Incest Fans: will you be watching "Flowers in the Attic"?

[3113]

I have not read the book, but it seems that the author, V.C. Andrews, made a killing by creating a goth-horror-romance-softcore-porn-"YA" novel (i.e. it's from the pov of a beautiful and talented and imprisoned and abused teen girl—and from what I've read, it was gobbled down by teens in the 80's as "the" book they had to read—secretly of course). With shades of BDSM if the plot is anything to go by (lots of whippings).

But what Andrews really did to launch this book into best-seller territory was to inject it full of incest (not only do the brother-sister have it, but mom and dad are niece & half-uncle). Which apparently rocketed it into the stratosphere there in 1979 but also got it banned in certain places (and was apparently something Andrews was into as she put it into earlier stories of hers).

It's been made into a Lifetime movie that will air January 18th.

Of course, at this point, this forerunner of mainstream popular incest (taboo and dirty—but romantic!) is actually late to the bus as incest has been showing up here and there on certain tv shows. Thoughts?

Edited to add: Apparently one reviewer likened Andrews style to "reading a court transcript of the Brady Bunch describing a decade of orgiastic abuse." Wow! I don't know if it's worth reading, but it might be worth looking at just to see that.

 

[patientlee]

I have not read the book, but it seems that the author, V.C. Andrews, made a killing by creating a goth-horror-romance-softcore-porn-"YA" novel (i.e. it's from the pov of a beautiful and talented and imprisoned and abused teen girl—and from what I've read, it was gobbled down by teens in the 80's as "the" book they had to read—secretly of course). With shades of BDSM if the plot is anything to go by (lots of whippings).

But what Andrews really did to launch this book into best-seller territory was to inject it full of incest (not only do the brother-sister have it, but mom and dad are niece & half-uncle). Which apparently rocketed it into the stratosphere there in 1979 but also got it banned in certain places (and was apparently something Andrews was into as she put it into earlier stories of hers).

It's been made into a Lifetime movie that will air January 18th.

Of course, at this point, this forerunner of mainstream popular incest (taboo and dirty—but romantic!) is actually late to the bus as incest has been showing up here and there on certain tv shows. Thoughts?

Edited to add: Apparently one reviewer likened Andrews style to "reading a court transcript of the Brady Bunch describing a decade of orgiastic abuse." Wow! I don't know if it's worth reading, but it might be worth looking at just to see that.

I read it in eighth grade. Mane that's why I don't read incest now. I won't watch the movie.

 

[MSTarot]

never read the book. was too into fantasy novels at the time it came out. I did see the 1987 movie version with the always wonderful Louise Fletcher as the grandmother.

That woman does Powerful, and slightly spooky very well.

Probably wont watch this new version. I found the 1987 one to be such a very depressing movie.

 

[lovecraft68]

Havn't read them since theg first came out.

Late to the dance as in yes incest storylines have showed up in major shows.

But none to the level this story featurs it.

Might be a break for some incest romance stories.

It would be funny if it did open up the market in the sense that I would wonder how long it would take amazon to back off their stance on it

 

[PennLady]

I've never read them, and don't think I'd particularly enjoy them now. I might have if I'd read it back when everyone else did, but apparently I was out of the loop. No interest in the show.

I will say that from what I've read of the one book (Flowers), the incest isn't really that much of it, at least not the actual sex. Sounds like it's really just one scene. However, I'm sure even that was enough to make a few eyes bug out.

 

[patientlee]

I've never read them, and don't think I'd particularly enjoy them now. I might have if I'd read it back when everyone else did, but apparently I was out of the loop. No interest in the show.

I will say that from what I've read of the one book (Flowers), the incest isn't really that much of it, at least not the actual sex. Sounds like it's really just one scene. However, I'm sure even that was enough to make a few eyes bug out.

In one of the books, the sister is with a different guy. (I think his name is Paul. Obviously this left an impression.) she says something about when his tongue first touched her "down there." Before reading that book, I had no idea that people did that. (I seriously don't know why my mother let me read those books.)

 

[Seanathon]

Never read the book but I saw the movie on VHS years ago. I remember the brother and sister being close but didn't remember any incest (I only remember the cookies sprinkled with sugar).

I am a big fan of Game of Thrones though (the series, haven't read the books yet) and the incest scene in the first episode of that show definitely made my eyes bug out!

