Kicking Oprah in the teeth?
tess gerritsen
thrilled about being an Oprah pick. (Bet his publisher is ready to
throttle him!)
From: publisher's lunch:
Oprah Corrects Franzen Off the Air
Farrar Straus was apparently blind-sided by Oprah Winfrey's decision
not air a Book Club episode on Jonathan Franzen's THE CORRECTIONS.
Last night PW reported this statement from Oprah (even as, earlier in
the day, people at Harpo were indicating that the book still would be
covered on the program): "Jonathan Franzen will not be on the Oprah
Winfrey show because he is seemingly uncomfortable and conflicted
about being chosen as a book club selection. It is never my intention
to make anyone uncomfortable or cause anyone conflict. We have decided
to skip the dinner and we're moving on to the next book."
In a statement just released by FSG, Franzen responds, "I was
delighted that Oprah Winfrey picked THE CORRECTIONS for her Book Club.
I'm glad that so many of her viewers are reading and enjoying it, and
I'm sorry to learn that there won't be a dinner for this particular
selection. I was never conflicted about any of this, although the
printed logo on the dust jacket did make me uncomfortable. I'm a
writer, not a spokesperson. I try to explore complicated emotions and
circumstances as honestly and fully as I can. This approach can be
productive on the page, but clearly hasn't been helpful in talking to
the media, many members of which used the occasion of my book tour to
raise questions about Oprah's Book Club and the supposed divisions
among American readers. The conflict is preexisting in the culture,
and it landed in my lap because of my good fortune. I'm sorry if,
because of my inexperience, I expressed myself poorly or unwisely. I
continue to be grateful to Oprah for her loveof THE CORRECTIONS."
The publisher echoes Franzen's point that the discussion of whether
CORRECTIONS was "too good for an Oprah pick" began before Oprah ever
actually selected the title, setting up a story that the media
couldn't resist and that would have played on no matter Franzen said.
CORRECTIONS was seen by many as the kind of earnest contemporary
literature that could never get Oprah-style attention and
audiences--by picking the book, so early in its publication life even,
Oprah's designation forced the issue even more. And it didn't help
that an author who spent seven years crafting his words suddenly found
that Oprah was the first subject on every interviewer's mind as he was
touring.
Of course part of the problem is that Franzen's recent remarks
displayed a different sentiment from today's statement. Others in the
industry are already blaming the publisher for not coaching Franzen
better--even as a long and carefully crafted publicity campaign made
him very visible--and making clear the responsibilities that go along
with accepting the Oprah designation (Franzen does not own a
television and had not seen Oprah's show until her staff sent him a
tape).
Franzen's remarks showed both discomfort with the Oprah questioning as
well as concerns about what kind of audience it would drive. He
recently bemoaned to NPR's Terry Gross the notion that only women read
contemporary fiction and said, "I had some hope of actually reaching a
male audience and I've heard more than one reader in signing lines say
'If I hadn't heard you, I would have been put off by the fact that it
is an Oprah pick.'" When Gross asked about preparations for the Oprah
episode, originally set to air in November, he noted "I've done the
sort of bogus thing where they follow you around with a camera and try
to act natural" but that the "coffee klatsch" portion would come
later.
Earlier in the month Franzen had told The Oregonian, "I see this as my
book, my creation, and I didn't want that logo of corporate ownership
on it. It's not a sticker, it's part of the cover. They redo the whole
cover. You can't take it off. I know it says Oprah's Book Club, but
it's an implied endorsement, both for me and for her. The reason I got
into this business is because I'm an independent writer, and I didn't
want that corporate logo on my book." (National Book Award voters take
note). Apparently it was the publisher's idea to maintain a supply of
Oprah logo-free covers to assuage the author. He also expressed the
opinion that, "we feel it does as much for her as it does for us."
