50 shades of grey-Why so popular?

Morag

I think it's trendy, I think it that it's part of the move which sees the decline of the large publishing houses hold on who gets published and it's part of the fanfic cross over into being published combined with that there is kink in the book which got it written about in the first place.

After that it's become trendy and an excuse for people to start conversations about erotic fiction and kink just like the sectary and sex and the city was.
Women who would not start those discussions with people for fear of being seen as a perv or a deviant it's an excuse to talk about the topic or write about the topic.

Unfortunately most of what is being written about be it in blog pieces or newspapers or even some of the online discussion, is mis informed or ignorant about bdsm and D/s
which ranges from thinking that book is a blue print for such relationships (it's not) or that the book explains how abusive people use bdsm D/s to abusive people (they don't).

If more people come away having explored their own sexuality more and having learned some facts about bdsm D/s then the book and the surrounding discussions may have had a positive impact but thus far I don't think it has.

RDM_83 again

Sharrow wrote: »

Unfortunately most of what is being written about be it in blog pieces or newspapers or even some of the online discussion, is mis informed or ignorant about bdsm and D/s
which ranges from thinking that book is a blue print for such relationships (it's not) or that the book explains how abusive people use bdsm D/s to abusive people (they don't).

If more people come away having explored their own sexuality more and having learned some facts about bdsm D/s then the book and the surrounding discussions may have had a positive impact but thus far I don't think it has.

I'm just wondering why thats particularly beneficial, why is it a positive that people are more educated about a particular minority sexual fetish, is bdsm more worthy than for example furries, feet, grannies or any of the million other fetishes. My understanding is (coming from an uneducated viewpoint about the book and bdsm in general) is that if it leaves the bedroom it is unhealthy, if it doesn;t leave the bedroom is there a need for a greater public awareness about it?

or that the book explains how abusive people use bdsm D/s to abusive people (they don't)

Is this saying that BDSM practioners are never emotionally/psychologically controlling, or is it that if this occurs its no longer BDSM even if it involves all the assorted paraphernalia (also is there any studies to back up either point of view, I could only find one study done is Australia that said there was no link to coercion however it involved self identifying which I'm sure is raises issues if a relationship is genuinely coercive*)

Don't take this post as an attack I'm just curious as to if there is a disjunct between being 'strongly feminist' and being accepting of the idea of the relationships which involve (generally) the female being submissive in terms of sexual activity (even if all activities are completely consensual), I raise this because one of the criticism i read of the masterkey/crappy lock analogy was its implications about female agency, surely a male dominant female submissive relationship is highly lacking in female agency. Also is there not a potential for 'bleed over' into other aspects of the relationship e.g. as highlighted in this article (BTW as somebody uneducated about this whole thing apologies if the people in the article are refering to some other sort of behavior)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/7204543.stm

"Mr Graves said: "She's very animal like, she's kind of like a pet, as well as a partner."
He said he "does everything" for his girlfriend, including laying out clothes for her, feeding her and cleaning their house.
He said: "You wouldn't expect your cat or dog to do the washing up or cleaning round the house."



* http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00795.x/abstract;jsessionid=8B5AC90FCF14CC2887F56F413CBC2BD5.d02t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

rainbowtrout

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

You say that I've got it completely wrong, and I have no problem with that, but do you have an alternative answer to the question of why these books are so popular?

It seems to me that very few people are addressing the OP's question. There's a lot of criticism of the style and content of the book, but little effort to explain why 40m people have bought it.

Beacause it's had a lot of hype, and that hype has gone viral. It's come up in conversation in my staffroom a couple of times in passing ( staff rooms in schools do tend to be conservative places). So far I haven't heard any other staff mention they've read it but when it comes up the most popular comment is 'oh that's the book with porn in it' or words to that effect.

So for anyone who hasn't gone as far as finding out a bit about what the books are about, they think they are just about some women who has a lot of sex, uses sex toys, and it's become socially acceptable to admit to reading this and talking about it.

So I reckon most people are just curious and having heard all the hype have just thought, well if 'it's the fastest ever selling book in Britain ever/it's sold 40 million copies/insert appropriate 50 shades soundbite here' then it must be good so i'll buy it and read it.

