50 Shades Of Utter Bollocks

Oh my...

50 Shades Of Grey is the worst piece of literature ever to even make it to print, let alone break previous sales records.

 I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the fact that something so terrible could be so popular. Or am I? Well, in short, no. I'm not really surprised at all. There have been some equally awful things to come into (and unfortunately linger in) the public consciousness in recent years.

Allow me to name a few and you'll get the idea;
Big Brother
Any of Big Brother's participants/'winners'
X Factor
Britain's Got Talent
Paris Hilton
Perez Hilton
Louis Spence
Katie Price
Amy Childs
Peter Andre
Joey Essex
All other superfluous celebrities
Eastenders

Yeah the list could go on for a good while.

With this in mind, it's little surprise to me at all that a 'novel' that started life as a Twilight fan fiction would become a sensation.

The funny part is it used to be available online to read for free, but of course upon planning publication, it was pulled because the author is too greedy.

It winds me up something chronic; to me, fan fiction is plagiarism in a fancy frock - At the end of the day, no matter how you've dressed it up, you've taken someone else's work, changed some names and words here or there, added some bits and called it your own.

Allow me to share quickly some Amazon reviews that struck a particular chord with me;

SPOILER ALERT! If you haven't read the book and plan to, firstly you shouldn't be here - My blog requires an IQ level above that of a mentally handicapped paralympic basketball player. Secondly, it contains elements that are liable to spoil the plot, any 'twists' and could tarnish your view of the reading experience... for the better.

Here goes;

"Oh My, I mean really, Oh my, oh my, oh my... I have in fact, just dragged myself through to the final page of this ludicrous nonsense and found myself almost speechless. Almost...

The main character, Christian Grey, is quite obviously deranged. This does not however, deter Ana, who for some inexplicable reason, has spent so long with her head in a book that she has never looked in a mirror and noticed that she is a "total babe". A "total babe" who also happens to be a 21 year old virgin. No, Ana, in the space of 3 weeks, falls so crazily in love with "Mr Grey" that she manages to bypass the whole deranged thing and instead concentrates all her efforts on deciding whether to let him hit her with stuff. As you do.

As for Mr Grey, obviously, readers can't be allowed to see him as simply a deranged, manipulative psycho so let's give him smouldering good looks, a few zillion quid to throw around and hey, and this is the clincher, the ability to love art and music (y'know, like Nazi's do in the war films). (Note - the bit where he plays the "haunting" piano piece, semi naked, with his eyes closed actually made me laugh so much that I almost wet myself - in a non-orgasmic way). As if that wasn't enough he also has a personal and financial interest in saving the world from famine. Just that old world peace and cancer to sort out and then hey, job's a good `un. I mean really, how did the world ever shamble along without him? So what made this beautiful, charismatic and talented man so brutal? Could it be a traumatic childhood perhaps? Why, yes I think it could...yawn.

So, the 2 beautiful people come together (Oh my, another pun) and the rest of the book is basically about Ana wondering if she should let him hit her with stuff and then letting him hit her with stuff and Mr Grey wondering if he should stop hitting her with stuff but still hitting her with stuff while she whines on about wanting "more" love and less of the hitting stuff and he whines on about how he doesn't know how to give "more" cos he has only ever hit people with stuff.

In between these nonsensical blatherings they have lots of sex. Luckily, virginal Ana also has her "inner Goddess" to guide her on the art of sex play and soon becomes an orgasm machine, chucking them out all over the place in a rampant, fevered haze of lust. So much so that she overlooks Mr Grey's general bastardry and bends over nicely for a few beatings. She is also too enraptured to take much notice his incessant stalking. Oh, and his `feeder' tendencies that, if successful, would have surely added a good 10 stone onto Ana's lovely buttocks which in turn would have incurred the cost of a refurb' to the `red room of pain' when his ceiling shackles needed reinforcing. Luckily he can afford it.

As many other readers have noted, the writing is appallingly poor and, if you removed the sex bits, would resemble a love struck teenager's diary. It's all been said before so I won't dwell on it. I will just say, if you are looking for erotic fiction, look elsewhere, if you are looking for an unintentionally laugh out loud bit of fluff and nonsense then crack open a bottle, put your feet up and prepare to be amused. Personally I would just say that there goes a day of my life that I will never get back. Oh my!"