Only time will tell how many women (and Oprah loyalists) will respond
by leaving those Oprah emblazoned editions on store shelves--there are
approximately 800,000 copies in print, and FSG underscores that the
book remains Oprah Book Club Pick #43 even though there will be no
book club dinner episode. But there was already heated discussion at
Readerville.com, where site regular Katherine Warren said "Franzen has
proven himself rude and arrogant in his dismissal of Oprah and the
readers who follow her lead. One doesn't have to love Oprah to see
that…. We used to wish Oprah would choose more challenging books. OK,
she did, and what happened? The author kicked her in the teeth, saying
'Who needs you? You're not the sort of readers I want for MY book. Go
away.' Now we've got to wish Oprah will choose a challenging writer
who won't kick her."
Natasha Dee
having looked a gift horse in the mouth. He has long been an unpleasant,
meglo-maniacal jerk (one look at his author jacket hints at it, with his phony
5-day stubble and pretentious Buddy Holly glasses). If you have ever read any
of his statements about how his work stacks up to other, more respected
authors, you'd think he was a jerk, too. His ego need serious deflating -- and
needed it well before the Oprah kick!
Plus the book stinks. It starts out fine then deteriorates into a stew of
cliches about dysfunctional families. Expect no subtlety and no psychological
insight.
This is a great example of karma at work.
Mary
tess gerritsen wrote:
> Interesting article about how Jonathan Franzen wasn't all that
> thrilled about being an Oprah pick. (Bet his publisher is ready to
> throttle him!)
Read the article posted and I do think Franzen sounds like a
perfect ass.
cheers,
Mary
BLIND 321
cliches about dysfunctional families. Expect no subtlety and no psychological
insight. >>
I have to agree with Natasha here. I didn't like ONE CHARACTER in that book.
If this is the sort of folk Franzen is used to being around, no wonder he's
such a nasty, selfish bastard.
If he really felt strongly about this issue, he'd refuse the royalties off the
extra half a million books his publishers put out when he became an Oprah pick.
Those books weren't sold because people think he's a good writer.
If you want to read The Great American Novel, try Richard Russo's Empire Falls.
What a lovely book, by an even better author.
KS
Patricia Thompson
read something I (or anyone who doesn't watch her show) would want to
read.
Now, if she wants to pick you, Tess, or maybe Sparkle, or hey, how about
Katy? That'd be the only time I'd read an Oprah Book Club book.
Catherine
Melissa
Melissa
"Patricia Thompson" <cat...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BD5EE8B...@nb.sympatico.ca...
> > that.. We used to wish Oprah would choose more challenging books. OK,
Penny Howland
the book. I know that is judgmental but I can do that if I want to. I love
good mysteries that have never been her picks and I haven't cared for her
picks that my girlfriends have convinced me to read....granted there have
only been two books...but that is enough, I'm done.
ell...@webtv.net
<<If he really felt strongly about this issue, he'd refuse the royalties
off the extra half a million books his publishers put out when he became
an Oprah pick. >>
Nobody accused him of being crazy.
<< Those books weren't sold because people think he's a good
writer.>>
Those books aren't sold yet. According to what Tess posted, there are
thousands of them sitting in the bookstores with the Oprah sticker on
them, but until they are sold, he gets no royalties.
It does startle me that his publisher didn't call him up and say, "Hot
damn! Are we going to make a bundle!" before he responded to the Oprah
pick in public.
Is he obnoxious or arrogant or prideful, or determined that his writing
be taken seriously? I don't know. But it's obvious that money is not
his first priority and I find that refreshing.
Ellen
Bridget
liking several of them.
Wally Lamb (I know you either love him or hate him)
I love his word weaving,
B.
Keith Snyder
ell...@webtv.net said:
> But it's obvious that money is not
> his first priority and I find that refreshing.
I think disdain for money is no better than the love of it. It controls you
either way.
Keith
ell...@webtv.net
his first priority and I find that refreshing.>>
<<I think disdain for money is no better than the love of it. It
controls you either way.
Keith>>
Well, I completely disagree with you on this--but even if I agreed,
disdain for money would still be a far rarer phenomenon than love of it.
Ellen
Thelma Lubkin
: <<But it's obvious that money is not
The quotes from his later statement sound like he's falling
all over himself trying to make up for an attitude that he's
found he can't maintain and still make money. This doesn't
seem like a 'disdain for money', just a bad head for business.
