the case with 50 Shades and numerous other romances. There is obviously still a big appeal for those kinds of heroes or books like 50 Shades wouldn't sell like they do. The characters do show emotional growth through the series, which is what I look for when I'm reading. There's always going to be that divide when it comes to the romance genre. I happen to intensely dislike heroines that are brash and into feminism and so independent there's nothing left for the man to do but sit back and take direction. That's just me. I don't want that in my romances. It's not what I'm looking for. It's all about the fantasy and the escape.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Even pre _Fifty Shades_, the controlling alpha hero was hardly in danger of dying out (though the rapists and outright abusers luckily had largely died out). But beta heroes were never all that easy to find. And while tough feminist heroines (which I personally love) were getting more popular due to the rise of paranormal romance and urban fantasy, there were still plenty of traditional heroines and even complete pushovers. So in my view, we were finally getting a bit of variety in the romance genre. And now it seems we're moving back to the dynamics of the bodiceripper era which led me to abandon the genre as a teen after trying a couple and hating them.


----------



## CJArcher (Jan 22, 2011)

I think there came a point in the 50 Shades trajectory where people just wanted to read it because everyone else was. Human beings like to be included, feel part of a community, and as the numbers rose, everyone just wanted to "see what all the fuss was about". I heard that comment A LOT when polling friends/neighbours/mums about why they bought it. Love it or hate it, women just wanted to TALK about it. And women, generalizing here, love to talk about things we have in common with our fellow woman. Even if those readers went on to hate it, it gave them something to discuss around the water cooler and feel included in a wider community. I know many women who haven't read a book in years, read these ones, and to tap into that market is very hard to do.

Of course none of the above explains how it arrived at that tipping point in the first place. Perhaps a smaller groundswell of early adopters who loved it and were very vocal/social, in addition to the controversy surrounding the Twilight fanfic aspect...who knows. Not me! I find the phenomenon fascinating from a writer's/observer's perspective - but that doesn't mean I'm going to read the books. Just not my cup of tea.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

LilianaHart said:


> who enjoy the controlling hero. I don't enjoy the abusive ones, but I do like the very strong alpha male.


I think there is a big difference between an alpha male (which I love) and a controlling one (which sounds like he's manipulative.) I'm a big fan of strong men who can deal with adversity and can handle situations but I want to see him as being vulnerable, too, especially when it comes to the woman he's falling in love with. I recently read the very popular _Gone, Girl_ and I was just enthralled with it because, even though I thought Nick deserved what he was getting, Amy was such a shrew that I really waned him to figure out what she had done and do something about it. I felt so cheated by the ending because he turned out to be the pathetic wimp he'd been all along.

My favorite dynamic is for both partners to have their strengths, only in different areas.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> "Anticipation hangs heavy and portentous over my head&#8230;"
> 
> "'So I brought you here," he said phlegmatically.
> 
> ...


Not remotely fair to take sentences out of their original context and say "Look how bad this writing is." You could do that with any of our writings, or even Shakespeare for that matter.

The bottom line is that the books have sold millions and none of us wrote them. I don't know why all of those people loved those books, but they did. The book buying public, as a collective, is never wrong. If they love those books, then they are clearly not badly written and there is some intangible greatness about them that is grabbing people's attention. Are the books _technically_ pristine, no, but neither are most of our writings. But if the writing was truly bad, the books would not be the successes that they are.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

CJArcher said:


> Of course none of the above explains how it arrived at that tipping point in the first place.


Being a TV producer with, presumably, plenty of friends in the media, might have something to do with that.

But, as mentioned, that wouldn't have been enough if she wasn't writing something people wanted to read.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> The bottom line is that the books have sold millions and none of us wrote them. I don't know why all of those people loved those books, but they did. The book buying public, as a collective, is never wrong. If they love those books, then they are clearly not badly written and there is some intangible greatness about them that is grabbing people's attention. Are the books technically pristine, no, but neither are most of our writings. But if the writing was truly bad, the books would not be the successes that they are.


Well said. Don't you just hate it when consumers won't listen to their betters?


----------



## KMatthew (Mar 21, 2012)

I am actually about a quarter of the way through the first book and can safely say that I absolutely loathe it. I'm just reading it to see what all the fuss is about. The writing isn't great, but it's certainly not the worst I've ever seen. I swear that some of the dialogue was ripped directly from Twilight though, and she just changed the settings and a word or two. (Not literally, but they're so close you would know exactly what part of Twilight some sections of the book were derived from)

I've been fighting to see the appeal, but I just can't. The whole powerful controlling billionaire thing, and the fact that so many women are into it, really makes me wonder about society and what has drawn everyone to this kind of story. The psychology of popular trends is so interesting, and at times, worrisome.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Oh, come one, Andrew. You're from Belgium, home of the great French fry, great beer, great chocolate and great food in general. And any hole in the wall _Friteuse_ makes better fries than McDonald's. Just as there are plenty of places that offer better burgers than McDonald's. The reason why so many Big Macs are sold is that they're ubiquitous and that you always know what you're getting, no exceptionally good nor abominably bad surprises. And hey, I eat them, too, on occasion, but great cuisine they're not. And if I had the choice between a hole in the wall _Friteuse_ and McDonald's, I know which one I would go for.


Oh dear&#8230; I forgot the snarky smiley and this is what I get. 

Full disclosure: It has been about ten years since I last ate (I use the word loosely) at McDonald's. For what they're offering I think they're vastly overpriced. And yes, food-wise we're spoiled in Belgium.

I write strictly for myself and only then I publish for others. I make no concessions to "the" reader. Love it or leave it.

The point I was so ineptly trying to make was that making junk - junk that sells - is in and by itself an art form. McDonald's has a formula (an a recipe) that makes them millions. James has stumbled on the literary equivalent. I don't think she cares (very much) about her place in the literary pantheon. Neither does her bank manager, I think.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

> The bottom line is that the books have sold millions and none of us wrote them. I don't know why all of those people loved those books, but they did. The book buying public, as a collective, is never wrong. If they love those books, then they are clearly not badly written and there is some intangible greatness about them that is grabbing people's attention. Are the books technically pristine, no, but neither are most of our writings. But if the writing was truly bad, the books would not be the successes that they are.


