Talk:E. L. James

Untitled

I enjoy Wiki and use it all the time yet it goes very strange when anyone BRITISH is involved I cant give he dozens of instances it happens but coming across this writer is a good example..We are told nothing about this person except she is apparently half Chilean and half Scottish not where she was born educated ,nothing.. In fact there is an interview with her on you tube and its clear she is a humourous livelt typical educated English woman executive style Wiki manages to always to keep the boot on the British neck..the articles about edward first etc and the wars between the Scots and the English (actually French speaking Normans)are virtually insane... Whoever is at the top of Wiki should know that this kind of lying and distortion damages Wiki Even if you hate the British ,in wiki you should try to learn to live with them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.216.229 (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can you give me a link to this interview? If it's by a reliable source (CNN, major news channel, etc) and the interview is posted legally (ie, via the news source doing the interview, the author, the publisher's channels, etc) then we can actually use this to flesh out the article. The main issue I had with writing this article was that there's just not that much verified information out there about James. She's been in the news lately, but overall James is a very private person and most of the news sources focus more on her books than on her. I'd absolutely love to be able to put more information on this page about her history, but the fact is that we don't have the reliable sources to back the claims up for what little we do know about her. It has nothing to do with any sort of grudge against the British or about anyone in general. It's all about us being able to find news articles that give us this information that are considered reliable per Wikipedia standards, and unfortunately there just aren't that many when it comes to authors. To be honest, if we really had a grudge against the British then I wouldn't have added James to the mainspace at all, nor would I have spent hours upon hours searching for articles that focus predominantly on her. Nor would I have spent hours trying to improve the Fifty Shades article. I understand that you're frustrated and I'm not saying that people don't indulge in silly arguments for whatever reasons (some just because it's raining outside), but that's not the case here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I find your comment rather bizarre. You do realise it's E L James herself who described her ancestry as 'half-Chilean and half-Scottish', right? It's her parentage and that's apparently how she views herself, even if she was born in England or elsewhere. So let it be. 0zero9nine (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There are many cites regarding her nationality, she is British but was asked on her parents origins and somehow that became her 'nationality' on here. Anyway I have added a cite from the Guardian

Yadda, yadda, yadda. So what's her maiden name, hmmm? 38.115.185.3 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)HelenChicago

Establishing page

I've created this because with James's naming as one of Time's most influential people of 2012, I believe she's achieved individual notability enough to warrant her own article. If I'm wrong I'm willing to userfy the article and continue to work on it, but there's more than a few news stories that focus on James herself and with her book due to become a movie, she seems to meet many of the requirements for WP:AUTHOR. I'm open for debate, but the Time article really seemed to push it for me. On a side note, I'm a little confused as to how to label her info box. Do we label it with "E.L. James" because that's what the article is titled and what she's predominantly known as, or do we use her real name as the one at the top of the box? I've gone with her real name as E.L. James is her pseudonym, but I just thought I'd ask for a little advice on this. I'm more used to working on the book side of things rather than for author articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, articles on authors are titled by the name they're known by rather than their real name (unless they've written under several pseudonyms). For example, JK Rowling is at that title even though it's not quite her real name. So, this one should be kept at E.L. James. Robofish (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Any idea when she was born?

Nemissimo (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this article puts her at 48, although this is the DM. I haven't seen a birth date specified for her at all that I'm aware of.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Description as Pornographer