--thelma
: Ellen
Miftosyo
reading. And that's guy thinks he's too good to be chosen as one of
her book club selections. What an elitist pompous moron.
tess gerritsen
> she did, and what happened? The author kicked her in the teeth, saying
> 'Who needs you? You're not the sort of readers I want for MY book. Go
> away.' Now we've got to wish Oprah will choose a challenging writer who won't kick her."
Now, this is the part that puzzles me. People were hoping that Oprah
would choose "more challenging" books?
I've read several of Oprah's choices, and while I did not care for
most of them (DEEP END OF THE OCEAN left me depressed for days) I
would by no means call them UNchallenging. Does that mean I'm too
simple-minded for Franzen's "serious" fiction?
Does anyone know what the definition of "challenging" fiction is? Is
it a book that requires lots of work and slogging to get through?
Does that make it a better novel?
Does that mean a book you can't put down is, by definition, a bad
book?
Cheryl L. Perkins
<snip>
: Does anyone know what the definition of "challenging" fiction is? Is
: it a book that requires lots of work and slogging to get through?
: Does that make it a better novel?
: Does that mean a book you can't put down is, by definition, a bad
: book?
I'm always mildly surprised when a book recommended to me as "good
literature" is gripping and interesting. That may be because I don't share
the literary tastes of the people who usually suggest that I read
something "better", and, presumably, more challenging, than my usual
reading.
I have decided that I don't particularly care for books in which style
outweighs character development or plot, and I also don't care for books
on teenage angst.
I think some people assume that a book that is difficult to understand
or get into must be a superior form of literature. I don't agree with
that, myself, but I'm not a scholar or expert in literature. Maybe I
really am missing the point in some of the famous books I have read, or
tried to read, but I don't worry about it. I just leave them to someone
else to read, I hope for someone else who likes those kinds of books.
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@stemnet.nf.ca
BLIND 321
Kathryn Harrison
Barbara Gowdy
Peter Moore Smith
Mary Karr
Richard Russo
KS
tess gerritsen
Franzen and Oprah:
Franzen, Chapter 2
If you're like Doubleday's editor in chief Bill Thomas ("One would
have to be a better person than me not to be amused by this whole
drama) then today's Oprah-Franzen follow-up, from printed accounts, is
for you.
Franzen told the NY Times in a telephone interview, "I said things
that ended up hurting Oprah Winfrey's feelings and far too late it was
pointed out to me that this was happening," he said. "I feel bad for a
number of reasons, because I really don't like to hurt people, and I
feel bad because the person being hurt is actually a really good
person for American writing and reading." Later he adds, "Oprah
Winfrey is bent on demonstrating that estimates of the size of the
audience for good books is too small, and that is why it is so
unfortunate that this is being cast as arrogant Franzen and popular
Winfrey - I like her for liking my book." But he's still harping on
the cover, too: "I stayed up worrying about it a couple of nights,
because of this rather stringent tradition in American publishing that
there is no advertising on the cover of hardcover fiction." (And the
article also contrasts this with a quote from an interview with
Powell's bookstore, posted on its web site: "She's picked some good
books, but she's picked enough schmaltzy, one-dimensional ones that I
cringe, myself, even though I think she's really smart and she's
really fighting the good fight.")
As any fellow parent knows, an apology isn't quite the same when it's
tendered after you've been caught by Mom, and particularly when it
includes a persistent "But…." In my house we look not so much to the
original apology as to the child's subsequent behavior and his
willingness to say "I'm sorry. I was wrong. It will never happen
again."
Variety suggests a more dramatic phrasing, quoting "an exec at another
house" as saying, "He should be getting down on his knees and
proclaiming, 'I'm not worthy.'" The article adds, "Whatever his
motives, Franzen has joined a club of writers -- from Dave Eggers to
David Foster Wallace and Don DeLillo -- who've generated a huge amount
of publicity by kicking and screaming that they're embarassed by
publicity. And Franzen hasn't been especially consistent on this
point. He's in the midst of a book tour covering more than 20 cities
and he published an article in Harpers last year [N.B.: the Harper's
article ran in 1996] lamenting the state of American fiction that
didn't disguise his ambition to write the next great American novel."
