The Fifty Shades of Grey movie was not that bad!

I read Fifty Shades a Grey a while ago now and can remember summing up my feelings as "Meh" when I finished it. I managed to finish the whole thing which doesn't make it the worst book I've ever read. I was defintely intrigued and it held my attention in a lot of bits. I would probably label it as either a C or a B minus. It started off shaky but got better but ultimately, in the end, I could tell it began its life as a piece of fan fiction. The author has talent but it is raw. I think in time she will improve. There was a lot that was good but there were a lot of bits that were poorly written.

What was interesting about the movie was that it took a medicore book and cut out the flab and made it into a somewhat halfway decent film. The best thing that film was did was take out all of Ana's stupid inner dialogue. In the book she constantly makes references to her "inner goddess" when she thinks about wanting to have sex with Christian. It was stupid, childish and horribly repetitive.

Once you take all of that out the whole thing comes across as way, way more mature. What you're left with is an intriguing film about a relationship that straddles the line between abusive and adventurous.

Why do people hate the characters on Girls?

I discovered the show Girls last year and immediately got sucked in. I loved the writing, the wonderfully flawed characters, and how realistic I felt the whole thing was. The characters on Girls are very well written. In real life people have layers: we can all be a jerk, a bitch, a narcissist, or the best friend you could ever have. The girls on Girls are normal dumb 20-somethings learning about the world one mistake at a time. What mystifies me about this show is the level of hate often directed toward it.

Yes, the characters are not always likeable. Marnie is in my opinion the least likable. She was positively gleeful once she realised she was putting a wedge between Desi and his girlfriend. The look of delight on her face at the end of season three when she saw them fighting. It was a little disturbing like she was feeding off the drama like the witches feed off souls like in Hocus Pocus.

Hannah is annoying, selfish, mentally ill, and sometimes baffling but she's not the worst person to ever walk the face of the Earth but the way some people whinge online you would think she was the most terrible human being ever. I find it weird that people watch shows like Breaking Bad and cheer on Walt as kills people and then melts their bodies but when Hannah does something flaky the pitchforks come out?

The hatred for the characters on Girls is a lot like the hatred that was directed toward Skylar White back when Breaking Bad was on. People had an irrational hatred of her as well and it made no sense. She finds out her husband is a drug lord, a criminal, a meth cook and a killer and she does not react well and she's a bitch because of that? I found it fascinating that so many people thought she was the more shittier human being for having an affair and not "supporting" him compared to him being the Darth Vader of the Meth world.

Why do so many people cheer on characters like Walter White but mock and complain about characters like Hannah from Girls goes nude or ditches her friends to go and do something selfish? How is Hannah the more terrible human being? Hannah is a typical, self-centered, slightly spoiled young girl who is used to a certain level of entitlement. She is raw and real. And that is what makes her such a well written character. I don't hate her for her flaws. I find her flaws fascinating. I went and saw Fifty Shades of Grey yesterday at the cinema and I was talking to my husband about it afterwards and how I felt that Ana was a bit of a blank slate. Anyone could be Ana. "Oh I study English Lit and work in a hardware store" it's like the author spent five minutes fleshing out her character. Now Hannah, on the other hand, is so detailed, so fleshed out, I could talk about her for days. Love her or hate her but you have got to admit she gets people talking and that is the sign of a good writer.

Why do journalists use such crappy cliches all the time?

I saw an article titled "Wayward sister 'nun the wiser' about baby boy" it was about a Nun who somehow got pregnant. I read it and I rolled my eyes so hard I'm surprised they did not fall out of my head. Growing up I was told repeatedly to AVOID cliches as much as possible by the older, wiser writers I chatted with online. Why is it then that journalists go out of their way to use the most cringe worthiest cliches ever in their headlines? for laughs? It's not funny. It's stupid. It's bad writing. Please, for the love of God, STOP. Just tell the stupid story without trying to be clever. I mean come on. You have one job. Report the story. People used to tell me all the time to go into journalism when I told them I liked to write. I'm glad I never did. A creative writer is not the same thing as a journalist. When I see the front covers of some of the more raggy magazines that have lies on the front about the rich and famous that are not even close to being believable I think to myself "Is the person who wrote the story happy with themselves? All those years studying journalism to end up writing rubbish that most people will probably only read in a doctor's waiting room?" I feel bad for them.