This is an accurate and non-pejorative description of one major aspect of this person's career. If anybody disagrees, I would ask that the issue is first discussed here. Media and anecdotal sources support the description and it balances the term erotica which could be considered euphemism by some (for example, this user). DMC (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of "pornographer" based on WP:BRD. I believe the term to have a connotation that misrepresents James' work and that it may present a subjective bias. If you can show that the term has been used regularly by objective, independent, reliable sources to describe James, I expect I would drop my objection to using it here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not my personal mouthpiece so I have allowed your reversal of my edit. However, I refer you to the following online article. In my day-to-day conversation I will continue to spread the opinion EL James is a purveyor of pornography. She should have the courage to own up to the title if she is happy to take the royalty cheques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David McIlwain (talk • contribs) 12:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's frankly not relevant whether she fits anyone's definition of a pornographer or not. In simple terms, if she's described by reliable sources as a pornographer, it would be appropriate to do so here; if she's not, then it's not. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure erotica is the publisher's description, if that's reliable. Frankly, most of these little living people bios seem to be just ads anyway. Pretty sure we even link to her page.DMC (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree (I agree with Theoldsparkle.) To be honest, I've not really seen anyone describe James as a pornographer. People have called the books "mommy porn", but they haven't actually called James a pornographer. The basis is that first they'd have to establish that erotica is in fact porn, which is something that has and still is the subject of heated debate. A lot of people feel that pornographic books are only written to "get off" and that erotica focuses on telling an actual story and involving feelings and emotions beyond the simple masturbatory tale, so it shouldn't be considered pornographic. They'll argue that it contains strong sexual content, but isn't explicitly pornographic because it's intention is not solely for sexual gratification. The arguments can get pretty detailed. This is one of the reasons I raised an eyebrow at the book being covered under the porn wikiproject, because I know how a lot of people feel about any book of erotica being under any label of "porn". To them it's two completely separate worlds, like how many would not begin to consider the romance section pornography. Just because some media pundits have taken to giving the books a cutesy label of "mommy porn" does not automatically make them pornography. If anything, the books are far from what I consider to be pornography. I'm not one of those who consider erotica completely separate from porn- some levels of erotica fit quite neatly inside of what I consider pornography, but the FSOG trilogy is not what I'd call porn. It's one of those books that run the very fine line of what porn might be, but despite the book being quite liberally laced with sexual content its primary purpose is not to present sexual material. Most of the book is actually story rather than sex. Not the best written story, but then we don't judge story-hood on whether a book is good or not. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You claim to agree with Theoldsparkle, who points out that it's not relevant whether FSOG meets any one individual's definition of porn; and then you state that FSOG does not meet your personal definition of porn. Anybody see a contradiction here? 174.24.50.26 (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

At least you've taken the time to think about it. I remain suspicious of the term erotica but what can you do.DMC (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah... it is a dodgy term, isn't it? I agree that it's used to hand wave away some of the more seedy aspects of pornography in general and make it seem "different", but some of the differences are big enough that the "erotica is completely separate from porn" people do have an argument. In any case, the term does sort of misrepresent James's work. She's not really what I or the public at large would consider a pornographer per se, as we more picture Hugh Hefner (at best) or some creepy guy in the back of a rapemobile (at worst). Hopefully over time the negative images associated with pornography will not be so dominant that using the term "pornographer" will taint everyone it's applied to and the term can be openly applied to people who produce works that are less about instant gratification and more about intellectual/emotional stimulation. Until then it's a field of land mines and hair splitting that's not easily identified. We could call James a pornographer and not be too far off from the truth, but then we could also say that she simply writes in the field of romance, as it's fairly common for romance books to have this level of sexual activity in them and still be considered basic fiction or romance without the erotica label. They tend to just not be as publicly visible and it's because of this that the term is a little hard to apply evenly. (Wow, that sounds awfully long and hot winded of me.) In any case, you're right: what can you really do? It's not as simple as saying that the term should be applied because Wikipedia doesn't worry about hurting people's feelings and prefers to "tell it as it is". (sighs) It probably won't become any easier with time, as even nowadays the writings of the Marquis De Sade aren't seen as pornography by many, and some of his stuff was far more graphic at turns. (And better written, but I digress...)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting move to EL James

I looked at six of the sources, including the three that appeared to be from the UK, and four of the six (two UK and two US) used the periods in the name. Also, I don't think I see any support in the sources for "EL James"; when the periods are omitted, as on the author's own website and the cover of her books, it looks like "E L James" is used. I'm about to post something at Talk:Manual of Style to ask if there's a relevant guideline here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Trilogy

The article says that E. L. James is the British author of the bestselling erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey. But that's just the first book of the trilogy. Why just mention the first one? And some info that might be of any interest for the article; she used about 18-20 to complete the trilogy.[1] 84.210.10.52 (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pen name?