-- C. E. Wallis

This one is also a classic;

"Read aloud in the pub over a bottle or two, this provided hours of fun as our `heroine' took one look at Christian Grey's gray eyes (yes, really) and his messy hair, and the way his trousers hang "in that way" (what way?) and literally falls flat on her face in front of him. Clearly smitten by her cute innocence, Christian of the grey eyes, sculptured lips, and spicy scent is soon whipping out his little "foil packets", his riding crops and hand-cuffs, and giving our previously-virginal Ana multiple and seemingly instantaneous orgasms, all of which are "shattering".

We particularly enjoyed the way Christian manages most of his sexual exploits either fully-dressed (just a quick unzipping and a coy fiddle with a "foil packet") or with his shirt (always white linen) still on, while Ana bit her lip, and breathed `oh my!' for the umpteenth time."

-- Roman Clodia

And another...

"This is a landmark piece of literature: not just the fastest book ever sold in the UK, but conclusive evidence that you are allowed to steal somebody else's novel, take out the only element that made the original bearable,add a bit of middle-age-fantasy S&M and hit the "replace" key for all names, and inexplicably not get sued for it.

There is nothing good about this book. At least with Twilight it had the excuse of being aimed at teenagers who couldn't be expected to know that a) it had been done before and b) it wasn't very good: this is being purchased by grown up ADULTS, and I'm ashamed to say I'm now one of them. It's not just offensive to erotic novels, it's offensive to men, women, sex, England, America and literature. Which is, if you look at it in a positive light, quite a massive achievement with just a few bits of paper.

In terms of basic writing, it's unbearable. Worse, it tries so hard to drag itself into an intelligent arena by name-dropping - repeatedly - real literature: Austen, Bronte, Hardy, Shakespeare. At one point I literally found myself screaming "GET YOUR DIRTY LITTLE HANDS OFF THOMAS HARDY, JAMES", because frankly crap of this standard has no right whatsoever trying to claw its way out of the literary swamp by quoting sections of Tess of the D'Urbervilles and comparing its protagonist to one of the most fragile, brave, three dimensional heroines ever written.

Ah, Ana Steele. It didn't seem possible that there would ever be a lead female character as boring, constantly tremulous or silly as Bella Swann, but James has done a magnificent job: Ana Steele is even worse. For all of their love of "classic British fiction", both James and Ana seem to be missing the key to their success: classics have real women, with believable and likeable personalities. Not lip-biting, slightly schizophrenic, weak and constantly-orgasmic hussies. Put Ana Steele into any Austen book, and she'd be the one-legged prostitute the other characters try not to step on on their way to parties.
 
Christian Grey is without exception the creepiest male character I've ever read, and I want him out of my imagination RIGHT NOW. Stalking, obsessive, possessive, controlling, humourless men like Grey are not sexy: they're the subject of court cases and restraining orders. This isn't a triumph of representation, by the way: if James was aiming for skin-crawling repulsion, at least she'd be succeeding somewhere. But Christian Grey - despite being a man who gasps nearly as regularly as Ana - is supposed to be an Alpha Male, because apparently strong men don't take "no" for an answer.

I WISH I was offended by the sex scenes. I WISH I could throw it across the room, decide that the world's taste in literature is too horny for me, and simply pat myself on the back for being an uptight prude. But I'm all up for sex in books, as long as it's done well: this is not. It's as bad as a grainy porn film from the 80s, and as old-fashioned.

What makes me sad, really, is knowing that a book like this can make a woman like James rich, and take thousands and thousands of hours from the lives of people all over the world. What makes me even more sad is that I am one of them.

Save your money, save your soul, and - for the love of all things literary - just go buy Tess of the D'Urbervilles."

-- Anonymous

I must add another quick couple to finish off with... (oh god. I just noticed what I wrote).

"I have just done a Masters degree in Publishing where we were taught that in the world today, publishing houses are so desperate for the next best thing that they will literally kill their own mothers to plug a book they think will be a bestsellers. Well written, non-sensational books that provide excellent writing, good characters and a whole heap of imagination and skill are being shoved to the bottom of the pile and stamped 'QUITE NICE, BUT WON'T MAKE ANY MONEY'.
This is obviously what happened here. Someone went 'Oh my! This is a scream! It will revolutionize bedrooms! It will redefine the boundaries of eroticism! It will trounce those saps at Mills and Boon! And more importantly, it'll make us shed loads of cash!'