Writing is not a good way to make money

I think most if not all writers have dreams of breaking it big at one point in their lives. We want to be the next J.K Rowling. We want to be successful enough that we can spend our days at our computer in our undies writing stories for a living. We want to be able to rake in millions and go to book signings and sit in bookshops surrounded by readers wanting to ask us questions. The reality is for most of us we will never achieve any of that. Writing is not a good career choice if you are coming into it to make money. Most earning little to nothing. There is a reason why the number one rule in writing is DO NOT QUIT YOUR DAY JOB. If you can earn enough from writing that you end up with a little extra in your wallet every fortnight congratulations you are doing better than most writers. The truth is most writers do not earn a living wage. Even fewer earn millions. Being a writer is not like working in a regular 9-5 job. You do not get a steady pay check. You spend hundreds of hours working on a book and then you throw it into a sea infested with sharks and hope to hell it does not get ripped to bits.

Success in writing depends too much on chance: What have you written? have you published it at the right time? what are people reading? is this the best book you could've written? could it have been better? What is trending right now? And so on and so on and so on. It is foolish to think that writing is a simple way to make money and it is wrong to tell others that it is a get rich quick scheme. The truth is if you make any money at all chances are it will be enough for a cup of coffee. Instead of having sky high dreams of being the next big author megastar my advice to writers would be to aim for something a bit more realistic: keep your day job but try and earn enough from writing so it can give you some extra pocket money whether that is a couple of bucks a week or a couple of grand a year.

Personally, I do not want to be super successful anymore. I think it would be too much pressure. I once read that JK Rowling was under so much pressure to finish the fourth Harry Potter book she considered breaking her arm to give herself a break. Yeah, that's fucked up. I don't want to be so successful that I cease to be a person and just become a cog in a machine that prints money. I mean it would be nice to make some money but I will settle for positive reviews online instead if I had to choose.

It is a long road toward success so enjoy the journey

Some people think that writing is easy. I mean it does sound simple. You sit down and write a story. How hard can that be? Surely it cannot take THAT long. But it does. People do not realize how long it takes to write a book or even a short story. You have to learn how to craft a story, how to make a character come alive, how to make a plot, how to create tension, how to edit, the correct use of grammer, and then you have to do the actual writing part. And once you've finished the story YOU have to edit it not someone else. Do NOT pay for a professional editor. As a writer you should be able to edit your own work. You need to learn how to do it. Paying for a professional editor is cheating. It would be like paying for a professional painter. Why do that when you can buy some paint and some brushes and do it yourself?

I've been writing for a long time and have yet to "have my big break" I am not a best selling author, my books are not available in the shops, and no one knows my name. Apparently, according to some, I should give up. I've been writing for longer than five years. Shouldn't I have been successful by now? Since I haven't does that mean something is wrong with me? Am I talentless? Am I wasting my time on books no one will ever read? Are my books boring? Are my characters dead? Is the problem me?

I don't believe in this idea of a "timeline for success" in fact I find it offensive. What people are saying is that I should give up. Firstly define success for me. Should I give up because I do not earn a living wage from writing? because I have not won an award? or because my books are not available in brick and mortar shops? I am only self-published. Is that not successful enough for you? Should I put down my pen because I do not have hundreds of followers on Twitter?

Publication is not a sign of talent and publishers are not Gods who know for certain what books are going to be successful and what books aren't. There are lots of writers who spend their entire lives working on one book that will become their lasting legacy. Others will publish half a dozen that will fail to take off and then they will publish one more and THAT one will be successful. And then there are those who are successful right out of the gate. Others might publish a book and it could languish on the shelves for decades before finally being embraced by readers.