So we're back to sales = quality, to which I reply, "B.S." Ten, or five, or two years from now, nobody is going to consider the Fifty Shades books to be "quality." Heck, most people don't consider them "quality" now.

We have to agree to disagree on what is "quality" at this point.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Greg Banks said:


> But if the writing was truly bad, the books would not be the successes that they are.


There's a vast difference between "truly bad" and "great writing" as the original question asks. Success does not, by definition, make something that is serviceable, great. It only makes it popular -- like Big Macs or Snooki or wearing your pants with your underwear hanging out.


----------



## Learnmegood (Jun 20, 2009)

I figured it's sold so well because it's porn.  I mean, people download porn all day long, even when the "actors" are far from good-looking...


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Learnmegood said:


> I figured it's sold so well because it's porn. I mean, people download porn all day long, even when the "actors" are far from good-looking...


By all accounts there isn't even any sex until seventy or eighty pages in and the BDSM stuff starts even later than that. If it was just about the porn, there's plenty of stuff that's better written and gets to the point quicker.


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

I would consider what sells "great writing", because when it comes down to it the popular books are what the most people consider great writing.

Really I don't know if there is such a thing as great writing, there are just great stories. And if twenty million people think 50 shades is a great story then I feel it a little arrogant to argue with them. If you can get a reader to go "I want to know what happens next" that is all that really matters. 

Writing mechanics are overrated.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> So we're back to sales = quality, to which I reply, "B.S." Ten, or five, or two years from now, nobody is going to consider the Fifty Shades books to be "quality." Heck, most people don't consider them "quality" now.
> 
> We have to agree to disagree on what is "quality" at this point.


Stephen King makes an effective argument in the context of his novel, IT, that while getting paid/published may not be everything, it does prove something.

The folks on these threads have taken King's point a bit too much to heart, I think.

Sales proves SOMETHING, yes. But it's not the only yardstick by which to measure effective and successful storytelling. It's just one part of the picture.

For example:

I remember in English class once having a professor lecture on some of the most popular books of the turn of the century (1900s).

At that time, a lot of penny-dreadfuls were selling like hotcakes; the popular topic among them were tales of innocent country young men or women lured into the glitz and glamour of urban life and away from the simple values of their rural hometown. They usually ended with a religious conversion and a return to the rural home.

The INFLUENCES of those novels can be seen in the Kansas sequences and "moral lessons" of the Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum. Though most of that ilk were not as skillfully woven as Baum's work. It was a real puzzling genre, because the "sins of the big city life" gave readers the lurid thrill of stuff most folks of that era disapproved of -- alcohol, loose sexual mores, crime, etc. -- all while wrapping it in a religious cloak of purity.

Anyway, those were huge sellers at the time; yet Mark Twain, who wrote "immoral literature" where young boys cussed and disrespected their parents and swindled others -- in the moral rural country, no less -- were not as immediately popular. But virtually none of those penny dreadfuls are even remembered today, whereas Twain's tales persist.

So, on the one hand, that makes the argument that sales prove very little.

But do they prove nothing?

Can't say that, either. Another illustration:

Critics love to laud obscure, poor-selling books by Charles Dickens, such as Bleak House, as "among his finest works." In the minds of the stiff-upper-lip academics, his worst tale... we are lectured to breathlessly that even DICKENS didn't take it seriously... was his holiday serial, A CHRISTMAS CAROL.

"Written for MONEY," these professors say in disparaging, hateful tones.

A CHRISTMAS CAROL sold better than BLEAK HOUSE at the time, and is the one Dickens plot virtually everyone recognizes, story-beat by story-beat. A tale constantly told and retold for well over 120 years.

So, that says something, too. A CHRISTMAS CAROL is definitely the more striking tale, the most enduring of everything he wrote. And those still arguing that Bleak House is superior? Well, I guess a few graduate lit class students are forced to agree, for the purpose of a passing grade. 

What does this all prove?

That there are no simple answers here.

Sales proves something, but not everything, about what constitutes a good story or not.

But is the reading public "never wrong," as some have suggested?

I'd suggest that is an overstatement.

Commercial appeal -- who the reading public embraces immediately -- is a factor, yes... but only one factor among several.


----------



## Adam Kisiel (Jun 20, 2011)

I had a similar discussion with my sister lately. She said that the key is that the author of 50 shades is a normal housewife, so she can write the exact way that is perferct for an ordinary housewife, who is the main target of this book.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> She said that the key is that the author of 50 shades is a normal housewife, so she can write the exact way that is perferct for an ordinary housewife, who is the main target of this book.


Hey, _I'm _a normal housewife! And yet for some reason, I haven't sold millions of copies. But if that's the key, then hopefully my day will come soon.


----------



## Adam Kisiel (Jun 20, 2011)

I really hope that you will get discovered and sell a million copies as well. Good luck! I'll have a look on your books. And by the way, consider submitting them to my site, Goodkindles


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

Adam Kisiel said:


> I had a similar discussion with my sister lately. She said that the key is that the author of 50 shades is a normal housewife, so she can write the exact way that is perferct for an ordinary housewife, who is the main target of this book.


That is a very good point. I always think that a lot of the success or failure of books lies in their accessibility, which is why twilight, harry potter, and 50 shades succeeded in my opinion.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Shane Murray said:


> That is a very good point. I always think that a lot of the success or failure of books lies in their accessibility, which is why twilight, harry potter, and 50 shades succeeded in my opinion.


Accessibility doesn't explain Steig Larssen...  Just sayin'.... That guy's prose is as dense as the cast of Dumb and Dumber.


----------



## Revolution (Sep 17, 2012)

In that interview, was anyone else thinking roz from frasier? 


Back on the book, I've read a few pages and thought it wasn't terrible, in fact I thought it was amusing, but considering I'm a 21 y/o male, let's just say I didn't proceed to the register.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

When I hear ordinary housewife, I think of something out of the 50s. That's definitely not EL James. She and her husband are both professionals, she's a television producer and he's a tv writer (of some really great stuff btw). I think it's the modern married career woman who's really the point of connection. 