It is patently clear that the book has never seen an editor - because why would any self-respecting editor let it go? Where would any self-respecting editor even know where to start? Shouldn't someone, at some point, have said, 'Er, look, EL James, we really like what you're doing here and it's all very saucy and a bit rude, tee hee hee, but we've got a bit of an issue with repetition. You see, at the moment, Ana Steele says 'Holy crap' 230,493 times, and says 'Oh my' 1,435,500 times, which we think is a bit much. Great work, an' all, but do you think you could cut a few out?' That obviously never happened. Instead, they shoved it all in, gave the book a snazzy, sleek cover, which is a million times classier than the book itself, yelled 'It's mummy porn!' from the rooftops in the hope it would catch on, and there we have it, a record-breaking bestseller.

Quite aside from the frankly ridiculous sex scenes - no one, and I repeat, no one, has that much fun losing their virginity - I was actually shocked by the writing. Reader, it is so bad. I knew it would be bad, but I didn't know it was that bad. Let me give you an example:
'Sunday at the store is a nightmare. We are besieged by do-it-yourselfers wanting to spruce up their homes. Mr and Mrs Clayton and John and Patrick - the other two part-timers - and I are besieged by customers'.
I was on the train when I read that sentence. I actually went 'You are joking!' out loud, and looked around wildly for someone with whom to share my outrage. Where was the editor? Where was this editor who was supposed to say 'Sorry, EL James, do you think you can use a different word to 'besieged', as you have used it twice in two sentences and, as we all know, word repetition is a classic sign of terrible writing'??

I'm sorry, reader. But reading this book made me feel stupid. I actually feel that, while my knowledge of sexual exploits may have been vaguely lifted, my reading age has plummeted. If you want some cheap titillation - for that's all it is - then go for it, it'll make you smile, it'll make you raise an eyebrow or two - but if you can get past the God-awful, horrendous, basic, dreadful, atrocious writing style, then you've done better than me. It's a shame - a real shame - that a book of this standard has broken records and made a lot of people a lot of money. What hope is there for the talented writers who don't want to write about genital clamping?" 

-- Anonymous

And one more...

"If you have self respect, do NOT read this book.

When people suggest the book is "pornographic" they are speaking completely literally. I judge myself for having read some of the stuff in it. It is irritatingly plotless, with entirely unrealistic sex scenes.The fact that the book is pornographic wouldn't bother me, if it weren't for the fact that is sounds like sexual encounters as described by an 11-year old. She uses childish phrases like "Down THERE" and "my Sex" (as a noun to mean her genitals) which make the book seem even more creepy than it already is.

In addition to that it is extraordinarily badly written! There are a few phrases that are actually used every single page, without exception. There are frequent spelling and grammar mistakes, and the writer even seems to forget where she has decided to set the book a couple of times.

All of this may deter from the quality of the book, but for me the thing that makes it unbearable, is hearing people describe it as "romance". Seriously?! Although some healthy couples are into BDSM, this is NOT an example of a BDSM relationship. To me, this is a fully abusive relationship. I cannot understand what book people are reading when they suggest Christian Grey is romantic.

I think this book will create immense problems over the next few years, with girls allowing themselves to be abused, as the heroin does in this novel. Its disturbing, unhealthy, abusive, and very badly written. Please do not read this, it is a purchase I regret entirely."

So.

Let's recap.

It's terribly written, it's repetitive, it's not erotic, it's not romantic, the author forgets where the book is set, it's full of grammatical errors, semantic errors, spelling mistakes, makes abuse and abusive relationships seem glamourous and exciting, the 'sex scenes' are punctuated with poor attempts at semi-intelligent literature by name-dropping other famous classic authors as well as emulating their writing style and failing horribly, the plot is practically non-existent, the characters are unbelievable and the reader cannot relate to any of them, the author depicts losing your virginity as being a pleasurable, non-stressful, multiple-orgasmic experience, irrespective of the common consensus, the words 'oh my', 'holy crap', 'inner goddess' and 'my sex' make more unwanted appearances than pubes on a toilet seat... I could go on.

Please. I emplore you. Don't fucking bother.

If you really want to just throw money away for the sake of a flick of the ol' bean, just try doing it with a £5 note -- atleast when it hasn't worked and you've given up trying, you can put the fiver back in your pocket.

 

English: A Language Whats Hard Too Get Right.

I absolutely despair at times.

I really, really do.

