Fifty Shades of Commercialised Hype, and you're all falling for it

I work in a library, and yes I did notice the popularity of the Fifty Shades series.

As part of the fabulous service that you can expect to receive at our library, you can put your name down to reserve a book when it becomes available, and in some cases even order it in to be reserved.

Needless to say, many folk put their names against this title, the books being hastily passed from one reader to the next, usually not even hitting the shelf before ending up back on the reserved pile.  It was crazy. People were phoning and asking about it, wondering when it would be their turn.

The audience? Well, mainly older ladies who use the service anyway and were curious to see what all the fuss was about.  Many, and I mean many, handed the first book back with a groan, pushing it over the desk and mumbling something about 'what a load of rubbish', or 'too far-fetched'.

'I'll stick to the Mills & Boon,' one lady giggled, 'it's a much better read!  That one was terrible, the grammar was awful!'

Some carried on to read the trilogy, remembering to pick up the second or third book, but very noticeably, there are now a lot of half-thumbed through second and third books of the series on the shelves compared to the few battered and well-read first books that were actually returned and didn't actually just end up under someone's bed, never to come back tot he library again.

I suppose, for those who read, Fifty Shades just didn't really hit the mark. They were much more inclined to pick up a dark classic or some of the other romance fiction (of which there are many, in various shapes and forms) to tickle their tastebuds.  The verdict seemed to be that Fifty Shades was just another well-publicised, over-hyped fad. The various comments about it ranged from "poorly-written", to "fifty shades of crap!

Curiosity did get the better of me, and I had a look at one of the reserved books one day, thumbing through one on my lunch break. I wasn't shocked, or even remotely perturbed - I'd spent time working in a high street sex shop which had worse things on the shelf than this.  Just picking out random bits of text turned me right off anyway. I mean, seriously - I didn't have to look far for some hilarious text to back up my view that no person who truly enjoyed words in their art form could subscribe to this as a serious storyline with serious outcomes.

I wrote it off as yet another book that would have it's time and then leave as suddenly as it came. No pun intended.

It floated away for a while and then the rumours came of a movie. It was no real surprise - after all, it was clearly a commercialised hit already.  People who never usually bother to pick up a book had picked up three. Which is quite profitable for your 'supermarket sellers', the ones you pick up along with your shopping or with your lunchtime sandwich. Cheap and cheerful pick-me-ups, right?

The search was on for a man to play Christian Grey, a character whom every critic was holding up on a pedestal as one who would be difficult to perfectly portray.  Who, if the casting was wrongly done, would ruin the very image of man.  The supposition was that these would be very difficult shoes to fill.

He should be at once sexy, but commanding. 

Lusty and serious.

Hot and unforgiving.

Women were going crazy for this guy, so I decided to do a bit of investigating.  After all, I'm not adverse to a bit of perving over fictional characters in movie format.  I've seen Magic Mike (to my eternal shame. What? Channing Tatum is unbelievably smooth in that film. Those dance moves are UNbelieveable!)

After skulking around various film boards, newspaper articles and feminist boards, I was kind of a bit worried as to the kind of character this Grey man was.  After all, if any of my friends or family started going out with or dating a guy who treated them like that, I'd be staging an intervention, complete with identity papers and a house move to another country.

I'm perplexed - how are normal, seemingly functioning and sensible, modern, women even subscribing to this notion of a man so poisonous and degrading to the very core of femininity?

Talk about one step forward ten steps back.

I get the BDSM thing.  I get the allure of bondage and handcuffs and I can even imagine how sexual contracts like the one Grey gives Ana can be a bit of a turn on to the usual lady lounging at home with her day to day life. It's thrilling. It takes away from the normal wishy-washy will-she-won't-she mundane storylines that crop up time and time again in other 'romance' novels.

It pushes a boundary, a social contract even, and it makes it seem legitimate, because ultimately, by the end of the third book, Ana gets her child and her man and her life with them. So, it's like saying, 'oh yeah, well, sure, they have a weird relationship to start off with, but they work it out, yeah?'

I've had several conversations with my fellow women about Fifty Shades, and I have to say, it's not the books, it's not the characters, nor is it the plotline which shocks me the most; it's the reaction of normal, seemingly forward-thinking women to some of the darker undertones of it.  The really, terrible, awful, abusive stuff that, seriously, there can be no excuse for.

It's also the fact that they are willing to normalise this behaviour to such an extent as to jump behind the commercialism, to invest in 'girly nights out' to see the film all together, to fantasise as to which guy is going to play Mr. Grey so perfectly in the film, to shout down the women who point out that sexual fun and antics is entirely right and good, but that a man who takes advantage of a woman in such a way is a bit of a git.