I think a big part of why 50 broke out is it didn't feel like a romance novel, from the dark grey cover, to the "kinky fuckery," to the mentality of the heroine. (It certainly ends like one and I hated the ending.) I think by being a little different, it gave a lot of women who wouldn't otherwise have done so permission to read a romance novel. The same would be true I think for Twilight or Sookie Stackhouse.

Also, I have to admit, those awkward quotes really aren't unrepresentative. Many of the "inner goddess" comments read just as awkwardly in context. Ridiculous sex descriptions, she gets a pass on. They are inevitable if you go over 5000 words.


----------



## LilianaHart (Jun 20, 2011)

Shane Murray said:


> Really I don't know if there is such a thing as great writing, there are just great stories. And if twenty million people think 50 shades is a great story then I feel it a little arrogant to argue with them. If you can get a reader to go "I want to know what happens next" that is all that really matters.
> 
> Writing mechanics are overrated.


Yes, yes, yes. I agree completely. Well said.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

The much-maligned reader has decided that these books are worth reading. I don't understand the phenomenon, but the author must have done something right to have attracted so many readers.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Katie Elle said:


> When I hear ordinary housewife, I think of something out of the 50s. That's definitely not EL James. She and her husband are both professionals, she's a television producer and he's a tv writer (of some really great stuff btw). I think it's the modern married career woman who's really the point of connection.


American and British media coverage tends to stress E.L. James' ordinariness, which is probably deliberate. Look, the woman who wrote is a nice ordinary wife and mother and she's not weird or a slut for writing this. Which means that it's okay for you, ordinary wife and mother, to read this and that it won't make you a slut. There's still the assumption - as most erotica and romance writers on this board can attest - that people who write about sex are somehow deviant.

But the truth is that E.L. James is not an ordinary housewife, but a TV professional living in a fairly well-off part of London. And her TV writer husband really did write some great crime dramas. He was a regular writer on the show _Wire in the Blood_, which had a couple of BDSM themed episodes, including something with BDSM contracts, come to think of it.



CraigInTwinCities said:


> Accessibility doesn't explain Steig Larssen...  Just sayin'.... That guy's prose is as dense as the cast of Dumb and Dumber.


Regarding Stieg Larsson, I strongly suspect that the stylistic issues of his trilogy stem from a bad translation, since it's only British and American readers who complain about Larsson's bad writing. It's impossible to tell without reading the Swedish original, though. And Larsson definitely could have used some editing in either language.


----------



## olefish (Jan 24, 2012)

Look here we are inducing principles from outliers. How can you forget so easily the bestsellers of yesteryear that have sunk without a trace?  Look at Lace, or Princess Daisy, and the like.  And they sold like hot cakes, and then they died.

Works exist on a spectrum between entertainment and mental stimulation.  Just because some work made a millions dollars doesn't suddenly mean we can't make judgment of its entertainment to mental stimulation ratio. Sure you might fail to see the value in mental stimulation or that intellectualism goes over your head, but it doesn't mean some popular works aren't devoid of mental stimulation. Just like some viral videos on youtube are utterly stupid.

I suppose what you might object to is the value judgement of crap vs great literature. How about we call crap popcorn instead? Does that make you feel better about your self-image as an intelligent reader?

Some works are popcorn, some works are cabbages or brussel sprouts.  Don't insist on calling popcorn cabbages because you're afraid of hurting the egos of twenty million readers.


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

I want to know how the 50 Shades "buzz" started. 

It had to be word of mouth that pushed the first book's initial sales, although other books that many readers recommend to their friends don't have the success of 50. Somehow those early sales snowballed into the kind of volume that attracted media attention, which then shot sales into the stratosphere, which garnered even more media attention and resulted in a $5 million movie contract. 

I want to know what fired this book off initially so I can do the same with mine!!! Somewhere there's a brilliant publicity machine that is as of yet unidentified.

Confession: I read all three books. They have the same formula as many romances: bad boy Alpha hero is brought to his knees by the heroine and they end with a happily ever. In this case, the BDSM was simply a plot device. I think what kept readers turning the pages wasn't the repetitive sex, but the need to find out what made Christian tick.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

I have not read this thread, so I am only responding to the thread title with the following statement:

Most people who enjoy _50 Shades of Gray_ are probably _not_ reading it for the quality of the writing. Just like most people who went to see _Magic Mike_ didn't go for the plot. Just sayin'.

_50 Shades of Gray_, for all the crap it gets on writer's forums, is perfectly suited to its intended market. As evidenced by its sales.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

And I'll respond to the member who speculated it was popular because it is "porn." I read it. There, I said it.  I was curious to know something about it so that I could comment about it. And, frankly, I didn't find the focus on sex to be any more than in the latest JD Robb _In Death_ books....except that the whole point of the book is kind of their relationship. But from all the hype I kind of expected more....

And, no, I'm not interested enough to read the others....

Betsy


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

One of the big keys in the 50 Shades thing seemed to be that it hit the NY elites and they were in or had family or friends who were in the mainstream media who wrote about this naughty book being talked about. I think I first heard about it on NPR. I can't think of any other romance novels, nevermind erotic romance novels, being talked about on NPR


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Katie Elle said:


> One of the big keys in the 50 Shades thing seemed to be that it hit the NY elites and they were in or had family or friends who were in the mainstream media who wrote about this naughty book being talked about. I think I first heard about it on NPR. I can't think of any other romance novels, nevermind erotic romance novels, being talked about on NPR


That's part of the "famous for being famous" aspect, I think. They weren't talking about it while it was obscure.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

CoraBuhlert said:


> But the truth is that E.L. James is not an ordinary housewife, but a TV professional living in a fairly well-off part of London. And her TV writer husband really did write some great crime dramas. He was a regular writer on the show _Wire in the Blood_, which had a couple of BDSM themed episodes, including something with BDSM contracts, come to think of it.


I think this is a very relevant point. She already had access toa level of exposure that most of us can only dream of. (I LOVED _Wire in the Blood_!) I would estimate that half of the people I've talked to who read it said that the writing was pretty bad but they got hooked on the titillation. Quite a few of them said they had never even heard of some of the stuff written about and that kept them going. One of my sisters (who lives in a small town and has been married to the same guy since she was 19) said "do people really _do_ stuff like this?"