Keith Snyder
said:
> "I stayed up worrying about it a couple of nights,
> because of this rather stringent tradition in American publishing that
> there is no advertising on the cover of hardcover fiction."
The cover of hardcover fiction IS ADVERTISING! It's just advertising for
the book.
I'm willing to give Franzen the benefit of the doubt and say he's not trying
to protect his own advertising; he's just confused.
Keith
BLIND 321
and he published an article in Harpers last year [N.B.: the Harper's
article ran in 1996] lamenting the state of American fiction that
didn't disguise his ambition to write the next great American novel." >>
Too bad he didn't.
KS
Towse
tess gerritsen wrote:
>
[Readerville.com site regular Katherine Warren said]
Er. Um. "Challenging," I think, describes a book that half the
readers don't finish because they find they don't want to invest
the time wading through what they consider sludge (and the pages
don't turn! and the characters' motivations are unfathomable).
The other half (or third or eighth) of the readers that do finish
the book can't agree on what it all meant.
From this quirk arises reading clubs, Oprah's included. If you
can't discuss the unfathomable motivations, quirky word choice,
incomprehensibility of the denouement and idiocy (or beauty) of
the plot (and what the hell! sort of person would write something
like >>that<<), there's no need to get together for tea and
cookies (or beer and pizza) and discuss with friends a book
you've all read.
I'm reminded of an argument my older brother and I had over
BABBITT. He said, "I couldn't stand the book. The whole book was
drab and boring." I, on the other hand, loved the book (although
I haven't read it in a quarter century and may not love it any
more) because Lewis shaped his words (so drab and boring) around
the drab, boring main character that Babbitt was. The book _was
George Follanbee Babbitt.
Not "challenging" would be a work like oh, say HONDO or THE QUEEN
SAVES THE KING, a Cartland classic.
Sal
--
writing links: <http://www.towse.com/links/writing-links.htm>
Natasha Dee
to protect his own advertising; he's just confused.
Keith >>
Actually, Keith, what he is... is an arrogant pig.
Mary
BLIND 321 wrote:
She shoots: she scores!!!!
mary
Mary
Keith Snyder wrote:
Nobody who can write a long article for Harper's about the quality of
American fiction is going to be _that_ confused.
cheers,
Mary
Phib
> I think it's great how Oprah uses a daytime talk show to promote
> reading. And that's guy thinks he's too good to be chosen as one of
> her book club selections. What an elitist pompous moron.
I don't think Franzen is necessarily an elitist, pompous moron. I've
shot off my mouth far too many times before my brain was fully engaged
to throw rocks at anyone else. I have the feeling he was just saying
he wants to be recognized for his writing--what author doesn't?--and
not because a popular television person chose his book. I feel that
Oprah's choices lean mostly to women's issues--abuse, unwed pregnancy,
second-class citizenry, single motherhood, divorce.....Certainly not
the stuff that hits most males directly where they live--just as war
novels don't hit me where I live. Franzen may feel, rightly, that
being an Oprah choice categorizes as something he isn't--a women's
writer. On the other hand, he could do worse than appeal to a large,
understanding group of readers (who just incidentally happen to be
women).
Phib
Hemlock Soames
wrote:
>Interesting article about how Jonathan Franzen wasn't all that
>thrilled about being an Oprah pick. (Bet his publisher is ready to
>throttle him!)
>
>
>From: publisher's lunch:
<snip interesting article>
Ah, what we do for art.
Soames
From the New York Times:
October 24, 2001
Winfrey Rescinds Offer to Author for Guest Appearance
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Many authors had reason to feel jealous when Jonathan Franzen's
best-selling and critically acclaimed novel "The Corrections" was
selected for Oprah Winfrey's book club, guaranteeing even more sales.
But this week Mr. Franzen earned an even rarer distinction as the
first author to be formally uninvited to appear on her television
show.
Ms. Winfrey's decision stemmed from occasional public comments by Mr.
Franzen that she felt disparaged her literary selections as middlebrow
or unsophisticated. Her reaction quickly became the talk of the
literary world because of Mr. Franzen's status as its
author-of-the-moment. Yesterday, he apologized, suggesting some of his
comments were taken out of context.