So far nobody has yet to say in my social circle that has not read it ' it's about a woman who is abused by her control freak stalker partner in lots of ways' because that's not it's tagline line and that's not what it's being promoted as.

Memnoch

It's funny the number of people on this thread alone who, 'just happened to read it,' but sure didn't they find it 'crap/nothing special,' and it was 'just to satisfy a curiosity really.'

'But no, I didn't read it because I wanted to, or because a part of it appealed to me. No... I'm not one of THOSE women, you know, the kind that would want to read this book. Twilight yes... but NOT THIS!'

Then we all look at each other quizzically and ask - 'but how is it so popular?!?!'

And the world goes round and round.

TLDR: We are the proletariat.

Madam_X

That always happens all right on discussions relating to stuff like this, The X Factor, Facebook etc - comments about how "people are stupid sheep".
That's not to say I don't think The X Factor is shyte, and this book seems shyte too, but it's a bit unfair to feel superior to all who enjoy them.
I will say it's a bit off-putting to hear people say 50 Shades is a lovely love story etc, but reading it for a bit of escapism and a turn-on but nothing more... that's just a way of unwinding and switching off.

rainbowtrout

Memnoch wrote: »

It's funny the number of people on this thread alone who, 'just happened to read it,' but sure didn't they find it 'crap/nothing special,' and it was 'just to satisfy a curiosity really.'

'But no, I didn't read it because I wanted to, or because a part of it appealed to me. No... I'm not one of THOSE women, you know, the kind that would want to read this book. Twilight yes... but NOT THIS!'

Then we all look at each other quizzically and ask - 'but how is it so popular?!?!'

And the world goes round and round.

TLDR: We are the proletariat.

Madam_X wrote: »

That always happens all right on discussions relating to stuff like this, The X Factor, Facebook etc - comments about how "people are stupid sheep".
That's not to say I don't think The X Factor is shyte, and this book seems shyte too, but it's a bit unfair to feel superior to all who enjoy them.
I will say it's a bit off-putting to hear people say 50 Shades is a lovely love story etc, but reading it for a bit of escapism and a turn-on but nothing more... that's just a way of unwinding and switching off.

It's not about feeling superior to people who actually like the book. I couldn't care less what people read in their spare time, and if they want to read romance novels or stuff about dominant and submissive relationships or mills and boon type stuff so be it. But I'm genuinely wondering how people can read it (for whatever reason) and think that it's romantic when it's a story about an abusive relationship? That coupled with the fact that its incredibly poorly written, and that's not even a slight on the content of the book, just the English. The author has an extremely limited vocabulary, and as anyone can see from the post by LittleBook she re-uses the same phrases over and over again. It's like she made a list of stock phrases and cut and paste them for every single chapter.

Most parts of the book which involve Christian and Ana having sex go something like this

C: 'I want to do something to you that you may not like but would make me very happy'
A: Bites bottom lip. 'It would make you happy?'
C: 'Very happy baby. You'll have to close your eyes and let me tie you up' Christian glances over to the shelf of nipple clamps.
A: 'Will it hurt?'. Looks nervously at clamps.
C: A little bit, but it will be fun (for me).
A: (In her head- 'My inner goddess gasps') OK, what do I have to do?'

cut and paste for every second page of the book..... :mad:

Curiosity is also a perfectly valid reason for reading a book. I've read loads of books out of curiosity, often because they're popular and I'm wondering what all the fuss is about. Some were good, some were bad, and this one falls into the truly awful category.

panda100

I have to admit I am enjoying everyones funny reviews on here, far more than I enjoyed the actual book!

_Bella_

Article about in the Irish Times, touches on a lot of the points raised on here.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/0905/1224323609958.html?via=mr

Monty Burnz

Why did Harry Potter become so popular, when there are many better books for children that adults could read? Why did the Da Vinci Code become a phenomenon when there are far better thrillers out there?

People seem to love following a crowd. If they perceive a bandwagon forming, they want to get on it. Why exactly, I don't know. I suffer from the opposite tendency - if something is what I (fairly arbitrarily) deem 'too popular', I'll ignore it for all I'm worth regardless of its actual merit. I probably would have shunned the Beatles had I been around.

Hillmanhunter1

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why did Harry Potter become so popular, when there are many better books for children that adults could read? Why did the Da Vinci Code become a phenomenon when there are far better thrillers out there?