As far as the definition of "quality" is concerned, I suppose we all have our own definitions. Like I said, lots and lots of people LOVE Big Macs and think they are the best burgers available.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Perhaps quality is a measure of how well a product does its job. Many factors can contribute to that, but performance trumps them all. I'd say the job of Shades is to provide entertainment. In that case, _Shades_ seems to be doing a very good job. Perhaps a great job.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> That's part of the "famous for being famous" aspect, I think. They weren't talking about it while it was obscure.


I don't think that was it, I was seeing articles about moms on the Upper East Side reading it back in January when it was still indie published and almost impossible to find as a physical book. It was on the Amazon bestsellers for sure, but it wasn't the blockbuster that it is now where you can pick it up in the supermarket.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned the books that stayed with us the longest and I've been thinking about that. The book I love the most is Hemingway's _A Moveable Feast_ for the gorgeousness of the language - spare but perfect - and his unique ability to observe with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek. That is followed by _To Kill A Mockingbird_ which has the best characters of all time. In fact all the books I love are either about the beauty of the writing (_The Martian Chronicles_ and Ron Hansen's _Mariette in Ecstasy_) or wonderful characters (almost anything by James Lee Burke or Alice Hoffman.)

My mother always said when I was a little kid I'd come home from the movies and I would have no idea what the movie was about but I could describe every outfit worn and every setting.


----------



## MegSilver (Feb 26, 2012)

We were talking about this a couple weeks ago, and there are two points I've not yet seen brought up.

1) The appeal of forced seduction plays a huge part in Fifty Shade popularity. Don't mistake the appeal of BDSM for forced seduction; they're similar creatures but not at all the same.

2) "Social currency": I don't mean like "it's happening right now" currency, I mean a sort of payment system where, by jumping on the bandwagon-du-jour, a person buys social inclusion or acceptance. This happens with all the big entertainment hits. Fans buy inclusion to 'I hate it' and 'I love it' camps by expressing like or dislike. Twilight shows this in any number of ways. First everyone loved it, then everyone hated it, and let us not forget Team Edward and Team Jacob. Fifty Shades Hate is now the big currency. 

Wool may one day be currency, though it's still in its "cool kid" phase.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Perhaps quality is a measure of how well a product does its job. Many factors can contribute to that, but performance trumps them all. I'd say the job of Shades is to provide entertainment. In that case, _Shades_ seems to be doing a very good job. Perhaps a great job.


Okay, Terrance, I get it - you LOVE the books. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Okay, Terrance, I get it - you LOVE the books. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.


Seems you got it wrong. I haven't read the book.

But how about consumers? They have read it. Are they also entitled to their opinions? I'd say they are. And it seems many of them do LOVE the books. Is it fair to say the product did its job for those consumers? It's also fair to say the book proved it did its job zillions of times, so a favorable response has been replicated over and over.

So my proposition is that quality is a measure of how well a product does its job. Evidence shows it did it very well.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> So my proposition is that quality is a measure of how well a product does its job. Evidence shows it did it very well.


So, if someone writes a book that is intended to be bad (George Berger, come on down!), that is intended to be scorned and ignored, and it is indeed scorned and ignored, that is a "quality book" because it did its job?

A book that is intended to incite racial hatred (say, some kind of neo-Nazi hate-lit) and succeeds in doing so is a "quality book" because it did its job?

A book telling pedophiles how to get away with it, which sells well to pedophiles, is a "quality book" because it did its job?

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.


----------



## DCBourone (Sep 10, 2012)

megsilver and all others who referred/described a "social inclusion" phenomenon, good call.
Don't know anyone in extended circle of women friends who "liked" it at all.
Know quite a number who purchased based on word of mouth.
A token, now, for them to discuss, pro or con.

Martin Cruz Smith, Stallion Gate, describing mathematician Anna Weiss:  

"....she wore black coveralls that suggested she was a member of an army
of Amazons, or labored in a factory of mourners, or had been dipped in ink."

A bit painful to imagine more eyes on 50 Shades than on Stallion Gate.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 90% of the writing advice I read on this board geared toward writing books that will please the reader? "Show, don't tell," because that's what the reader wants (according to some).
James seems to have written something that the reader wants. The reader of today, and it's earning her oodles of cash, also today. Granted, tomorrow she may be forgotten, but so are a lot of prestigious literary prize winners. The difference? James is probably a whole lot richer.
Seems to me some of the comments here are inspired by a hefty dose of jealousy.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

I was being mildly sarcastic about the "normal housewife" thing. My point was that plenty of books are written by "ordinary" people (I am not really sure what an "ordinary housewife" might be, and I feel a small bristling in my feminist hackles as I type the phrase, so I think I'll avoid the topic further). There are also plenty of "porn" books. It's easy to say, "Porn sells," or "Kinky sex sells," or "books that hit on topics that appeal to ordinary people sell." It's all true, as far as it goes. And yet as I keep saying, there are gazillions of books out there by "ordinary" authors which are "porn," and none of them are selling as well as 50 Shades.



> I want to know what fired this book off initially so I can do the same with mine!!! Somewhere there's a brilliant publicity machine that is yet unidentified.


It's not unidentified. The book started off as Twilight fanfic. It's a large and rabidly enthusiastic fandom. She had plenty of fans before the book was ever published, so naturally it wasn't hard for her to get some word of mouth going, and she managed to mobilize her fans quite effectively. This seems to have created a snowball effect. It gave the book a good start, but I doubt the snowball would have ever gotten so large if the book didn't appeal to its target audience.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Jan Strnad said:


> So, if someone writes a book that is intended to be bad (George Berger, come on down!), that is intended to be scorned and ignored, and it is indeed scorned and ignored, that is a "quality book" because it did its job?
> 
> A book that is intended to incite racial hatred (say, some kind of neo-Nazi hate-lit) and succeeds in doing so is a "quality book" because it did its job?
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Which brings us right back to the McDonald's Big Mac analogy. Quantity sold does not equate quality. Quality sold = danged good marketing campaign. Fifty Shades has a built-in fanbase, E.L. James had a built-in fan base, and you combine those two with her career? It isn't such a mystery any more.
> 
> Kathleen, your sister's comment - very interesting. Reminds me of someone I know who won't even wear colored underwear because they think it is trashy. Trashy isn't maybe the right word, but I can't figure the right way to phrase it out just at the moment. Loose! There's the word.