Most authors are careful not to offend Ms. Winfrey. Her book club
sends legions of her viewers into bookstores. She has often made best-
sellers of previously low-selling but critically acclaimed authors,
and her selections have included highly regarded writers like Toni
Morrison, Wally Lamb and Isabel Allende.
But some of Mr. Franzen's comments suggested an unusual ambivalence
about his selection. "The first weekend after I heard I considered
turning it down," Mr. Franzen told The Portland Oregonian, for
example. "I see this as my book, my creation, and I didn't want that
logo of corporate ownership on it."
After a book is selected by Ms. Winfrey's book club, publishers often
reprint copies with a logo designating its selection on its cover,
which Mr. Franzen described as an endorsement for her as well as for
him.
In an interview on National Public Radio, he said his selection,
"heightens this sense of split that I feel."
"I feel like I'm solidly in the high- art literary tradition, but I
like to read entertaining books and this maybe helps bridge that gap,
but it also heightens these feelings of being misunderstood," he said.
Mr. Franzen suggested that men might be put off by Ms. Winfrey's
selection, perhaps because her choices were often viewed as appealing
mainly to women. Mr. Franzen described a segment of Ms. Winfrey's show
as "the sort of bogus thing where they follow you around with a
camera."
In an interview with Powell's bookstore in Portland, Ore., that was
reprinted on its Web site, Mr. Franzen said, "She's picked some good
books, but she's picked enough schmaltzy, one-dimensional ones that I
cringe, myself, even though I think she's really smart and she's
really fighting the good fight."
After learning of his statements, Ms. Winfrey reconsidered her
selection. In a statement to Publishers Weekly that appeared in an
e-mail newsletter Monday night, Ms. Winfrey said: "Jonathan Franzen
will not be on the Oprah Winfrey show because he is seemingly
uncomfortable and conflicted about being chosen as a book club
selection. It is never my intention to make anyone uncomfortable or
cause anyone conflict."
Still, she has not revoked her selection and many of her readers have
bought his book in anticipation of his appearance this fall.
Yesterday, Mr. Franzen said in a telephone interview that he regretted
his comments, and that some had appeared out of context. "I said
things that ended up hurting Oprah Winfrey's feelings and far too late
it was pointed out to me that this was happening," he said. "I feel
bad for a number of reasons, because I really don't like to hurt
people, and I feel bad because the person being hurt is actually a
really good person for American writing and reading."
Mr. Franzen said he did have misgivings about the seal from Ms.
Winfrey's book club appearing on the cover of the book. "I stayed up
worrying about it a couple of nights, because of this rather stringent
tradition in American publishing that there is no advertising on the
cover of hardcover fiction."
In the end, his publisher, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, a unit of
Holtzbrinck, kept editions without the seal in print.
But Mr. Franzen attributed the tone of the comments and articles
partly to his inexperience and naïveté in dealing with the media.
Often, he said, he found himself responding to questions about how he
felt as an unusual selection for Ms. Winfrey, but he never brought it
up.
He added that he had no interest in debates about the boundaries
between literary and popular books. Mr. Franzen is closely associated
with highbrow fiction because of a 1996 essay he published in Harper's
magazine about the challenge of writing sophisticated, socially
engaged novels, in which he seemed sometimes to dismiss the
possibility of a popular audience for serious fiction.
"Oprah Winfrey is bent on demonstrating that estimates of the size of
the audience for good books is too small, and that is why it is so
unfortunate that this is being cast as arrogant Franzen and popular
Winfrey — I like her for liking my book," he said.
Others in the industry found the episode riveting. "One would have to
be a better person than me not to be amused by this whole drama," said
Bill Thomas, editor in chief of Doubleday.
"Never Mind World Peace, Visualize Using Your Turn Signal"
JaneHadd
>
>Kathryn Harrison
I don't know about the others, but Harrison is not considered "literary" by
literary writers, and her books are usually classed as women's commercial
fiction.
Jane Haddam
BLIND 321
by
literary writers, and her books are usually classed as women's commercial
fiction.
Jane Haddam >>
Bullshit.
She was considered quite "literary" until The Kiss put her on the best seller
list.