 

[TheeGoatPig]

The original movie was so depressing. There is no way I would want to sit through that again.

 

[3113]

It would be funny if it did open up the market in the sense that I would wonder how long it would take amazon to back off their stance on it

Now there's an interesting point. Does Amazon sell "Flowers in the Attic" and its sequels (the brother and sister, in subsequent books, stay together as "husband and wife" raising kids who are the sister's by other men. Obviously, that they are siblings remains a secret—that gets out and causes problems with the kids—but they're certainly continuing the incest, without guilt and with the idea that there is no one else for them.

But then, brother and sister are imprisoned and abused for three years with virtually no one else there to get them through it but each other...difficult to meet someone else who really understands and can "get" them.

The point being, if Amazon is "no incest"—are the Andrews books not sold?

 

[3113]

Sounds like it's really just one scene. However, I'm sure even that was enough to make a few eyes bug out.

Apparently the brother and sister make out prior, but the actual sex in that first book is a rape as the brother forces himself on his sister in a moment of uncontrollable hormones. On the one hand, that's the times for you. There was still this weird romance trope (evident in the Luke & Laura romance) that men sometimes raped because they were enthralled with a woman (and wasn't that romantic —don't ask me, I still can't make sense of it!). The trope was that he rapes her, but she forgives him, and romance blossoms confused: still can't make sense of it, but it was a pretty common trope—and propaganda akin to "she wanted it.").

On the other hand, it allows the author a cheat at the time when incest was even more eye-buggingly shocking. The narrator and "heroine" of the story doesn't really commit incest, it is forced on her. Of course, in subsequent books the author repents and presents the incest the way she really wants it—as a romance. The brother and sister live quite happily (but for her crazy kids) as soul mates and lovers.

This new movie has the incest as consensual, however.

Never read the book but I saw the movie on VHS years ago. I remember the brother and sister being close but didn't remember any incest

The 80's movie didn't have the courage. It skipped the incest. Which one review of this new Lifetime movie says is like turning Moby Dick into a story about a man determined to catch a flounder

 

[3113]

I've never read them, and don't think I'd particularly enjoy them now.

I have to agree. Going over the plot I can see why it's such a hit with teen girls (and like-minded men and women). It has it all. Girl hits puberty and her perfect, loving life vanishes. Home becomes a "prison" where she is forced to do chores, punished for any infraction of crazy rules (or so it seems), mom still treats her as if she's twelve, and won't let her go out and do/be what she wants. AND her body is changing in ways she can't understand and no one explains, and the adult world (embodied in grandma there) is telling her to be ashamed of her changes, and feelings and things she isn't responsible for.

The books puts all this into an extreme situation of Westboro Baptist proportions, but I can see where teens might identify their own family situations, mild as they are by compare, with this Ann-Frank-meets-Carrie story.

And as the cherry on top for any such reader: there in the attic with our heroine is her handsome, smart, wonderful brother, the great romance of her life (with a splash of taboo sex). Very understandable to the teen girl hanging out all the time with their boyfriend and their parents/the world disapproves and doesn't understand and would be horrified to learn they had sex...

Yep. I can totally see how this book would appeal to teens—as well as to readers who want to read a tabloid tale of wealth, incest, abuse, etc....But I suspect I'm not one of those readers—if I ever was.

Have to say, that as a writer I do admire the title. It sounds like a real trashy pot-boiler, but the title is awesome. We should all find titles that good.

 

[lovecraft68]

Now there's an interesting point. Does Amazon sell "Flowers in the Attic" and its sequels (the brother and sister, in subsequent books, stay together as "husband and wife" raising kids who are the sister's by other men. Obviously, that they are siblings remains a secret—that gets out and causes problems with the kids—but they're certainly continuing the incest, without guilt and with the idea that there is no one else for them.

But then, brother and sister are imprisoned and abused for three years with virtually no one else there to get them through it but each other...difficult to meet someone else who really understands and can "get" them.

The point being, if Amazon is "no incest"—are the Andrews books not sold?

Of course they are sold because they are "fiction" the incest is not the whole story.

It sells there because it is under a major publisher (and Bezos sucks their cocks like there is no tomorrow.) and has sold countless millions of copies between all the spin offs.