I completely agree. Reading this thread I'm starting to think Friedrich Nietzsche had a point, there are limits beyond which some minds cannot go.

I love my sister (especially because she is an avid reader) but she is a little naive. It's part of her charm.


----------



## eBookCoverDesignery (Sep 15, 2012)

I think it all comes down to the fact that it filled a niche that needed attention.

The first time I heard about it was an article in Entertainment Weekly.  I don't know if they came up with the label for it, but they described it as "mommy porn."  

That's a market I never heard of before, and I bet others never have either.  A bunch of readers probably never knew such a thing existed, and they looked into it by the millions.  Then buzz built on top of buzz and a runaway hit was born.  

I think this could be a case study for a Marketing 101 class.  Find an under-served market, give them something that meets their needs, and you'll own that demo.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

eBookCoverDesignery said:


> I think it all comes down to the fact that it filled a niche that needed attention.


I think that's a good point. I remember when _The DaVinci Code_ came out. I read it, thought the writing was weak and that Langdon was a drip but I got enthralled by the art and the clues and the history. It was a huge success and spawned hundreds of "Templar" and "Grail" and "Mary Magdalene" books that were very popular for awhile and still have something of a market.

Part of me (the part that knows I'll get in trouble if I get political) wonders if this fascination with BDSM isn't an unconscious response to the wave of religiosity, prudishness, and suppression of women's rights that is rumbling around these days. I don't know, it's just a theory. Anne Rice, who wrote her BDSM Beauty Trilogy nearly 20 years ago, has been thrilled by its resurgence in the wake of the 50 Shades phenomenon. She said she couldn't believe her eyes when she saw them on sale at Costco because they were considered so scandalous when they were first published.

I think a lot of trends reflect the times in which they occur.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> So, if someone writes a book that is intended to be bad (George Berger, come on down!), that is intended to be scorned and ignored, and it is indeed scorned and ignored, that is a "quality book" because it did its job?
> 
> A book that is intended to incite racial hatred (say, some kind of neo-Nazi hate-lit) and succeeds in doing so is a "quality book" because it did its job?
> 
> ...


Sure. But the user defines the purpose for the product. If he's looking to read a bad book, the book really is bad, and the book is intended to meet that purpose, then the book achieves its purpose. Those examples above are just products with an intended purpose. Just like widgets. We might not like the purpose, we might not like the users, we might not like the producers, and we might not like the function, but the product succeeds in meeting its purpose for its users.

And MacDonald's burgers? They are intended to meet the purpose of a quick and cheap meal. They do that very well for millions of people everyday. We know that because consumers keep replicating past experiences. It's hard to tell those millions they are wrong about that burger meeting its purpose. Definitely quality when we expand our horizons to recognize all aspects of the product as used.

I think we are severing form from function, and demanding only form be the standard of quality. There is also a theme here that quality is only present if the product is in use long after it was made. That's interesting, but many products are made for immediate consumption in a specific environment. Books can do that, too.

So, I have proposed that quality is a measure of a product achieving its purpose for consumers. Anyone else have a proposition for defining quality? There might even be a measure for quality in the form of the product, and another one for the function of the product. There's really no reason to insist quality must reside in one or the other. I have, but I'd attack my position from the form side. Go for it. Ain't this a great country?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> And MacDonald's burgers? They are intended to meet the purpose of a quick and cheap meal. They do that very well for millions of people everyday. We know that because consumers keep replicating past experiences. It's hard to tell those millions they are wrong about that burger meeting its purpose.


The Big Mac wouldn't have sold so well for so long if people didn't think it was a pretty good burger. If they didn't enjoy it, they would have ordered something else from the McDonald's menu, or gone to Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. Marketing can only go so far; market if all you want, but if people don't like the product, they won't buy. People have chosen the Big Mac over other products.

A Big Mac isn't the best burger you can get, all but the most die-hard Big Mac fans (and they do exist!) would tell you that you that. You can probably get a better burger at a sit down restaurant. But the Big Mac has the advantage of being cheap and fast, and that sways a lot of people. 50 Shades isn't cheaper to buy or faster to buy than other books, thus people are buying the book on what they perceive its merits to be. Sales of books is *a* measure of quality, but not the only one.

I have no intention of reading 50 Shades, and I don't care for the Big Mac. But readers and eaters have chosen what they like.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

QuantumIguana said:


> I have no intention of reading 50 Shades, and I don't care for the Big Mac. But readers and eaters have chosen what they like.


Nobody is arguing that they are popular, the question was if popularity means it is great. I say no but others feel otherwise.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

It _is_ a great country!

By your definition, a book used as a doorstop would be considered a "quality book" if it held the door open. An amateur's epic fantasy, largely unreadable and derivative (no, I'm not thinking of any particular book), weighing in at 1200 pages would be a "quality book" and _The Old Man and the Sea_ wouldn't.

If you set the bar low enough, any book could be considered a "quality book."

Need paper in the outhouse? Hey, here's another "quality book" over here....

You're just giving another version of the "if it sells it must be good" argument, vs. my "elitist snob" argument that, no, some writing is actually better than other writing, and you actually can apply objective standards to writing as well as informed, subjective judgments. And yes, I do believe that some people's judgments carry more weight than others'.

The quality can't be quantified and there will be no universal agreement as to what is good and what isn't, and to what degree, but you _will_ find a general consensus among informed individuals that _Raging Bull_ is a better film than _Hangover 2_, that _The Birth of Venus_ by Botticelli is a better painting than Dogs Playing Poker, and that _The Grapes of Wrath_ is a better book than...hey, let's say _Risen_ (my horror novel).