I've heard all the arguments as to how to legitimise Grey's acts - "it's sexual slavery and that's how that works", "Ana saves Christian from himself, so she's the stronger one", "don't be so vanilla", "it's just a bit of fun".

Come on, who are we kidding here? 

At the same time, I'm torn; I remember such over-reactions to similar things like how evil Freddy Kreuger was, how corrupting video games were to young children, the reaction to awful porn like Deep Throat - all of which make us laugh now and say, 'really? That's nothing!'

But isn't that where the real problems lie?

The problem with things like Fifty Shades of Grey is that it does normalise and legitimise.  It raises a bar that the next person has to hit in order to shock, and trust me, this will come too. There will be a time where we look at Fifty Shades and laugh at how ridiculously sweet it was.

And what about the real people in real abusive relationships?  What do they do with this information? Does a woman caught in an abusive relationship now have a chance to romanticise what is happening to her instead of breaking free, in the hope that she too will find her Mr. Grey?  After all the work that has been done by various groups all over the world to say that such behaviour is not right, is dangerous, is wrong, doesn't Fifty Shades somewhat court responsibility for hat happens here too?

Apparently not as long as the people behind it are making their fifty shades of moolah.

Of course, the commercialization which goes along with such a box office hit is phenomenal.  There's Fifty Shades promos on everything.  Hitting the Valentines day market, you can even but Fifty Shades sex toys. Albeit, very poorly made sex toys. Seriously, don't waste your money. That stuff will snap in two if you even attempt to use it harder than a wee bit.

Christian Grey is like a metaphor for commercialism alone - even if you move to Antarctica, it'll find you, right?  Maybe that's the joke here? 

I'm no prude, I have a wicked imagination and I could tell most folk a thing or two about, you know, 'stuff'.

But there's a reason why it's hitting a lot of people's moral compasses and raising red flags.  Reasons I sincerely believe I don't really need to outline here.

Everyone is entitled to explore their sexuality in whichever way they see fit - that's fun and healthy and good.

I think the definition of healthy is what's at stake here.

Bad Art

My youngest son asked me to make Jake out of Hama beads.  I wish I'd got a photo or a video of the sheer disappointment he displayed when I presented him with my finished version.

I showed him it on its own first.  He screamed.

He shouted.

'That's not RIGHT!'

I, quite chuffed with my results, was a bit sad.  It had taken me BLOODY AGES.

Then he brought me through his Jake walkie-talkie as a comparison.

Okay....I get his point....

Buy All The Stuff!

When I was wee, adverts were things that happened on T.V on a Saturday morning in the breaktime between our favourite Saturday morning T.V shows like Live and Kicking or  The 8:15 to Manchester, or  Going Live.

Those adverts contained the stuff of dreams - Mr.Frosty iced-drinks maker, a Hairdressing Dolly to learn how to do doll's hair, Get Set Candlemakers - adverts were aimed right at us, pulling us in, making their mark on our minds for our Xmas and birthday lists.

It's safe to say that toys in the 90's were hit or miss - there were races at the toy store for a particular toy at Xmas, with kids dictating their favourites.  Every parent would sell their left kidney to get a hold of that years 'in' toy.

I remember with joy, receiving a Game Boy one year - it was a see-through one and came with a huge overhead clip so you could actually see the screen - by today's standards it wan't great, but back then, it was the height of entertainment technology.

Then came Tamagotchis - small electronic 'pets' that chirruped every time they needed fed, watered or played with.

We went through phases in the playground too - small, inexpensive, time-consuming hobbies that tested our fine motor skills and challenged our patience.

There were stunt yo-yos, hula hoops, plate spinning, gymnastics, handstands and cartwheel games, football cards, go-gos, POGs, Pokemon cards, TAZOs, Polly Pockets, rubber bouncy balls, skipping ropes, Skip-its, marbles, My Little Ponies... the list was endless.

I collected promotional gifts on things.  It thrilled me.

Collecting packs of Monster Munch religiously, paying the £1 postage fee to receive my 'free'  monster reflectors to go on the spokes of my bike, which I proudly displayed, making a 'clinking' sound wherever I went and making sure we bought the Daily Record every week on a Thursday so we could collect the tokens for five weeks in a row to get a free item of clothing for my Cindy doll; these are the things I truly remember about branding and advertising as a kid.

