Fifty grades of shale

Hmmmmm... February 14th or Valentine's Day (a day dedicated to love, romance and the declaration of devotion to someone you admire, find attractive, or perhaps simply just lust after) is just around the corner. Hubba-hubba! Does anyone else think that the kind of conduct that is not only endorsed for one single day per year, but openly encouraged is not particularly cute, but in fact creepy?

In these enlightened times, thankfully such behaviour - which the recipient of such attention would at any other time of the year consider to be be tantamount to sexual harassment, or possibly even stalking - can be sidestepped to make way for the more obvious commercial nuisance value, becoming as run-of-the-mill as Easter and as mainstream as Hallowe'en'. Valentine's Day now is more frothy, plastic, shallow and just a little bit too superficial.

So what bright spark thought it would be the perfect time to release the cinematic rendition of E. L. James' blockbusting, multi-million best selling novel and gargantuan yawn-fest trilogy 50 shades? It begs the question whether Hollywood producers actually read any of the books that they turn into their next cash cow or just go with the flow, riding the zeitgeist (or what they imagine is the zeitgeist - which in regards to the 'shades' trilogy is nothing more than a popularised consumer trend) in the belief that what does well in print will naturally do well in the cinema. Hello? Does no-one remember Travolta's Battlefield Earth?

Perhaps they succumbed to the buzz (and I'm not talking about the sound created by the vast army of rabbit wielding aficionados of the 'shades' series), perhaps they believed the same hype that catapulted said book to the top of the bestseller list, hype generated by E. L. James' (real name: Erika Mitchell) and her husband, screenwriter Niall Leonard's media and industry contacts? The cynic in me believes that the only real motivation was money.

Anyone who hasn't been living on Mars for the past few years will already know that the subject matter in the 'shades' series (I prefer to call James' trilogy the 'shades' series as it reminds me of the brand name of a supermarket toilet roll, quite like the book does) is not aligned to traditional interpretation of intimacy and human sexuality. Whilst the gender roles of the principal characters Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele are fairly straight forward (Woman: Independant, career driven, strong but vulnerable, and a VIRGIN / Man: Independantly WEALTHY, at the pinnacle of his career, powerful but secretly sensitive and very, very, very, RICH) the excessive power play and control is not.

BDSM is not as mainstream as readers of the 'shades' series might imagine. It is practiced by a large number of very responsible, intelligent, people who get enormous pleasure from either submitting themselves totally to the will of another, controlling the will of another or mixing it up from time to time. It is also - sadly - misrepresented in sensationalist magazine articles and by the media in general so that those who wish to practice are considered deviants by those who do not.

BDSM has - very occasionally - led to deaths, but these are minimal compared to those who are killed as a result of male/ female or male/male sexual assault or rape. In fact there are more deaths reported as a result of autoerotic asphyxiation than caused by partners taking part in consensual sado-masochistic sexual activities. Whilst 'shades' might have broadened the outlook of some readers who had never experienced anything more adventurous than being taken roughly from behind whilst imaging it is Johnny Depp, the James' novels do not represent BDSM or practitioners of BDSM. For the record, spanking is NOT BDSM.

I'm not going to go into the whys and wherefores of the shortcomings of the 'shades' trilogy. It's been explored many, many times before, as has the obvious anti-feminist subtext. Needless to say that anyone who is, or has taken part in consensual BDSM will realised that E. L. James is a fantasist at best (but hey, it's fiction after all so perhaps it's forgivable) but more importantly she has not got a clue. On a more literary level, the books have been likened to 'the dribbling, scrawlings a of a pre-pubescent girl', 'puerile', 'immature', 'insulting' and 'syntactically appalling'. Enough said. 

The popularity of the 'shades' series did interestingly, coincide with the launch and immediate adoption of handbag-friendly EReaders. LH, a very good friend of mine and skilled exponent of BDSM observed that "women, whose sexual enjoyment is much more cerebral than men's prefer intellectual stimulation rather than pure visual titillation, which is why the novel is the perfect vehicle for that type of sexual gratification. The EReader has allowed women to take their erotic reading material out of the traditional bedroom setting and enabled them to read such material wherever they wanted, with no-one within the vicinity being any the wiser about their choice of reading material, which no doubt adds to their feeling of concealed sexual liberation."

'Shades' was one of the first such modern 'mummy porn' novels and was discussed in hushed tones in playground gatherings, at coffee mornings in Starbucks and the like and at impromptu relationship maintenance meetings between friends. It became a thing of gossip and naughtiness and immediate accessibility, as well as sudden respectability. So it is strange that whilst 'shades' allegedly allowed women to explore erotic fiction much more easily, the charity shops of the UK are filled with copies of the 'shades' books, yet no-one I know has ever seen anyone reading it in public.