People seem to love following a crowd. If they perceive a bandwagon forming, they want to get on it. Why exactly, I don't know. I suffer from the opposite tendency - if something is what I (fairly arbitrarily) deem 'too popular', I'll ignore it for all I'm worth regardless of its actual merit. I probably would have shunned the Beatles had I been around.

The Harry Potter books and the Da Vinci Code became best sellers because they are great stories. It may be unlikely that Dan Brown (or EL James for that matter) will receive a phone call from the Nobel committee, but he found a story that interested people, who told their firends, who in turn told their friends.

I find it odd that so many posters seek unlikely explanations as to why a book has sold 40m copies. We get reasons such as people are sheep and follow the crowd, it was heavily hyped, people just thought it was vanilla porn etc.

Everyone I've spoken to, and who has not yet read the book, knows that this book is about a dominant/submissive sexual relationship. I suspect that the vast majority of people who bought it knew exactly what it was about (just like a previous generation knew exactly what Deep Throat was about!) and they bought it because they wanted to read it.

Is that such an appalling vista that it must be denied?

whatdoicare

I read the books and I enjoyed them- unlike what people here are assuming, I don't have any sexual hang ups, I am not afraid to speak openly and frankly about my sex life or to experiment with my husband and I hate xfactor/jordey shore/ am an Atheist.

It was a grand book with a limited vocabulary and a basic storyline. I read a lot of books and while not the best I've read, it certainly wasn't the worst.

Everyone has failed to notice that in the book the lead character never actually does any real submitting - she gives it a go, freaks out and after tears and apologies and a week of starvation on her part, they go back to "vanilla" sex and it's somehow better than the bdsm. Then he buys her something shiney.

She mostly spends the book going out of her way to disobey her overly possessive and controlling boyfriend until she manages to do the impossible, she completely changes him until he closes up the red room for good and becomes a dream husband.

The one thing I used to find hilarious about it was the texts and emails they'd fire off to each other. The changes in signatures especially. I quite enjoyed them.

It was an alright read, it got the juices flowing for a bit of fantasising with the hubs and made for an interesting discussion about if we'd like to try out a bit of kinkery. It didn't suppress me in any way, my husband doesn't abuse me or control me, it didn't teach me anything about relationships, it was erotic tat and nothing more.

Ann rice did the same with the book "blood and gold- the vampire marius"and his submissive " amadeo" which is a better read imo.

rainbowtrout

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

I find it odd that so many posters seek unlikely explanations as to why a book has sold 40m copies.

Everyone I've spoken to, and who has not yet read the book, knows that this book is about a dominant/submissive sexual relationship. I suspect that the vast majority of people who bought it knew exactly what it was about (just like a previous generation knew exactly what Deep Throat was about!) and they bought it because they wanted to read it.

Is that such an appalling vista that it must be denied?

I dont see why you're so unwilling to accept that some people will buy and read the book because it was hyped etc.

I can say the direct opposite of you. Nobody I know that hasn't read the books knows its about a dominant/ submissive sexual relationship. Most of them just think its a book with porn in it.

meeeeh

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

The Harry Potter books and the Da Vinci Code became best sellers because they are great stories. It may be unlikely that Dan Brown (or EL James for that matter) will receive a phone call from the Nobel committee, but he found a story that interested people, who told their firends, who in turn told their friends.....

Is that such an appalling vista that it must be denied?

Except DaVinci Code is not a great story. It's some nonsense involving religion that always sells. The same, as I suspect, 50 Shades is not a great story about BDSM and yet everyone seems to be buying it because sex always sells.

It's like comparing A Wheel of Time and Song of Ice and Fire. Both can be described as overextended fantasy written to extract as much money out of geeks as possible, yet one redeems itself at least a little bit with good character development and moral ambiguity. Yet you can describe the books with exactly the same sentence.

Hillmanhunter1

meeeeh wrote: »

Except DaVinci Code is not a great story. It's some nonsense involving religion that always sells. The same, as I suspect, 50 Shades is not a great story about BDSM and yet everyone seems to be buying it because sex always sells.

It's like comparing A Wheel of Time and Song of Ice and Fire. Both can be described as overextended fantasy written to extract as much money out of geeks as possible, yet one redeems itself at least a little bit with good character development and moral ambiguity. Yet you can describe the books with exactly the same sentence.