(I know, I know, shut up, Jane. There are exceptions, but she's not one of
them.)
KS
JaneHadd
>
>She was considered quite "literary" until The Kiss put her on the best seller
>list.
>
>(I know, I know, shut up, Jane
Why? You've just made my point for me.
Jane Haddam
Mary
JaneHadd wrote:
Am I the only person in the entire English speaking world
who thinks a novel is supposed to be literary whether it's subject matter is
science fiction, crime, adolescent angst, middle-aged male crisis, divorce,
childbirth or bicycle riding?
cheers,
Mary
BLIND 321
It was and it is. At the time Poison was published, Harrison was considered
"literary." As she was during Thicker than Water and Exposed.
A lot of Harrison's detractors say that she only wrote The Kiss to gain
commercial success, which she did, thus making her no longer "literary."
Jane is wrong.
KS
BLIND 321
Jane Haddam >>
I've never not conceded that point, just said that there will be an exception;
however, that is something we've been discussing in private, not something that
is being discussed here on RAM.
You said that Harrison was not considered literary, and you were wrong.
KS
BLIND 321
world
who thinks a novel is supposed to be literary whether it's subject matter is
science fiction, crime, adolescent angst, middle-aged male crisis, divorce,
childbirth or bicycle riding?
cheers,
Mary >>
No--I'm with you in that boat, paddling up stream.
"Literary" is a word used as a genre designation now.
Alas.
KS
Keith Snyder
> "Literary" is a word used as a genre designation now.
As long as I get paid, they can call it whatever they want.
Keith
No Doze and No Dozette
Nope. I'm with you on this. It's all literature. To say otherwise would be elitist and silly.
And void the speaker of such from free drinks also.
Jon
--
http://www.booksnbytes.com/jon_jordan/index.html
http://www.booksnbytes.com/author_interviews.html
or
http://www.mysteryone.com/interviews.htm
ntn
news:B7FCA28C.1737F%ke...@woollymammoth.com...
> in article 20011024164859...@mb-fw.aol.com, BLIND 321 said:
>
> > "Literary" is a word used as a genre designation now.
>
> As long as I get paid, they can call it whatever they want.
>
>
I think that good writing has literary value, regardless of the genre
arbitrarily assigned to it. Commercially viable and literary need not be
antithetical concepts except in the eyes of the self-conciously literary.
--
Tommy
ell...@webtv.net
seller list.
<< Why? You've just made my point for me. Jane Haddam>>
John Irving, to name one, makes the best seller list with every book he
writes. Alice Hoffman and Alice Walker, to name two more, also do.
Kurt Vonnegut for four. And I know there are more that I can't think of
right now.
Ellen
BLIND 321
And void the speaker of such from free drinks also.
Jon >>
Well, since Jane isn't going to Bouchercon, I think this won't threaten her
much.
KS
JaneHadd
>writes. Alice Hoffman and Alice Walker, to name two more, also do.
>Kurt Vonnegut for four. And I know there are more that I can't think of
>right now.
>
>Ellen
Of the above, Alice Walker is the only one literary writers still consider
literary--remember, I'm not talking about how the general public views them,
but about how that small group of people who gets to decide who's "really art"
views them, and the bottom line is that once you start making money, you're
"accessible" and therefore "not art."
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>who thinks a novel is supposed to be literary whether it's subject matter is
>science fiction, crime, adolescent angst, middle-aged male crisis, divorce,
>childbirth or bicycle riding?
> cheers,
> Mary
AARRGHGH.
My point was not what I considered to be OBJECTIVELY "literary," but that
there is a very small, very tight-knit, very exclusionary in group of people
who determined what is "literary" and what is not, and those people do not
accept much of anything that makes money.
Elitist? Hell, yes, of COURSE it's elitist. That's why they do it.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>
>KS
>
Again--about what?
I'm NOT talking about what I consider literary.
I'm pointing out what you can discover for yourself by reading a few issues
of The New York Review of Books--not The NY Times Book Review--
And that is that there is a very tight little circle that gives out the
prizes, makes the distinctions, annoints the "artists," and they've got very
strong emotions--all negative--about commercial success.