People might choose to go see _Hangover 2_, prefer a print of Dogs Playing Poker for the man cave, and even reading a horror novel over an classic social commentary. But that doesn't make them better...unless you gerrymander the boundaries of "quality" to encompass "sales," which puts us right back where we started a few pages ago.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> I think that's a good point. I remember when _The DaVinci Code_ came out. I read it, thought the writing was weak and that Langdon was a drip but I got enthralled by the art and the clues and the history. It was a huge success and spawned hundreds of "Templar" and "Grail" and "Mary Magdalene" books that were very popular for awhile and still have something of a market.
> 
> Part of me (the part that knows I'll get in trouble if I get political) wonders if this fascination with BDSM isn't an unconscious response to the wave of religiosity, prudishness, and suppression of women's rights that is rumbling around these days. I don't know, it's just a theory. Anne Rice, who wrote her BDSM Beauty Trilogy nearly 20 years ago, has been thrilled by its resurgence in the wake of the 50 Shades phenomenon. She said she couldn't believe her eyes when she saw them on sale at Costco because they were considered so scandalous when they were first published.
> 
> I think a lot of trends reflect the times in which they occur.


I've read and enjoyed all three of the 50 shades books, and I think they are popular for a few reasons:

1. Most importantly, there's a huge transformation of the hero from beginning to end. The heroine's love changes him. Love conquers all, heals all wounds etc....a popular theme the world over.

2. The BDSM angle makes it fresh. The books don't scream out BDSM the way a lot of erotica books do. There's no naked people on the covers, instead we have a simple tie on one, hand cuffs on another. You could read this book in public (before everyone knew the name) and no one would know what you were reading. It brought BDSM into the mainstream this way. It gave people a peek into a world they may be very unfamiliar with....and a little curious about.

3. She's a very good story-teller. The books flow well and are fast paced page-turners. They are entertaining.

I don't think anyone is saying the writing is 'great'. But, it doesn't have to be. Filet Mignon is great, but sometimes you're just in the mood for a Big Mac, fries and a coke...


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> Nobody is arguing that they are popular, the question was if popularity means it is great. I say no but others feel otherwise.


I think there are lots of popular things that aren't of high quality, as defined by whatever group or force defines quality for that medium.

Take television. Modern Family, a show I adore, keeps winning the Emmy. High quality, according to the television people. I think more people watch Jersey Shore. Popular, but not quality. Still, to those who love it, it might be great.

Movies. Wild Hogs made more money than Gran Torino. In filmaking and story, Gran Torino is far superior. But lots of people thought Wild Hogs was great.

Books are no different. The people who nominate for literary awards wouldn't even wipe their dirty backsides with pages from 50 Shades or _most_ books that achieve that kind of success. They're not quality literature according to those standards. But millions of readers can still think they're great.

So they can be great to some people and not to others. But that doesn't change the fact that they may not be high quality according to the standards of their particular medium.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> It is a great country!


Glad we agree on something. It gets lonely out here.



> By your definition, a book used as a doorstop would be considered a "quality book" if it held the door open.


No. It would be a quality doorstop if it kept the owner's door open. I suppose we could also look at how well it works for kindling, leveling tables, and making mulch. But that opens up a really wide range. But since that's where you are roaming, let me say I am referring to using a book for reading.



> You're just giving another version of the "if it sells it must be good" argument, vs. my "elitist snob" argument that, no, some writing is actually better than other writing, and you actually can apply objective standards to writing as well as informed, subjective judgments. And yes, I do believe that some people's judgments carry more weight than others'.


No. I propose quality is a measure of the product meeting the user's purpose. Sales easily quantifies that. And I said nothing about the Bandar Log argument. So who hefts around the most weight?



> The quality can't be quantified and there will be no universal agreement as to what is good and what isn't, and to what degree, but you will find a general consensus among informed individuals that Raging Bull is a better film than Hangover 2, that The Birth of Venus by Botticelli is a better painting than Dogs Playing Poker, and that The Grapes of Wrath is a better book than...hey, let's say Risen (my horror novel).


That's simply a measure accepted by some subset of consumers. I agree there won't be universal agreement. I can't think of any reason to throw the other 300 million off the island. Perhaps some of the informed individuals here will tell us their standards?



> But that doesn't make them better...unless you gerrymander the boundaries of "quality" to encompass "sales," which puts us right back where we started a few pages ago.


Seems to be a movement to gerrymander the boundaries to include just those informed individuals of the consensus? Anyone remember when the gatekeepers' barricades were breached to the rallying cry of, "Let the readers decide?" Those gatekeepers are like Whack-A-Mole, popping up all over the place.

I wonder if the issue comes down to approval of the consumer's purpose? Do the informed individuals of the consensus have one set of purposes, while the lumpen have others? And if so, can quality only flow from meeting the purpose of the informed individuals? A book meets one set of purposes, we like those purposes, so it's quality? A book meets another set of purposes, we don't much like those purposes, so the book fails the quality screening?


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

PamelaKelley said:


> I've read and enjoyed all three of the 50 shades books, and I think they are popular for a few reasons:
> 
> 1. Most importantly, there's a huge transformation of the hero from beginning to end. The heroine's love changes him. Love conquers all, heals all wounds etc....a popular theme the world over.
> 
> ...


Ah! Someone has finally jumped in who actually read the books being discussed. I have as well.
The 50 Shades books have the same formula as many romances: bad boy Alpha hero is brought to his knees by the heroine and they end with a happily ever after. In this case, the BDSM was simply a plot device. 
I think what kept readers turning the pages wasn't the repetitive sex, but the need to find out what made Christian tick. I agree that E.L. is a good story-teller or the second and third books in the trilogy would never have made it to the best seller lists, let alone hold the top spots for almost six months. Readers who picked up the first from curiosity or for the social connection with others would have stopped reading after one. Instead they bought two more. Story trumps writing, which is why so few literary novels become best sellers.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Terrence,

What a lovely discussion! Thanks!

In thinking about it--the hallmark of a great discussion is its ability to challenge one's preconceptions and make you think--I believe that the basic difference between us is the definition of "quality."

You seem to be talking about great products. I'm talking about great items.

Getting back to McDonald's.