The series is a depressing train wreck and I cannot see it ever gaining steam again after all these years and the incest was simply a direct result of a sick abusive family. It is not lit style "fun and sexy"

 

[Saxon_Hart]

I sure do wish the asshats and fucktards in Hollywood would come up with some original shit. I am sick of seeing a remake being advertised every time I turn on the TV. So in this version will the oldest kid keep the little one from eating the tainted treats, learn karate and kick gramma's ass, then raid Mommy's wedding with all of the other kids dress like Rambo (yet another movie I have heard rumors of being remade, along with The Terminator and Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and end up rich and famous living in a....well not a penthouse, they got enough of that shit in the attic.
Has everyone's creative imagination taken a shit? If Hollywood wants my $8 they need to make a film I haven't seen before.

 

[3113]

the incest was simply a direct result of a sick abusive family. It is not lit style "fun and sexy"

So, Amazon will post incest if it's shown to be a result of abuse—even if it continues on freely and with romantic and with some soft-core descriptions after the abuse is over?

 

[sr71plt]

Tilt. There are different "rules" for distributing fiction by mainstream publishers and established mainstream authors and publishing self-published erotica. That's what applies to Amazon carrying Flowers in the Attic. It may not make any sense either, but the reason is entirely different from where you seem to be headed with it.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So, Amazon will post incest if it's shown to be a result of abuse—even if it continues on freely and with romantic and with some soft-core descriptions after the abuse is over?

Amazon picks and chooses what it will publish or make visible to the general public. If your a big time print author from an established top 10 (or whatever the number should be) you get a pass if your book contains anything they have told the independent authors they won't accept.

That's why Fifty Shades and Flowers show up in the search and they won't even accept a book titled "My Mom" in the erotic category.

ETA: No I won't be watching.

 

[lovecraft68]

So, Amazon will post incest if it's shown to be a result of abuse—even if it continues on freely and with romantic and with some soft-core descriptions after the abuse is over?

Like I said its because it is not the sole draw of the book.

In other words is is not incest for titillation. The incest is a result of the rest of the storyline.
In erotica incest the incest is the entire focal point and why people read it. "Mom's hot, why not" is what amazon doesn't carry.

But books like Game of Thrones that feature it as one of many story lines and use it to further a plot(why is Geoffrey a twisted little shit? his parents are brother and sister.)

What I would love to see is an author like, lets say Stephen King come out and write "Banging my mother" and see what amazon would do.

 

[lovecraft68]

Oh, I never answered the question.

I won't watch it.

The books are very far removed from my head (the last one I read had to be close to 15 years ago) and if its done wrong it will piss me off and if its done right its depressing and I got enough crap going on in r/l right now to get depressed.

 

[lovecraft68]

I sure do wish the asshats and fucktards in Hollywood would come up with some original shit. I am sick of seeing a remake being advertised every time I turn on the TV. So in this version will the oldest kid keep the little one from eating the tainted treats, learn karate and kick gramma's ass, then raid Mommy's wedding with all of the other kids dress like Rambo (yet another movie I have heard rumors of being remade, along with The Terminator and Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and end up rich and famous living in a....well not a penthouse, they got enough of that shit in the attic.
Has everyone's creative imagination taken a shit? If Hollywood wants my $8 they need to make a film I haven't seen before.

That has stretched to comics as well at least for Marvel and DC. Nothing original in years just doing "Okay let's re invent Spider man again!"

Its just like book and movies. Want same old same old? Go mainstream, want originality read independent comics, self published authors, and watch low budget "Sundance type" movies

I'm not saying I am one of them, but I've read some stuff by indy authors that blow away the garbage the big six keeps shoving at people.

 

[chargergirl]

I read all five books and as I recall:

I have not read the book, but it seems that the author, V.C. Andrews, made a killing by creating a goth-horror-romance-softcore-porn-"YA" novel (i.e. it's from the pov of a beautiful and talented and imprisoned and abused teen girl—and from what I've read, it was gobbled down by teens in the 80's as "the" book they had to read—secretly of course). With shades of BDSM if the plot is anything to go by (lots of whippings).

The older brother and sister were beaten by the grandmother once. However, the grandmother did pour tar all over Cathy's hair as a punishment and made Chris cut off the rest of it. He didn't though, just cut off Cathy's bangs and wrapped her head in a towel to make it look as if he did.