Jane Haddam
J&J
You may say 'what's new?' but this makes absolutely no sense to me
judi
Bridget
wrote:
>
> Ah, what we do for art.
>
> Soames
>
Thanks for posting this, Soames.
KS, don't let this being famous shit go to your head, hear?
B.
Bridget
>Adding to my list of "literary" books and authors better than Franzen:
>
>Kathryn Harrison
>Barbara Gowdy
>Peter Moore Smith
>Mary Karr
>Richard Russo
>
>KS
Is Russo the author who wrote about academic life?
Loved it.
B.
Bridget
>
> Of the above, Alice Walker is the only one literary writers still consider
>literary--remember, I'm not talking about how the general public views them,
>but about how that small group of people who gets to decide who's "really art"
>views them, and the bottom line is that once you start making money, you're
>"accessible" and therefore "not art."
>
> Jane Haddam
Who is this small group of people?
And why do they get to decide?
Curious,
B.
Bridget
> Am I the only person in the entire English speaking world
>who thinks a novel is supposed to be literary whether it's subject matter is
>science fiction, crime, adolescent angst, middle-aged male crisis, divorce,
>childbirth or bicycle riding?
> cheers,
> Mary
>
Three cheers for Mary. I nominate you to be in "the small group"
that decides such things.
B.
No Doze and No Dozette
Jane???
You forgot to add " Those Bastards!"
JaneHadd
>And why do they get to decide?
>Curious,
>B.
>
Because they have control of the major prizes that matter, the creative
writing programs that matter, and the writer in residence positions--they stack
the mastheads of the "serious:" "literary" magazines.
Cynthia Ozick is a "literary" writer, a "real" artist--Alice Hoffmann WAS
one until At Risk, at which point she became "commercial" and is now considered
basically lightweight. Anne Tyler--who I actually think may be the best woman
writing ANYTHING today--is totally beyond the pale.
None of this would matter except that people listen to them--specifically,
fiction editors at major publishing houses and "serious" magazines (The New
Yorker, The Atlantic, the various quarterlies like Granta, etc).
Think back to your high school in crowd and try to remember what made them
"in"--they declared themselves so and other people bought it.
Jane Haddam
JaneHadd
>
>You forgot to add " Those Bastards!"
>
>Jon
>
They killed Kenny?
Jane Haddam
Keith Snyder
> None of this would matter except that people listen to them
Yeah, well. People like to be told what their opinions are.
Keith
Keith Snyder
>> As long as I get paid, they can call it whatever they want.
>>
>>
> Quirky? Hip?
Yeah, even that, but I reserve the right to wail and gnash my teeth.
Keith
No Doze and No Dozette
yup
Those Bastards!
jon
I love this subject line! It's so weird. I can only imagine what some one new must think!
J&J
> >Adding to my list of "literary" books and authors better than Franzen:
> >Kathryn Harrison
> >Barbara Gowdy
> >Peter Moore Smith
> >Mary Karr
> >Richard Russo
> >KS
> Is Russo the author who wrote about academic life?
> Loved it.
> B.
I know he wrote Nobody's Fool
I don't really remember it, what's new?, but I do remember I really,
really liked it.
And there was the movie with Paul Newman, Bruce Willis, Melanie
Griffith
and ...ta da...the one and only Jessica Tandy.
Funny I can see these people in the book and movie but I don't
remember what the heck they were doing...
judi
J&J
> They killed Kenny?
> Jane Haddam
I have been seeing mention of Kenny for years on RAM
I'm coming out...
who the hell is Kenny?
judi
who does not feel like putting 'kenny' in a search
Diane Weber
J&J wrote:
> I'm coming out...
>
> who the hell is Kenny?
>
> judi
> who does not feel like putting 'kenny' in a search
He's the little kid in the snowsuit who gets killed at the end of
every episode of South Park.
Diane
sue kelso
Carleen?????? Where are you on this one?
sue k
No Doze and No Dozette
Buy SouthPark the movie.
Go on.... go!