I'm English, from England and speak English... Nothing exciting about this, you might think, and you'd be right to think this, but you're wrong. What's quite notable about it is the fact that I can actually speak and write in English like the next poet laureate when compared to a large and (worringly) increasing number of my compatriots, let alone other nations where English is their primary language.

Just a few examples of the things I hate include:

> Incorrect usage of apostrophes.
> Using double negatives to emphasise a singular one, ie. 'I haven't done nothing...'
> Incorrect use of the word 'None' - I'll explain more on this shortly...
> English people pronouncing things in an American way.
> English people spelling things in an American way.
> People commonly writing and speaking using colloquial abbreviations - I'll also explain this in brief shortly...
> People who are incapable of distinguishing between 'too' and 'to'.
> People's inability to correctly use capital letters.
> People's inability to distinguish between 'They're', 'Their', 'There' and others.
> People who write or say 'would OF' as opposed to the correct 'would HAVE'.

So with a list this size of annoying and elementary things that people are getting wrong whilst speaking their own native tongue, something needs to be done, and quick.


Firstly; Apostrophe's.

What the hell is wrong with people? The apostrophe is beautifully simple. It is there to show possession ("It is John's sandwich") or to signify that the word is an amalgamation of two other words, or that there is a letter missing ("They're" -- a combination of "they" and "are"). It's quite simple...

Show Possession: "John has a sandwich. It is John's fucking sandwich."
Signify two words have been put together: "John has a sandwich. It's John's fucking sandwich."

In the second example, the apostrophe is there to show that the 'i' from 'is' is missing where the two words 'it is' have been squashed together.

Please note: I'm fully aware of the fact I put an apostrophe in the subtitle. That was a joke - If you don't get it, or didn't understand it being a joke, this post is definitely for you, so pay attention...



Secondly; Using Double Negatives For Emphasis, But Just Looking Like A Dick.

Another one of those classics. It's a simple one, and oddly, mathematics has relevance...

Remember the simple rule in maths? (And it is 'Maths' by the way, but I'll get onto that later...)
The simple rule in maths about adding negative and positive numbers?
> Adding two positives together makes a positive result.
> Adding two negative numbers together ALSO makes a positive result.

So, when you say "I didn't do nothing";
> The 'Didn't' is a negative
> The 'Nothing' is a negative

Two negatives equal a positive. So it's the same as saying "I did do something", which doesn't help your defense much, really.


Thirdly; Incorrect Use Of The Word 'None'.

Now you're probably thinking 'Hang on...'

'How can you use the word 'none' wrong?'

Well you can, and people very often do. Even newsreaders do, and they are meant to speak what is known as 'the Queen's English'.

'None' is a shortening of the two words 'not' and 'one'. Technically, it should hold an apostrophe to signify that the two word have been squashed together, and a letter or two have gone missing.

So to say "None of them are available", is the same as saying "Not one of them are available", which, if you have a clue or were educated somewhere outside of Essex, you can see is just plain wrong.

The correct use in this situation would of course be "None of them is available", as in "Not one of them is available", which you can see, if you're not an imbecile, just makes a lot more sense.


Fourthly; English People Pronouncing And Spelling Things In An American Way.

I have to clear this up, and it may come as a shock to a lot of you, but we're not American. We're not in America, and there is in fact quite a large gap of water separating us and them, as well as many social and educational differences, although due to me feeling compelled to write this, I find myself disputing the latter.

So, when someone comes into my shop and asks me about wireless routers, it really annoys and disappoints me when they pronounce it as a 'raow-ter'.

It's a fucking router. As in 'root-er'. As in 'I'm looking at a map in order to find a route'.

It's not the only thing. There are many.

'Aluminium' is spelled as you see it written, and pronounced as such. Google, amongst other things, has actually started auto-correcting 'Aluminium' to reflect the American (incorrect) spelling of 'Aluminum'. Just because they're too stupid to be able to pronounce it doesn't mean that you have any excuse to be lazy too. It's our fucking language - set a bloody example.

It also grates me when people say something like 'least worst option' or 'commonest'. There is no such thing as a 'least worst option' - it's either the worst, or it's not. Also, whilst there may be the word 'commonest' in use, it's not really the proper way to say it. 'Most common' is.

Also, you don't 'wait on' something. You might 'wait for' something, but to 'wait on' something implies you're a member of serving staff at a hotel or restaurant.


Also, we don't have 'train stations' in this country. We have 'railway stations'.