McDonald's produces great products. They meet the needs of many people for fast, cheap stuff to assuage hunger. They sell a lot.

Their products, however, are not great food. Check out _Super-Size Me_, the documentary about one man's attempt to live on McDonald's products exclusively for a month. Before the month was over, he was suffering such negative health effects that his doctor insisted that he cease the experiment immediately. As "food," McDonald's products fail the most basic quality test: They may fill your stomach, but they don't support life.

Yes, I do put more faith in the judgment of experts in any given field to determine quality than I put in the opinions of the "lumpen" (a word I plan to add to my vocabulary). I trust rose fanciers to choose the best rose in the show. I trust the Oscar voters (where actors vote on the Best Actor award, sound engineers choose Best Sound Design, etc.) to come up with excellent endorsements in their areas. In very many contests, this split between the experts' decisions and the "lumpen's" is demonstrated by the fact that they'll have a separate category for "people's choice." Getting back to the Oscars, which awards program has the greater cachet, the Academy Awards or the People's Choice Awards?

So, yeah, I'm very comfortable in the judgment that _Fifty Shades of Gray_ is not well written, according to the people who study literature. I'll also concede that it's a very successful *product *nonetheless. That doesn't make it a "good book" any more than the popularity of McDonald's products makes them "good food."


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> I trust the Oscar voters (where actors vote on the Best Actor award, sound engineers choose Best Sound Design, etc.) to come up with excellent endorsements in their areas.


By that standard Titanic is a great work of art. 

To me it is the Big Mac of movie making.

There is one factor lacking in this discussion: the test of time. Only a true work of art will speak to people through the ages. It doesn't matter that Shakespeare's language seems pompous and out of time (which it is of course - but then again it was disparaged in his own time as well). We can make abstraction of the form and connect with the core of what he had to say about the human condition. We can replace his kings with presidents and dictators, his barons with captains of industry and the basic message still makes sense, more, is still recognizable. And still touches both the mind and the heart.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> So, yeah, I'm very comfortable in the judgment that Fifty Shades of Gray is not well written, according to the people who study literature. I'll also concede that it's a very successful product nonetheless. That doesn't make it a "good book" any more than the popularity of McDonald's products makes them "good food."


I sure can't dispute that. All we have to do is observe the evaluation of literary students and we can see they don't think it is well written. They say so. I don't think there is much room for argument. So that is one evaluation. Nor can I dispute your comfort with that. You are the final authority on that.

Then we look at what consumers think, and we see the opposite. Again, it's observation, not argument. So that's another evaluation.

I have no trouble dealing with the fact that there are two contradictory evaluations, and I suspect they use different standards. What I do challenge is that these evaluations must be reconciled into one single verdict, or that one should be discarded in favor of the other.

Maybe we could communicate better if we just dropped the term "great writing" and instead used more precision. For example, _"Why has 50 Shades Of Grey Sold Millions of Copies When Students of Literature Say It Isn't Great Writing."_


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Haven't read _Fifty Shades _ and don't plan to, but I did read the "Look Inside" sample. And it is not good writing.

Some things are better than others--they just are. And sales don't always indicate quality. Why be seduced by all this subjectivism and mob mentality.

And it ain't elitist or snobbery or (stick in your own favorite pejorative) to say that some books are just poorly written--even if they sell tons of copies.

Anyone ever read Lewis' _The Abolition of Man_? The problem is, as he points out so well (and again in the fictional vehicle _That Hideous Strength)_, that we don't have the trained sentiments anymore to distinguish the bad from the good.

The ability to make value judgments is one of the main things that separates us from beasts.

Big Macs aren't all that good, and neither is caviar. But T-bone steaks sure are.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Why has 50 Shades of Grey sold millions of copies when it is not great writing?  
Hmmm...  I donno.  They want to get off?


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

> I have no trouble dealing with the fact that there are two contradictory evaluations, and I suspect they use different standards. What I do challenge is that these evaluations must be reconciled into one single verdict, or that one should be discarded in favor of the other.


OMG! Is this possible? You and I actually agree on a point! I have no problem at all stating that there are different standards that may contradict one another. I think that defining our terms and determining which set of standards we're talking about is half of the discussion. Why discard one in favor of the other? As Walt Whitman said, "I am many. I contain multitudes."


----------



## ParisRivera (Oct 28, 2012)

Some parts of it are in very poor taste, in my view. Do we really need torture chambers to get excited? Oh dear! Having said that, the author is very skilled in building up tension and in conveying the excitement, doubts, desires, insecurities etc. of the central character. I think that makes it easy for readers (mostly women) to insert themselves into the central role.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

I'll focus on the quality of my own writing.  I don't control anyone else's nor does it affect me.


----------



## DLMedley (Oct 6, 2012)

I read about 20 pages of Fifty Shades and had to stop. It was nearly the most horrible, hackneyed, groan inducing 20 pages I've ever read. Just because something sells millions of copies does not make it great writing, or even mediocre writing. La Macarena sold a bazillion copies, no one in their right mind is going to say it's great music. Face it, Fifty Shades of Grey is pretty horrific writing as far as the nuts and bolts of it goes.

But so what? I'm happy for the author and those who enjoy the book. I think it's awesome that it's the success it is. 

Anytime an author makes money--in this case A LOT of money--I'm happy. 

Regards
DLM


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

To say that 50 Shades is 'not great writing' is your opinion. But the 99% of the rest of the readers who have bought the book and read/reread it religiously obviously say otherwise.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

RM Prioleau said:


> To say that 50 Shades is 'not great writing' is your opinion. But the 99% of the rest of the readers who have bought the book and read/reread it religiously obviously say otherwise.


Not so sure about that. Many will say, "It's not great writing" while admitting at the same time, "but I couldn't put it down."

Now, some might suggest that implies great writing.

But that's not necessarily the obvious conclusion.

A novel can have that "car accident happened here" rubbernecking quality to it, without achieving "great writing."

It's like old episodes of Doctor Who compared to new ones.

Most of the Doctor Who episodes made in the 1960s through early 1990s were not examples of great television writing. Some of their plot devices were just complete cliches.