Sure, you could get a t-shirt with My Little Pony on it - if you looked hard enough or if your parents were super-rich.  We bought cheap knock-off Donald duck hats in Blackpool as part of our annual sun hat tradition.  But in the main, branding was something we either bought into or didn't as kids.  It was amazing if we got a t-shirt with 'Take That' emblazoned on it, but if not, we were just as happy with flowers or garish neon birds (such was the style in the 90's).

The point I'm trying to make is, yes, we were consumers.  But there was not even half as much pressure as there is nowadays.

And I realise this makes me sound probably even older than I fell right now, but can I just draw you attention to what is happening here?

Have you realised just how relentless and never-ending branding and marketing has gone these days?

Even if you live in the BBC cave of the supposed advert-free CBeebies bubble, you can hardly fail to notice what a tight grip branding and marketing is having on your children.

It's EVERYWHERE.

On their clothes, their shoes, their magazines, their television programmes.  It comes home in leaflets from schools, it's in the gym hall on book stands at parent's evening.

It comes on leaflets through your door, it's on the packets of the food they eat, the drinks they drink, the bubbles in their baths before they go to bed at night.

You can buy Lightning MacQueen toothbrushes, SpongeBob toothpaste, Mickey Mouse pants, Star Wars pencil cases, Iron Man bags, Iggle Piggle babygrows - you know, to start them nice and young.

Commercialism lives and breathes, and it feeds on young children.

Even the BBC, which claim to be advert free, has become one big, long, marketing campaign - yes, they have you people!  CBeebies is NOT advert free.  Oh no - it is just ONE BIG HUGE NEVER ENDING ADVERT!

For their toys, their baby items, their live shows, their magazines, their apps, their books and their merchandise.

I feel it now more than ever this year.

Now that Thomas has come to an age where he has branched out into school,  he rates his experiences alongside his peers and it's a constant clamour to spend, spend, spend.

Where will it all end?

All of a sudden, unless it is branded - it doesn't happen.

A good example of this are the measures our local heritage and entertainment venues are taking to bring in custom.

Theme parks have sold out to brands in order to survive - the evidence is clear - CBeebies land at Alton Towers, Peppa Pig World at Paultons, Nickelodeon Land at Pleasure Beach - children's areas are using brands to entice young children (and their fee-paying parents!) into the park gates, bombarding them with adverts on every channel, every ad break.

The Octonauts appearing at Sealife Centres, Thomas the Tank Engine for railways,  Lightning McQueen on Pull-ups for potty training, McDonalds on school reports (yep, that happened!) - the big brands are constantly employing the industry standard of 'pester power' to make sure that your children are making sure that you get the message.

Through them.

The point is, it's not even coming from your television any more - it's appearing everywhere.  Relentlessly.

We are losing our individualism, our ability to do anything without being unknowingly or unwittingly affiliated to or lining the pockets of some huge commercial brand.

We have to wonder if this is the end of imagination and self control as far as our consumerist lives go.

I mean, think.

How individual have your choices been lately?

Buy all the stuff! Buy it now!

Celebrities writing children's fiction; what's wrong with it?

Could you write a best-selling children's book?

Tom Lamont, a writer and commissioning editor for the Observer, wrote a very interesting piece today for the Guardian, in dialogue with children's author, Robert Muchamore.  In it,he underlines what I, as a parent think and feel about the ever-growing number of celebrity authors. 

Find the article here

"A celebrity – Kylie, Sting – announces his or her intention to write for children, and I instinctively feel for the career-pledged writers who have been huffing away with their thesaurus and watercolour brushes for years. Beneath them, the hopefuls with worthwhile manuscripts hustle for interest... And, uh oh, here's another celebrity, lolloping into the game. They've noodled out an idea on a Groucho Club napkin. Their agent has swivelled at the bar to arrange a six-figure deal. The published result, you can bet, will absorb more than its share of publicity budgets, review space, shelf space."


Working in a children's library, it's something I'm asked all the time; 'which books will my child like?' and also, 'which books are best for my child?'.

And I really do think I am quite good at pointing someone in the right direction.  I myself have a special interest in children's literature and have studied the development of it, so celebrity writing is something which I have certainly noticed growing at a rapid rate on our bookshelves, and I see first-hand the impact it has when there is a chance to pick it up, for free, over a host of other titles.

The world of literature is awash with people who think they have a fantastic idea for a children's book - after all, it seems so easy, doesn't it?

I wrote to the zoo, to send me a pet...

Think of all of your children's favourites - Dear Zoo, Goodnight Moon, Guess How Much I Love you, Kipper - all with simple words and picture illustrations.  Surely it doesn't take a genius to put together a successful children's book?