You have (I hope unintentionally) misunderstood me. The literary merits of 50 Shades are irrelevant. I am suggesting that the "appalling vista that must be denied", by some posters at least, is that 40m (mostly apparently female) readers wanted to buy and read a book that they knew was about a dominant/submissive physical relationship.

rainbowtrout

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

You have (I hope unintentionally) misunderstood me. The literary merits of 50 Shades are irrelevant. I am suggesting that the "appalling vista that must be denied", by some posters at least, is that 40m (mostly apparently female) readers wanted to buy and read a book that they knew was about a dominant/submissive physical relationship.

You're stating that as fact when it's not. I didn't know it was about a dominant/submissive relationship before I read it. I can't be the only one.

IvyTheTerrible

rainbowtrout wrote: »

You're stating that as fact when it's not. I didn't know it was about a dominant/submissive relationship before I read it. I can't be the only one.

I didn't either. I thought it was just soft porn.

Hillmanhunter1

rainbowtrout wrote: »

You're stating that as fact when it's not. I didn't know it was about a dominant/submissive relationship before I read it. I can't be the only one.

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason that 50 Shades has become the biggest seller of all time is that buyers did not know what it was about?

I'm beginning top think that back in the 70s you would have been one of those who came out of the cinema shocked that Deep Throat was not about Watergate!

Monty Burnz

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

The Harry Potter books and the Da Vinci Code became best sellers because they are great stories. It may be unlikely that Dan Brown (or EL James for that matter) will receive a phone call from the Nobel committee, but he found a story that interested people, who told their firends, who in turn told their friends.

You may deem them 'great stories' but the point is that there are far better stories out there in either genre. Why did the (frankly pretty stupid) Da Vinci Code outsell them all?

IvyTheTerrible

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason that 50 Shades has become the biggest seller of all time is that buyers did not know what it was about?

I'm beginning top think that back in the 70s you would have been one of those who came out of the cinema shocked that Deep Throat was not about Watergate!

Actually I think that people know it's about sex, just not bdsm. A lot of items I have heard on the radio about it talk about it being erotic but not the submissive stuff.

rainbowtrout

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason that 50 Shades has become the biggest seller of all time is that buyers did not know what it was about?

I'm beginning top think that back in the 70s you would have been one of those who came out of the cinema shocked that Deep Throat was not about Watergate!

Yes, one of the reasons. Maybe the content of 50 Shades has been discussed in depth on some TV programmes or in magazines or newspapers, if it has I haven't read any of them. Not everyone in the world is obsessed with the latest craze and only hears about it fleetingly. For me all I had heard was that it was a book with a lot of sex in it.

Just as those whose curiosity about Harry Potter hasn't been piqued might be vaguely aware that it's about a boy wizard and no more.

And as for your second comment....

I can actually tell you when I first heard of 50 Shades. I was watching the Million Pound Drop some night over the summer. The question that was asked of the contestants was of the type 'which book has been at the top of the best seller list for the last x number of weeks'.. or something similar. I didn't know the answer and was surprised when Davina alluded to the content of the book because I had never heard of it. That's not because I live under a rock, it's because I'm not all that interested in that kind of news. I don't read women's magazines etc so it's not unsurprising that it wouldn't have been on my radar. Doesn't mean I live under a rock. There are plenty of people out there who couldn't point out Syria on a map yet it's in the news everyday. Of those that are aware I bet the majority will say something like 'oh there's a war going on there or something'. Most people get the general gist of a story, not the detail. People filter out what they are not interested in, for me it's celebrity gossip except where it's unavoidable, reality tv, and it would seem major publicity about a book about a dominant/submissive relationship.

LittleBook

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

Everyone I've spoken to, and who has not yet read the book, knows that this book is about a dominant/submissive sexual relationship.

Is that such an appalling vista that it must be denied?

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

I am suggesting that the "appalling vista that must be denied", by some posters at least, is that 40m (mostly apparently female) readers wanted to buy and read a book that they knew was about a dominant/submissive physical relationship.

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason that 50 Shades has become the biggest seller of all time is that buyers did not know what it was about?

Yes, absolutely.

There are very, very few people who genuinely understand BDSM. Most people (like E. L. James and 99.99% of the people who bought her book) have no clue what it's about. So how could they possibly buy the book and "know" what it's about?