But the character of the Doctor, and his companions, were compelling enough that the show lasted quite a while. Even though the current Doctor Who has much better writing.

Now, I'm not comparing Doctor Who to 50 Shades, necessarily, but the same overarching principle applies.

50 Shades is by no means great writing, but it does a couple things really well. Well enough to keep people reading.

And from what I've seen other people say about it, I'm guessing that ineffable quality is "great sexual/romantic tension" or something like that, as that's what's mentioned most often.

And, truth be told, if a writer can do one or two things REALLY well, that can make up for deficiencies in other areas where their storytelling skills are less polished.


----------



## FrankZubek (Aug 31, 2010)

Hey, people are reading

And maybe out of the millions who read this- maybe a hundred thousand of them will stick with books and try other books

so there's no real downside here 

Certainly not for the publisher or the author 

Except for the ( arguably) rest of the readers who did find out that yes, it is a badly written book
But I think a good deal of sales depends on peer pressure
You get one really hot book that gets everyone talking ( I think the last one was DaVinci Code) and a portion of the reading public who normally don't read all the time will go out of their way to try the book so they can be part of the conversation at the weekend get togethers

Peer pressure and the feeling of 'not being in the loop' socially played a little part in this books success - my opinion

On the other hand I just checked the amazon page of the first book and while it has nearly 7,000 very positive reviews ( combining the five and four star reviews) it still has  nearly 5,000 poor reviews ( adding the two and one star reviews) which leaves just 1,000 "good" reviews

But then, thats just under  14,000 people ( out of MILLIONS of readers) who took the time to post a review


Then again, being 'for' nearly anything that sells books...  I'm happy for all of us because a few of us will get some spillover of readers


----------



## Sergio (May 17, 2012)

I haven't read 50 Shades of Grey, but I think some readers (including me) want to experience the pleasure of reading good writing that also touches you in some way.

If the writing is bad I get pulled out from the story no matter how interesting it is. I need to feel that kind of flow that good writing makes you feel, and if the flow is constantly interrupted, I lose interest.

Maybe if the story is good enough, and the writing is not so bad, I could read the whole book too.

It's like I need to feel that there's some kind of art in there.

Of course, your idea of art can be very different to mine.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Sergio said:


> If the writing is bad I get pulled out from the story no matter how interesting it is.


Keep in mind that writers tend to read books with a more critical eye than most readers. If we're properly trained and experienced wordsmiths, bad writing reads like nails on a chalkboard to us.

But for the average reader, if there's one or two compelling elements in a book, sometimes that's all they need.


----------



## Sally C (Mar 31, 2011)

> Here's a great video for all the ladies out there thinking of reading it. It's a great excuse to get a Kindle: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151214946319076


That's hilarious, Sibel, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

T.L. Haddix said:


> The further along I go on the writerly path, the less tolerance I have for poorly written books. I just can't force myself to suspend the disbelief long enough to ignore the bad writing. That is extremely frustrating, because reading has always been one of my only friends, if you will. It's my chosen way to relax, to escape, and to just enjoy something for a while. Completely unexpected side effect of being a writer.
> 
> I tried to read 50 Shades. I wanted to read it, before I learned it was fan fiction (yes, there is derision in my tone there - not toward fanfic itself, but toward someone profiting off said fanfic). I could not read it. It was sophomoric. The heroine was beyond annoying. Some of the romance novels I cut my teeth on twenty years ago were better than 50, which makes me think there might be a lot of readers out there, new to the genre, who are cutting their teeth on this book. That might account for some of the popularity.


Yeah, I agree a lot of new to romance readers picked this one up. Heck, many that read and liked it still diss romance novels. Something they would never ever ever read. . What they don't get is that 50 is basically a Harlequin Presents with way more annoying characters and a lot more "sex". I made it to about 30-40 % on my Kindle with 50 shades.

I am not qualified as a reader only, to talk about if something is or is not well written. What the heck do I know. I will notice things like spelling and some grammar I am sure, but anything else technical, I don't know anything about. 
I either like it or I don't. I can't tell the why, but I can tell if it works with me, or not. One reason why it is so difficult for me to write reviews. I can't put in words the why. 
I didn't like what I read of 50 so I moved on to something else. Thankfully there is lots of good stuff out there in romance including all the subgenres like erotic romance.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Now, I'm not comparing Doctor Who to 50 Shades, necessarily


I should hope not *sniffs indignantly*.



> ...there might be a lot of readers out there, new to the genre, who are cutting their teeth on this book. That might account for some of the popularity.


I think there is some truth to this. I have seen articles which seem to suggest that the article writer believes that 50 Shades is new and groundbreaking, and no one has ever written erotica or BDSM before. I've also seen comments from 50 Shades readers who appear never to have realized that such a genre existed. This is good news for those of us who write erotica-- there's a whole vast genre out there that such readers get to explore for the first time. How cool is that??


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Yeah, I agree a lot of new to romance readers picked this one up. Heck, many that read and liked it still diss romance novels. Something they would never ever ever read. . What they don't get is that 50 is basically a Harlequin Presents with way more annoying characters and a lot more "sex". I made it to about 30-40 % on my Kindle with 50 shades.


Yes, this. _Fifty Shades of Grey_ is basically _Harlequin Presents_ with a bit of added BDSM and a writing that's a lot worse than most _Presents_. And I never particularly cared for _Presents_ anyway, too many domineering billionaires for my taste.

No idea why this one got so popular, when there are so many better books in a similar vein out there.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

There's not a lot of snobbishness going on here, Jason. Most of us are simply attempting to figure out the appeal despite the novel's obvious flaws. That's not snobbishness.

Watch those assumptions.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> It's easy to be snobbish about something successful.


You mean she's doing what I'm trying to do, doing it much better, and succeeding where I am failing? But since I'm special I'm better than she is?



> Most of us are simply attempting to figure out the appeal despite the novel's obvious flaws.


Perhaps people who like it have no reason to accept the judgement that what they are reading is flawed? [Truth in posting: I didn't even know I was supposed to be jarred, irritated, and annoyed by adverbs until I read these threads. I feel so ashamed. All those years...]


----------