The truth is, it's really hard to get it right.  Children are the most discerning audience, and above anything else are honest in their approach to things; if they do not like something, they will not pick it up.

Also, developmentally speaking, they are already geared towards a certain kind of literature at a certain age - it's not enough to simply have an easy story for pre-schoolers; research has shown that a story with rhyme and repetition works best, which is probably why author Julia Donaldson is so popular.

Oh help, oh no!

Baby board book have become so much more than pictures with words - there's now a huge array of black and white picture books, touch and feel boards and surprise flap books to garner the interest of the smallest babes.

So how is it then, that most celebrities who write, do in fact get it right? How are they so popular?

David Walliams and his fabulous fiction

We could argue that someone like David Walliams is naturally attuned to how children think- as Lamont points out, he is'an anomaly. He actually writes his own books, and as anyone who has ever sat a 10-year-old boy in front of an episode of Little Britain will attest, he knows how to make kids laugh.'


But when you think of someone like Madonna, or Katie Price, do you immediately think of someone who has a natural affinity with children, who could make kids giggle?

Tom loves a good book!

Sure, they are both mothers, so they must do to some degree, but are they, like so many celeb-authors seem to be, brilliant children's writers?

And if kids, who don't really know who these people are, are judging their books on content rather than who wrote them, like them, does it really matter?

Lamont claims we are jealous:

"We like to pretend we're reasonable souls, but most of us are way more petty and jealous than we'd like to admit. I mean, we may hate bankers, but if someone offered you two million a year to wear a snappy suit and yell, "Buy, buy, buy!" down a telephone you wouldn't say no, would you?"

There is something a bit odd about it all though, a bit cringe-worthy.  And I've been trying to work out what it is.

I think it makes me feel funny because books are a sacred and very intricate world into which a child steps. It's free.  It's pure. It's a world free from commercialism (in the main) and everything is completely based in imagination.

A book provides some of our most intimate childhood moments - at bedtime, when we are ill, when we are sad and connects with us in a way that is as individual as we are.  It's a mother's warm cuddle at night, entertainment on a rainy day, travel when we have to stay where we are.

For our children, I can think of nothing more important.

Reading has always been on the menu!

The names of children's authors, are words we utter to our book seller or librarians in the search for an old fable or beautiful moment from our own childhood, whispered with a twist of a smile on our lips.  These names are those who brought us all the understanding we sought out as children in an ever-confusing world.

It's not very often that we know much about them, or even what they look like.  And with massively magical authors, such as Roald Dahl or Judith Kerr, the author's own lives become a beautiful fable themselves, abound with rumours of magic and whimsy.

But these celebrities who write - the Madonnas, the Holly Willoughbys, the Russel Brands - we know more about them than is comfortable or necessary.  We know who they had sex with, what affairs they've had, the bad habits they advertise and, in the case of Katie Price, what their intimate parts look like during childbirth.

It doesn't feel right that we should be inviting their 'brands' into our children's domains.

Children's authors, traditionally, haven't courted this kind of celebrity for themselves, and we are all very comfortable with that.  But, quite rightly, they are peeved at the attention a celebrity's book is given - getting a book published is a difficult and emotional time for many authors.  It must feel like standing patiently in line, just to see the big ballsy, loudmouth bully skip the queue.

Children's author Robert Muchamore laments:

'It's time we recognised our top kids' authors for the cultural icons that they really are, and rewarded them with their rightful place in the celebrity limelight. I could display my intelligence and wit on Have I Got News For You; Michael Morpurgo could sing with the stars, and Philip Pullman can be the elderly one who isn't very good on Strictly. Malorie Blackman can host telethons and we can send Jo Rowling off to the jungle to sleep in the dirt and eat locusts.

And then we can stop this silly fuss, because we'll all be celebrities!'

In conclusion, what are books written by celebrities doing for us?  What is so wrong with them really?  After all, our kids read them, they like them, they re-read them and recommend them to their friends.  They talk about them.  And isn't that what we are trying to get our kids to do?  Fundamentally, by hook or by crook, we all want our kids to read more.

In short, there's nothing wrong with anything that gets children reading.  We may sneer at the latest celebrity attempt to push their brand onto our children.  We might balk at the way in which such a beautiful world of literature and free imagination is being rammed by the ever-growing tide of consumerism at it's finest. 

However, the truth of the matter is that the rise of celebrity authors is  casually destroying barriers between children who read and children who don't read, making it a much mre 'normal' and 'accepted' activity.  

That can only be a good thing.