So, back to the point. If the books don't represent BDSM, and at the end of the day it's just a story about sex, is it the romance that is so alluring? The romantic la ronde as Christian attempts by degrees, to seduce Anastasia and introduce her to his range of non-vanilla sexual practices? Is it the fact that Christian Grey is in reality nothing more than a manipulative, controlling sexual sociopath? Or the fact that he is so fucking RICH he shits gold?

Realistically, if the books had been written about an ASDA checkout girl being introduced to alternative sexual practices by a penniless chav in a Burberry peaked cap, would it have had the same hold over the minds and loins of so many millions of women worldwide? What if the Anastasia was a bored, middle-aged divorced mother of three and Christian Grey was a Albanian taxi driver with a penchant for being pissed on? No? Then, maybe if Miss Steele was a plain-looking, college educated feminist who has to interview a local charity worker and is inadvertently coerced into putting a string of pearls up her arse? 

Doesn't really work does it? 

In the end the real star of the book is not Mr Grey, but his wealth. So perhaps the decision to release 50 shades around Valentine's Day was nothing more than another cynical attempt to tap into the millions and millions in currency wasted worldwide on St.Needy's Day. The book is classed after all as a 'women's erotic novel', so the Hollywood tycoons are betting their wages that whilst lots of men know about the books and that they are about sex, not many have read it. 

The perfect film then, for us poor deluded blokes - perpetually short of ideas on how to please the little lady, short of buying the ubiquitous assortment of excruciatingly painful and incorrectly sized red and black lingerie and a glass dildo - and who allegedly (according to popular belief) generally need a field map to find the clitoris. Will the film guarantee us men who take our women to the movies on St. Sexpest's Day a night of unbridled passion and some hanky-spanky? 

From what I've heard about it so far, no. Apparently it's about as erotic as watching someone try to balance a blancmange on the end of their cock.

The wealth and power is a bit of a turn-on though...

Money = Power. Therefore, as money = power and power is an aphrodisiac, money is the greatest aphrodisiac in the world. QED.

Hollywood, I bow to your ceaseless ability to fleece us out of our hard-earned cash.

See you on the back row suckers.

I hear you Joe... Freedom of expression and freedom of speech in the wake of the Hebdo massacre

In the wake of the horrific crimes perpetrated by faith extremists in Paris at the Hebdo offices, the question of whether freedom of speech should be inviolate has unfortunately been raised once again. All too often, in modern times those exercising their right to express themselves freely have been punished in the most savage manner.

Right now I am in a quandary as to the ramifications of publishing CPR II in its original format, dealing as it does with aspects of a specific faith (Islam) that sadly, due to the crimes perpetrated by a handful of violent radicals has helped create the impression that Muslims in general are intolerant and certainly intolerant of any criticism of their faith, no matter how slight (and/or factually correct) that criticism might be. 

Personally I'm not concerned about upsetting people with my writing (Authors have been doing it for hundreds of years) and I'm certainly not bothered about upsetting a few extremists of any faith. CPR II was not deliberately written to upset anyone or any group in particular, but rather to reflect the current view of faith, and specifically in one section of the novel, the Muslim faith here in the UK (and again, sadly, elsewhere in the world.

Actually what I am more concerned about is how publishers and publishing houses will react in the aftermath to the atrocity.

 

Modern UK publishers are not known for their avant garde approach to fiction, especially new fiction. Anything that rocks the boat, risks sales; poor sales diminish publishing power in the industry and that has a knock-on effect in regards to their market share. I predict a knee-jerk reflex borne out of self-preservation that will result in the mothballing of many, many excellent stories, and novels because of their 'subject matter'.

I do truly fear that we will now enter into a published world where agents and publishers are so careful of upsetting this faith group, or that belief set that we are forced enter into, and to endure automatic censorship by default.

We have the right to free speech, according to Article 19 of the ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: ("Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his (sic) choice.") , however there appears to be a caveat, as Joe Strummer of The Clash (Know your Rights - Combat Rock) succinctly put it: "You have the right to free speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it."

I am pro-guidance, but anti-censorship. Censorship is a control mechanism created by the agents and agencies of a dictatorial 'nanny-state'  that bars all from dissemination of information regardless of its intrinsic value on the grounds that it might 'affect' some of us adversely, or cause 'upset and discomfort' to certain sections of society. Guidance on the other hand, is a process whereby certain rules are written down by the same agents and agencies but which allow all sectors of society to have control of their choices, and be aware of the implications of those choices.

The government enforces censorship by invoking law, and/or creating law to accommodate and reinforce censorship. However, that kind of censorship is a hat that is too big for some and too small for others. Guidance is a hat that fits all, because it allows the 'wearer' the choice whether or whether not to put it on in the first place.

I do believe in the right to free expression. I do believe in freedom of speech. But I hear you Joe.... I hear you... Though it might no longer be a case of me being dumb enough to try it, but rather, having that option removed so that it cannot ever be expressed. Dark days indeed.