They bought a pornographic book that had become acceptable to read by the mainstream, about a handsome billionaire relentlessly pursuing a young virgin.

What they get out of reading it is an entirely different question.

meeeeh

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

You have (I hope unintentionally) misunderstood me. The literary merits of 50 Shades are irrelevant. I am suggesting that the "appalling vista that must be denied", by some posters at least, is that 40m (mostly apparently female) readers wanted to buy and read a book that they knew was about a dominant/submissive physical relationship.

I didn't misunderstand you. What I'm saying is that you can sell a book in couple of sentences that tell you f all about actual content. You describe 50 Shades as a book with loads of BDSM sex scenes between young pretty girl and a man with dark secret. Or 50 Shades is badly written book about a young idiot in a submissive sexual relationship with domineering psychopath. I bet, I know in which case you will sell more books.

The dig at DaVinci Code was there just because I can't stand the book.

Hillmanhunter1

Let me take a different tack. Let's assume that I'm completely wrong in saying that buyers of 50 Shades of Grey knew what they were buying, and still wanted to buy it, and that instead they were sheep, following the crowd, and buying what they thought was a bit of racy fluff.

Can anyone explain why the two sequels have notched up such sales?

meeeeh

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

Let me take a different tack. Let's assume that I'm completely wrong in saying that buyers of 50 Shades of Grey knew what they were buying, and still wanted to buy it, and that instead they were sheep, following the crowd, and buying what they thought was a bit of racy fluff.

Can anyone explain why the two sequels have notched up such sales?

Because in the core of the story is the same romantic "good girl - bad boy" non-sense that sells books for centuries and because people want to know how it ends. That explanation is just as valid as the one that women want to be dominated. I mentioned A Song of Ice and Fire earlier. I really liked first three books, fourth and fifth were overstretched, boring and not much happened. I ended up skipping quite a few pages or chapters. And yet I will buy the next one, because I still want to know how it ends (and who gets topped next).

xDramaxQueenx

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

Let me take a different tack. Let's assume that I'm completely wrong in saying that buyers of 50 Shades of Grey knew what they were buying, and still wanted to buy it, and that instead they were sheep, following the crowd, and buying what they thought was a bit of racy fluff.

Can anyone explain why the two sequels have notched up such sales?

No I was definately a sheep when I started reading it, and i am all over whatever is pure filthy.

Why did I buy the 2 other books? Cause the first one was addictively sh!t. That, and I was holed up at home in a cast, not even having sex with lights out.

pickarooney

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You may deem them 'great stories' but the point is that there are far better stories out there in either genre. Why did the (frankly pretty stupid) Da Vinci Code outsell them all?

Because it's very easy to read. Foucault's pendulum, for example, may well be a 'better' book but I simply couldn't be arsed reading beyond page 5.

kylith

xDramaxQueenx wrote: »

No I was definately a sheep when I started reading it, and i am all over whatever is pure filthy.

Why did I buy the 2 other books? Cause the first one was addictively sh!t. That, and I was holed up at home in a cast, not even having sex with lights out.

Same reason I read the Sookie Stackhouse novels; all of them. It's a kind of morbid fascination.

Neyite

I read all three. I was browsing my kindle and it was suggested as a read. I think it was free or $1 to download, and the reviews raved about it . I ended up downloading the sequels because I was wondering if I was too thick to pick up on some subtle literary genius that the reviews seemed to imply, and maybe the other two books would make it clearer.

I think that most women who read, see how badly written this trilogy is, but I have noticed that a lot of the friends that think it was brilliant dont read a lot of books generally anyway. I could have forgiven the bland characters and insipid plot if the sex scenes were better - then it would be just like proper porn. Or if the BDSM was realistic. But, all through, I was clearly reading what an inexperienced person thinks BDSM is all about. (Before you jump to conclusions, I have no experience of it myself, but I have read erotic fiction that explains it very well - which is where FSOG seems to have totally failed. )I felt like the author googled some Ann Summers products and wrote badly about them.