And for now, at least, the last example as I promised I would, 'maths'. It's 'maths', not 'math'. Clearly if you believe it's 'math', it's not just your English that's suffering.


Fifthly; Colloquial Abbreviations.

OMG Don't you just hate it when people use colloquial abbreviations in everyday speech lol?

I fucking do. really gets on my tits.

If you want to express disbelief, then do it properly. OMG does not constitute as proper expression.
Also, if you want to laugh out loud, then just fucking laugh, for god's sake. Don't say 'lol'. It defeats the point slightly.

ROFL is another one. The reason for these abbreviations is to save time when typing at a keyboard, as well as expressing yourself by means that would otherwise be devoid of emotional feeling. If I can see your face, and I can hear your voice, then there are at least two methods at your disposal by which you could express yourself. Don't be a lazy dick about it.


Sixthly; 'Too' and 'To'. Is it really to difficult for people too distinguish between?

I find myself bitterly disappointed to be writing this. They are two words, no more than three letters long, with distinctly different meanings and for use in distinctly different circumstances.

'Too' means 'as well'. As in 'in accompaniment'.
'To' means a multitude of things, but mainly used to express a limit of a dimension, whether it be by width, length, depth, weight, distance...

An example on the uses of both;

Too: 'I like cheese. I like it with crackers, too.'
To: 'I like going from A to B' -- In this instance, used to express a limit of distance.

I don't know how people get these mixed up, or do this wrong, but they do, and it's frankly shameful.


Seventh; it's not difficult to use Capital Letters properly.

Another bitter disappointment - This is one of the basics of English.

Capital letters are used at the beginning of 'proper nouns', names or the start of sentences. It's pretty damn simple.

The word 'horse' is the name given to animals of a certain type or species. It is not a proper noun, so remains without a capital at the beginning of it.
The horse's name 'Greg' is capitalised, as it is the name of the horse.

The word 'city' is not capitalised. It's not a proper noun.
The name 'London' is capitalised, as it's the name of the city.

It's not fucking rocket science. It's just a crushing disappointment to even be writing about it.


Eighth: The classic 'They're', 'Their' and 'There'.

This again is elementary.

The differences between 'their', 'they're', 'there', 'were', 'where', 'wear'...

It's quite simple, so pay attention:

There - Specifies a location.
Their - Specifies possession.
They're - Abbreviation of 'they are'.
Where - Also specifies a location.
Wear - To wear something, or the process by which something becomes worn.
Were - Past tense of 'are'.
Than - A word used to link two things that are being compared.
Then - Specifies a point in time.


So, if you are guilty of any of the above, you should be embarrassed. These are all really fucking simple things that any moron can get right if they just engaged their few remaining tuned-in brain cells and actually applied themselves.

This is something that is (or at the very least should be) taught in every school in the country, and it should really be taught across the world; any country that claims to have English as it's primary language should be taught 'English'. The 'English' spoken in America should be just called straight 'American', as their language is resembling ours less and less each day.

English and American are both like a fat man and a thin man in a three-legged-race; with fat American slowly and cumbersomely pulling thin English forwards, but not really in the right direction.

I'm confident that people from America are now going to accuse me of being racist due to me linking America to obesity in one form or another...

... It's just a fucking analogy. If you're unsure what this is, then reading this blog post has definitely been a valuable use of your time.

And Finally: If you paid attention at school, you would HAVE got this right.

Would HAVE.

As in "I would have had enough time..." or "That's the one I would have had..."

The word 'of' means;

1: Expressing a relationship between a section and a whole - 'I want a slice OF cake'
2: Expressing the relationship between a a scale or measure and a value - 'This cake needs a chocolate increase OF 5%'.

I just don't understand how anyone who knows the meaning of words would think that the word 'of' would be appropriate in the given context.

Oh wait! I know! They use it because it's a word that sounds a little like the abbreviated suffix form of 'have', which is of course 've'.

'I WOULD'VE added more chocolate to the cake, if I had had some.' -- Note the word 'would've' - the correct way. And yes, the use of the word 'had' twice sequentially is correct, too*.

'I would OF punched you in the face if we had the chocolate and you didn't add it in...' -- Notice the retarded use of the word 'of' here.

So yes. If you're happy talking shit, then I will come and find you and take a shit in your mouth.

*The word 'had' can be used a maximum of 11 times in a sentence, and it would still make sense;
'John, where Bill had had 'had', had had 'had had'. had had had had a greater impact on the examiner.'