Everyone knows about this book, not just because of Shane Dawson

You may be a nymphomaniac, but you act like a bitch when someone doesn't like the idea of nymphomania. Grow up and grow a bit of a backbone.

A woman also wrote Twilight, and most of the women *I* know think it's utter shit. "Because a woman did it must mean all women like it!" is a stupid argument. Reading from an erotic fiction is not the way to learn: OP should be telling her boyfriend what she likes.

This book is most certainly not an accurate representation of what /all/ women like as /all/ people have different tastes. And on top of that, this book is actually quite demeaning in some ways. The simple fact that the author has a seeming fear of the word "******" and others like it and prefers to use "down there" shows that. Or the fact that before Grey came along, the character had /no/ interest in sex whatsoever, which could lend credence to her actually being asexual or something along those lines, but no, the author makes it out like a man has to show her the wonders of sex for her to be interested. And then she takes it a step further and makes it so the only woman in the story who seems to have a major backbone is the woman who raped Grey when he was a minor. No. This book is not an accurate representation of what all women want. I'm sure there are some women who now think this is what they want but will find themselves hurt in the long run. And I know, personally, this book portrays absolutely nothing of what I desire from my relationships, sexual or otherwise.

I guess, in comparison to most books today, an isolated Freudian excuse could pass for "depth".

#145 - I heard he pulls out her tampon. Is that true?

Just remember, wraith: Tampon removal isn't about sex, it's about HEALING. Through sex.

And hamsters. Don't forget about mommy hamster eating her young, and when you're in the act, try to convey the same look that mother has for her infants the second before consumption. Because it's super hot.

Granted its is no Pride and Prejudice or Dracula (Both are classics) But it is a new take on fiction. Also, yes it IS deep. how would you like to suffer for 27 years and finding one thing that works for you is your only escape from a past that haunts you everyday? Levvy, I have to say your argument is a little thin and misinformed. But everyone has an opinion :)

Having some kind of backstory and reasons for a character's personal arc are a minimum. Meeting a minimum qualifies for "depth" like a leisurely stroll around the block qualifies for "running a marathon". A single defining trauma to serve as fan-service isn't depth, it's a cliche; a pandering to the "man I can fix" fantasy. If anything, it makes him even more of a stock character by delving so deeply into broad, conventional tropes. "Deep" isn't a qualifier you earn by putting forth a minimal token of characterization - especially when that token is just one of the building blocks of the "rich fantasy bad-boy with a hurt woobie side you can coddle" stock character. Cliches are kind of disqualified from being a "new take" for obvious reasons.

I completely agree with you. The young virgin meets the wealthy businessman and falls madly in love with him in 5 mins. Hahaha like that scenario hasn't been done. As someone who is experienced with the lifestyle I can assure you this isn't even close. He doesn't hold to the agreements made and neither does she. Oh wait she doesn't know any better. There is absolutely no training to speak of. And who cares If Mommy who a bad person. Im pretty sure this type of man that is described here fit many serial killer profiles as well. OK I do confess i only got through the first book and put it done and thought to myself "there was a day wasted"

This supposed "depth" that you speak of is superficial at best. We all have problems. We don't all trick people into dangerous, abusive relationships, as Grey did. But of course you could blame that on his problems, I suppose. But in fiction, you create the problem and then you find a way to help the character grow. Maybe they don't overcome it completely, maybe they do. But grey doesn't grow in the slightest and the book falls flat of any perceived depth you claim it has. No. Deep is something authors like Hemingway or Poe or any other classic author whose fiction is unparalleled write. Deep is being able to look at a story and pull apart one layer of it just to find out there's another one hidden underneath, and another under that. Fifty Shades of Grey is shallower than a child's wading pool and was brought to book selling fame by nothing more than a controversial fluke. Generations from now, it will not be remembered.