Anyone who has no prior knowledge of BDSM mak take the misconception from FSOG that its fcuked up, damaged people who practice it, and that true love can make someone who gets off on it, park their fantasies forever and go "vanilla"

It didnt sit well with me that the Christian Grey character was so controlling and stalkery, and that this was acceptable because he was a handsome billionaire. I really didnt like the way that she "changes" this controlling behaviour, because its totally unrealistic - any Domestic Violence counsellor will tell you that changing an abusive partner is nigh on impossible. I found the sex scenes quite boring, and too "samey" I did a lot of :rolleyes::rolleyes: while reading them.

Honey-ec

What I'm really scratching my head over is why so many people have said they read the first book, disliked it, then went ahead and read the second and third books anyway? Seriously, why would you bother

rainbowtrout

Honey-ec wrote: »

What I'm really scratching my head over is why so many people have said they read the first book, disliked it, then went ahead and read the second and third books anyway? Seriously, why would you bother

Morbid curiosity to see if Ana grows a pair and gets rid of Christian in the end. I wouldn't say it was for the BDSM element as once you've been through a few chapters of it all the rest are the exact same. Same as all the people who tuned into Dallas the other night to see what it was like after more than 20 years.

Like Neyite said, to see if you just didn't get what it was that was supposed to be so great about FSOG. And realising that it doesn't get any better.

Monty Burnz

pickarooney wrote: »

Because it's very easy to read. Foucault's pendulum, for example, may well be a 'better' book but I simply couldn't be arsed reading beyond page 5.

Pity, you missed out on a great story with a few very interesting philosophical insights...

But then The DaVinci Code was not really in competition with Focault's Pendulum - it was in competition with other genre thrillers, of which there are many better ones that never became a runaway phenomenon like TDC.

Scarinae

It also has been advertised very effectively - look at the ad that popped up while I was reading this thread!

Teyla Emmagan

It annoys me all the eejits reading it in public. An attempt to be provocative or to prove how 'open minded and dirty' they are or something? It just comes across as very attention seeking to me. You really don't have to read 50 shades of smut so obviously in Stephen's Green on your lunch hour you know ladies. No one is impressed .

whatdoicare

The reason everyone bought the books is simple- you couldn't go anywhere without it being advertised. It took over three tables in easons and was on sale at 3 for 2, tesco was giving extra points if you bought it, kindle had a dollar sale et etc
I had never heard of the books but I was in easons, and I had finished reading a trilogy and was looking for something in a set to keep me going, the books were 3 for 2 so I bought them and got extra points on my easons card. I read the first one and enjoyed it and had the other two so kept reading. I enjoyed them all. Same happened with hunger games, Harry Potter, game of thrones, spooks apprentice and now City of bones, and the immortal instruments, which came in a box for half price. I have three of the sookie books ready to go after that.
I buy the books that are on the sale table and pretty much the majority of people do so as well.
I think people are over thinking this.

riveratom

whatdoicare wrote: »

The reason everyone bought the books is simple- you couldn't go anywhere without it being advertised. It took over three tables in easons and was on sale at 3 for 2, tesco was giving extra points if you bought it, kindle had a dollar sale et etc
I had never heard of the books but I was in easons, and I had finished reading a trilogy and was looking for something in a set to keep me going, the books were 3 for 2 so I bought them and got extra points on my easons card. I read the first one and enjoyed it and had the other two so kept reading. I enjoyed them all. Same happened with hunger games, Harry Potter, game of thrones, spooks apprentice and now City of bones, and the immortal instruments, which came in a box for half price. I have three of the sookie books ready to go after that.
I buy the books that are on the sale table and pretty much the majority of people do so as well.
I think people are over thinking this.

In other words, you are a marketing manager's dream

panda100

kylith wrote: »

Same reason I read the Sookie Stackhouse novels; all of them. It's a kind of morbid fascination.

I love the Sookie Stackhouse books. For me the sex scenes in the True Blood books are way more outrageous and far more of a turn on than anything in fifty shades.

Honey-ec wrote: »

What I'm really scratching my head over is why so many people have said they read the first book, disliked it, then went ahead and read the second and third books anyway? Seriously, why would you bother

I do think the basic storyline is an interesting one,and you do want to find out why Christian has turned out the way he has. I just googled the sysnopsis of book two and three. Those I know who have read the remaining two books, have skipped all the sex scenes and just read the storyline.

whatdoicare

riveratom wrote: »

In other words, you are a marketing manager's dream

So the point you're making is that you have more spending money than me and that this somehow makes you better than me, does it?