What I am saying is just because I have not been successful yet does not mean that it is never going to happen for me. My next short story or novel could be the one that really strikes a cord with readers. Or it could be something I will write ten, twenty, or thirty years from now. I just don't know. I am not going to stop writing because it has not happened for me yet. I have faith in myself and my talent will only continue to grow and improve the more I write. I refuse to think that I am talentless because I've been in this game for over five years and have not struck it big. I am constantly learning, evolving, and improving. I am in this game for the love of writing not for the money. You would have to be nuts to think that writing is a good way to earn lots and lots of cash. I could earn more standing in the streets playing my husband's guitar.

I am so bored of comic book heroes

The Flash is showing on foxtell at the moment and the few glimpses I've had of it bore me to death. It's such a typical comic book cliche plot: insert young male nerd who is incredibly smart and is usually a scientist + random weather event or science experiment gone wrong = super hero! I think he gets hit by lightning and that gives him his speed powers and his super hero bod. How boring. Why does it happen? How does the lightning do that to him? I prefer super heroes who have magical origins like Superman or Sailor Moon. It's more believable than a random act of God turning them into a super hero. I think I prefer super hero worlds that are more magical because I can suspend my belief more. I don't like the comic book worlds as much where science is responsible for all the good and bad things that happen. I feel like it has been done to death and it just does not interest me anymore. Part of the reason I like Sailor Moon is because she is an ordinary, average girl. She is not really smart. She is not brave. She is just a student at school. She doesn't have huge aspirations. She just wants to be a housewife and be happy. In the ads for the Flash he says he is your "average forensic scientist" like that is a job that is really common. That bugs me for some reason. If you are a forensic scientist you are not normal in any way. You are clearly a very intelligent person and have managed to find success in a very small field. There isn't a huge need for forensic scientists. I know some people might think Usagi might not be a great role model because of her desire to be a simple housewife instead of getting a career. But I disagree. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be a housewife and a mother. There's nothing wrong with being a forensic scientist, either. I am just tired of comic book heroes always being made out of cookie cutter molds so to speak. This is why Buffy was so good. She was the opposite of a cliche. Instead of being the beautiful blonde being chased by monsters she chased them. It was fresh. It was new. It was exciting. We need more human super heroes. People like Buffy and Usagi. Because in real life most people have an average job and an average intelligence and might hesitate to put themselves in danger.

Fifty Shades of Grey has ruined the romance/erotica genre

I detest the term "Mummy porn" I also hate the term "Mummy blogger" why is it once you have had a child that as a woman you are always a mother first and whatever else you want to be second? Long before Fifty Shades of Grey came out the media had a weird fascination with romance writers. Every so often they would do a puff piece about some bored housewife who has gotten into dabbling in the romance genre and it has always irritated the shit out of me. I read one the other day about a female cop doing it and the article was called "Smutty Mummy" and it made references to fucking Fifty Shades of Grey (of course) as if that book was responsible for the sexual awakening of every woman on the planet.

Let me clear something up. Women like sex. Women like porn. Women like these things as much as men. And romance/erotica is NOT porn. "Mummy Porn" does not exist. Romance/erotica is very, very different to porn. Romance novels are not smut. It is not porn. They have a plot and characters. They are stories that revolve around romantic relationships. It is not just about the sex. Yes, all things do LEAD to sex. But it is not three hundred pages of endless fucking. How boring would that be? Porn is nothing but sex. A romance novel is exactly what it says it is: a romance. Not just a fuckfest. Just because something has sex in it does NOT make it porn.

I am not anti-porn I just grow tired of the giggling and finger pointing the media does when they do a puff piece about a romance writer. What is their fascination with romance writers? What about horror writers? or fantasy? or historical fiction? What is it about female romance writers that is so interesting to them? Men write romance as well. What would you call their books? "Daddy porn?"

I read Fifty Shades of Grey from beginning to end and I am very curious about the film and I'm actually looking forward to it. Will it be hot? Eh, maybe, but I reckon it'd way, way tamer than what people are expecting. If we see actual cock and balls I'll be very surprised. Fifty Shades of Grey was not terrible but it was not great either. It's good that it's gotten people interested in erotica but I really hate this idea that the media has that women did not like sex until that book came along. There is a big wide world of much better erotica fiction out there that women and men have been enjoying for a long, long time.