The instructor of my Women's Studies classes insists Erika Leonard/Mitchell is itself a pseudonym. She doesn't offer any backing other than to say "She knows." Can this be true? --41.132.166.124 (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Unless it's backed up in reliable sources, it's not usable. From what I've seen in reliable sources, Erika Leonard is said to be her real name and not a pen name. Considering how private she is, it wouldn't surprise me if this eventually came out to be a pen name as well, but we can't go by presumptions. It'd be just as likely that Leonard/Mitchell is her real name and that your instructor is mistaken.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No Criticism

There needs to be a section about the controversy that is her idea of a woman. Her spineless,subservient-to-a-fault heroine is what probably is the most damaging thing to gender equality ever from a female author herself. It is sad already how heroism seems mostly restricted to male protagonists & this book with its over the top archaic, medieval rendering of female living to appease the male is a death knell to the "heroine" in literature as we know it. Rather than being a normal human, the "heroine" seems to revel in the idea of having no basic human dignity whatsoever & feeding on whatever crumbs her harsh master may occasionally drop, for all his wanton treatment of a slave in a worst-case scenario. And one is not even going to what a wide deviation there is between what actually is BDSM & what the author very conveniently molds it to be to suit her own personal fantasies.While everyone is entitled to their private thoughts, marketing such work to worldwide audience has spawned possibilities of a very wrong interpretation of female desires to immature minds.

She not only traces her origins from Twilight but also fed on the fears of women and girls of how men and boys will treat them. Not to mention for any male writers they have to relate to a Basted Boyfriendn which has become the most notable example in literature. --58.7.232.156 (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Unless you can back this up in reliable sources and show that this needs to be mentioned in the article, you should avoid using this as a forum to discuss James's writing in general. (WP:NOTAFORUM) If you know someone who would like discussing this on Wikipedia, you can discuss this with them on their talk pages to some degree. However all lengthy discussions should probably take place somewhere other than Wikipedia in general.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the reception and controversy on the article of the actual book. --58.7.232.156 (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Terrible Photograph

Ironically, I don't have any interest in this writer or her book, but ended up here after Wikibrowsing for a while.

Can somebody who is interested in this writer try to furnish a better photograph of her? Although the current picture may just be an unskilled amateur taking a happy snap with a smartphone in a public library seminar or something, the fact remains that it is a really dreadful image - technically, aesthetically, and practically as far as its use in any document is concerned. It gets my vote for the worst article portrait I have stumbled across in Wikipedia to date. (Judging by all the respectable reports and review I have read about this book, James is an appalling writer, a creator of very bad prose. Perhaps the quality of this photo says something about the aesthetic sensibilities of people who care enough about her writing to bother to author her Wikipedia page?)

At least one of this author fans out there in wikipedialand might edit that awful image to minimise the problems with poor and uneven exposure and crop it a bit closer. (Nobody actually cares about those overexposed windows behind her, but it might be nice to be able to see her face rather than a vague black blob.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.100.168 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As of now, this section appears to be inapplicable. The photo used in the article does not have windows in the background referenced above, and while it's not exactly a professional portrait, it's clear. There's also a subtle nod in the photo for those who have read her books. Lwsimon (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If this is the photograph captioned as being of her in 2012, I would criticize it for showing what appears to be (correct me, anyone who can identify it more clearly than part-time bespectacled me) a bandaged left hand, unless it is sign of a permanent disability (about which I would not object).(Belated signature) Cloptonson (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. More opposes than supports, and they have valid reasoning. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

---

E. L. James → E L James – Forget naming conventions. She does NOT use full stops in her name (see her official website, Instgram, Twitter and Facebook). Unreal7 (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:MOSTM In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a valid reason. She quite clearly does not spell her name with full stops. Unreal7 (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is, ironically, not a valid reason for us to do so! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This is a person's name. It should be spelled accurately. oknazevad (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Our MOS is important for WP:CONSISTENCY and also WP:INITS. There's no evidence that she actually has a problem with using full stops either, it's just that's she's happened to use a different style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. That's probably because she's British. We don't tend to use full stops after initials. However, using or not using full stops is purely a matter of personal style and Wikipedia's house style is to use them. In fact, the BBC and several British newspapers call her "EL James", without any spaces between the initials, because that's their house style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"TV executive"

I have removed references to James's prior career as a "TV executive", after finding that the cited sources merely copied book-jacket text. The book jacket text for a fantasy novel authored under a pen name should not be assumed to have biographical accuracy. The newspapers stories that explore her private life refer to her career in much more modest terms. Wwallacee (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2023

Add "The Missus (2023)" under her list of published works Kxander23 (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)