Monty Burnz

whatdoicare wrote: »

So the point you're making is that you have more spending money than me and that this somehow makes you better than me, does it?

I think his point is that even if something is being aggressively marketed, you don't have to buy it.

whatdoicare

Monty Burnz wrote: »

whatdoicare wrote: »

So the point you're making is that you have more spending money than me and that this somehow makes you better than me, does it?

I think his point is that even if something is being aggressively marketed, you don't have to buy it.

The point I made was I and others bought the books because they were on sale and we're in a recession so, obviously, money is not spent as freely as before.
But sure maybe I should waste what little money I have to avoid your judgement.

Millicent

whatdoicare wrote: »

The point I made was I and others bought the books because they were on sale and we're in a recession so, obviously, money is not spent as freely as before.
But sure maybe I should waste what little money I have to avoid your judgement.

I don't think the other poster was trying to put you down and was more saying that marketing people work hard to make people buy products. You buy the books because of the marketing (special offers, lower price point, points back etc.) so the marketing does what it is designed to do.

whatdoicare

Millicent wrote: »

whatdoicare wrote: »

The point I made was I and others bought the books because they were on sale and we're in a recession so, obviously, money is not spent as freely as before.
But sure maybe I should waste what little money I have to avoid your judgement.

I don't think the other poster was trying to put you down and was more saying that marketing people work hard to make people buy products. You buy the books because of the marketing (special offers, lower price point, points back etc.) so the marketing does what it is designed to do.

Seemed to me like they were. The delivery and lack of elaboration would indicate this.

whatdoicare

whatdoicare wrote: »

So the point you're making is that you have more spending money than me and that this somehow makes you better than me, does it?

I have absolutely no idea how you got this from that post. They clearly were saying that the advertising did its job on you.

whatdoicare

bluewolf wrote: »

whatdoicare wrote: »

So the point you're making is that you have more spending money than me and that this somehow makes you better than me, does it?

I have absolutely no idea how you got this from that post. They clearly were saying that the advertising did its job on you.

So what is the bottom line? Advertising did their job- and that means what?

riveratom

whatdoicare wrote: »

So the point you're making is that you have more spending money than me and that this somehow makes you better than me, does it?

Whaaaat?!!?

No idea where that came from, as the guys said I was just making the observation that the marketing is doing its job!

whatdoicare

riveratom wrote: »

Whaaaat?!!?

No idea where that came from, as the guys said I was just making the observation that the marketing is doing its job!

Well, you went out of your way to quote me and write it - what exactly were you trying to imply?

riveratom

whatdoicare wrote: »

Well, you went out of your way to quote me and write it - what exactly were you trying to imply?

You're reading something that isn't there and probably need to take things at face value instead of looking to be offended

whatdoicare

riveratom wrote: »

You're reading something that isn't there and probably need to take things at face value instead of looking to be offended

Fine, I'll leave it at that - clarify yourself before you make bold statements in future, might prevent insulting people in future. :mad:

riveratom

whatdoicare wrote: »

Fine, I'll leave it at that - clarify yourself before you make bold statements in future, might prevent insulting people in future. :mad:

Well, I don't need to. And my statement wasn't bold. Or insulting. That's the thing, it wasn't a bold statement and it wasn't insulting - just like the other posters pointed out as well.

whatdoicare

riveratom wrote: »

That's the thing, it wasn't a bold statement - as the other guys pointed out as well.

What was it so? Looked to me like you were implying there's something wrong with buying off the sale table. What exactly were you implying? Looked a bit silly to be quoting me specifically if you were only making an observation - you could have just written that without quoting anyone.

riveratom

whatdoicare wrote: »

What was it so? Looked to me like you were implying there's something wrong with buying off the sale table. What exactly were you implying? Looked a bit silly to be quoting me specifically if you were only making an observation - you could have just written that without quoting anyone.

See, you're the only one who thought I was implying anything. The other guys could see that this was not the case at all, and they were reading the same thing. You chose to be offended, even when everyone else could see there was nothing more to the statement than what I wrote. 'Looked to me' is the key part of your sentence there.

My statement was simply that the power of marketing has lead millions of women all over the world to purchase that book. You are one of those women. That is all.