But what Andrews really did to launch this book into best-seller territory was to inject it full of incest (not only do the brother-sister have it, but mom and dad are niece & half-uncle). Which apparently rocketed it into the stratosphere there in 1979 but also got it banned in certain places (and was apparently something Andrews was into as she put it into earlier stories of hers).

It really wasn't full of incest. There's a rape in the first book and a little fooling around in the second, and then nothing in the third and fourth. Cathy narrates all the books in the first person and in the third book says she and Chris have a platonic relationship. I remember not knowing what that meant and looking it up in the dictionary.

After the first four books were written, a prequel to Flowers came out called Garden of Shadows, which is the story of Olivia Foxworth, their grandmother, and their parents. Turns out the parents are really half brother and sister, same father, different mothers.

It's been made into a Lifetime movie that will air January 18th.

Of course, at this point, this forerunner of mainstream popular incest (taboo and dirty—but romantic!) is actually late to the bus as incest has been showing up here and there on certain tv shows. Thoughts?

Edited to add: Apparently one reviewer likened Andrews style to "reading a court transcript of the Brady Bunch describing a decade of orgiastic abuse." Wow! I don't know if it's worth reading, but it might be worth looking at just to see that.

It wasn't that bad. As a kid, I really enjoyed them. Though perhaps if I re-read them now I would think they are cheesy. I don't think I'll watch the movie.

 

[3113]

Cathy narrates all the books in the first person and in the third book says she and Chris have a platonic relationship. I remember not knowing what that meant and looking it up in the dictionary.

Hm. Wiki says that the third book (If There be Thorns) is narrated by the Cathy's sons and that

Cathy and Chris live together as husband and wife

and

have a passionate and very sexual relationship, described by Jory who has accidentally witnessed encounters between them. The more they fight, the more they make up with affection

.

Not my definition of platonic Perhaps you're thinking got how Cathy describes their post-abuse relationship in the second book?

 

[chargergirl]

Hm. Wiki says that the third book (If There be Thorns) is narrated by the Cathy's sons and that and .

Not my definition of platonic Perhaps you're thinking got how Cathy describes their post-abuse relationship in the second book?

Oh wow, I'd forgotten that! I wish I still had my copies of the books.

Yeah, maybe. Though they weren't very platonic in the second book. I just remember having to look that word up because I didn't know what it meant. Maybe in the fourth one...

Anyway, I ended up watching the movie. It was pretty good, and pretty close to the book. Much closer than the first time it was made into a movie in '87.

 

[3113]

Echo, echo, echo....

Anyway, I ended up watching the movie. It was pretty good, and pretty close to the book.

Watched it too. Didn't think much of it, but then I hadn't read the book and that usually makes a difference. (I know it's supposed to be all horrible and stuff, but I couldn't help thinking, as I watched it, "Heck, compared to 12 Years a Slave these kids have it easy..." )

And you're right that there isn't incest all over the place in there being actual sex, sex, sex—and certainly not, as Lovecraft pointed out, the sort of incest stories we see here where it's family fun sex. But my gosh, if the movie is anything like the book, then Freud would have loved it. Cathy looks longingly at her dad when mom kisses him, son Chris clearly lusts for mom, and mom gives Chris looks and kisses as if he's tempting. Not to be left out, grandma accuses mom of seducing grandpa (not of having actual sex with grandpa, but she does say that mom took away "her husband" meaning she was "the other woman" to grandma, not a daughter).

I suppose it's a good thing the author wasn't into homosexuality. Lesbianism between sisters, mother and grandmother. The mind boggles.

It struck me not as disturbing in an "Ew! Incest!" way, but rather as weirdly narcissistic. Outside of grandma, all the characters are blond and said to look like each other, mother/daughter, father/son—all sexually fixated on each other....talk about keeping it in the family. Does the book read like this much of an echo chamber?

 

[Hypoxia]

Am an incest fan: yes

Have read the book: no, but maybe I will now

Will view the show: no, I don't watch TV

Will practice more incest: yes, if I get the chance

Will write more incest stories: yes, they're in the (clogged) pipeline

 

[lovecraft68]

YOu want to see a mainstream disturbing view of incest

X-files The Episode called Home.

Fox actually banned it at one time.

Let me tell you, the whole thing was downright creepy. Very well done and again certainly not your lit style incest