JLS411
In article <f847aabb.01102...@posting.google.com>,
discus...@hotmail.com (Miftosyo) wrote:
<< I think it's great how Oprah uses a daytime talk show to promote
reading. And that's guy thinks he's too good to be chosen as one of
her book club selections. What an elitist pompous moron. >>
I think it's wonderful that she promotes reading on her show, too; I just wish
all her picks didn't seem so similar. I think the only "Oprah" book I ever
liked was "Poisonwood Bible," and I read that before she ever picked it.
Jenni :-)
Chris: A *priest?* What've you been doing all morning with a priest?
Confessing your sins? Debating theology?
Eve: Talking about you.
Chris: Oh, speaking of the devil.
--"Port Charles"
BLIND 321
consider
literary >>
Well, then--you've proven yourself wrong. You didn't say there was only one,
you said that it never happened.
Neener neener neener!
Oooh! Oooh! Add Maya Angelou, too.
KS
BLIND 321
You may say 'what's new?' but this makes absolutely no sense to me
>>
It wouldn't, because the underlying message is that money is evil, and if
you're reaching a large number of people with your work, you're not being
obtuse enough to be "good."
KS
BLIND 321
About the designation. You admitted that Alice Walker was literary, yet she's
had commercial success. Thus, you are wrong.
If you have further dispute with this, you make take it up with my lawyers at
Nanner, Nanner and Boo-boo.
KS
BLIND 321
KS, don't let this being famous shit go to your head, hear?
B. >>
As soon as I am, I promise I won't.
KS
Natasha Dee
it very clearly means different things to different people in the book world.
Jane is talking about the Academic/National Book Award types, but there are
plenty of other people -- say the editors who buy the mysteries of people on
this group -- who probably would consider John Irving "literary". Hell, some of
them probably even consider Mary Higgins Clark literary.
Keith Snyder
said:
> Buy SouthPark the movie.
Against all likelihood, this is a hell of a musical.
Keith
Mary
JaneHadd wrote:
I know, I know-- it just drives me nuts.i do not mean Jane drives me
nuts- i mean the people who come up with the idiocy described by Jane.
cheers,
Mary
Charis Wakelin
> : it a book that requires lots of work and slogging to get through?
> : Does that make it a better novel?
I think the problem with Oprah's selections is that she always chooses books
with ISSUES, so that she has plenty of material to discuss on her shows.
This is fine, as far as it goes, but it tends to get a bit tedious and also
the enjoyment goes out of it. This discussion often came up when I was doing
my teacher training course. Do we teach a book that can be extended into
modern relevant topic discussions or can we read a book simply to enjoy it?
Charis
No Doze and No Dozette
"What would Brian Boytano do ?" is a very moving piece.
Cheryl L. Perkins
: <<
: You may say 'what's new?' but this makes absolutely no sense to me
: >>
: KS
In addition, if something can be understood and appreciated by many
people, it must, by definition, be overly simplistic and non-literary.
I knew academics (not, actually, in English literature) who used similar
reasoning. 'Our field is academically superior to X. We know it is,
because most of the students do poorly in our course, but their students
get good marks in their course. There's no point in trying to change our
course, or the teaching approach used, so more students pass, because
that's not why they fail. They fail because our field is, by its very
nature, difficult and challenging, and therefore suitable only for the
very brightest and best students, who would be wasting themselves studying
X. How do we know it is by nature difficult? Because most students fail
..." and around and around they went.
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@stemnet.nf.ca
JaneHadd
>people, it must, by definition, be overly simplistic and non-literary.
Yes--that, I think, is the point.
Jane Haddam
J&J
> > who the hell is Kenny?
> He's the little kid in the snowsuit who gets killed at the end of
> every episode of South Park.
> Diane
Thanks, that explains it
Don't tell Jim, I don't do cartoons
judi
ell...@webtv.net
I know that's why my father wrote his memoir.
Naomi D.>>
Sounds like a must read! Where can I get a copy?
Ellen
Mystmoush
>>who thinks a novel is supposed to be literary whether it's subject matter is
>>science fiction, crime, adolescent angst, middle-aged male crisis, divorce,
>>childbirth or bicycle riding?
>> cheers,
>> Mary
>
> AARRGHGH.
>
> My point was not what I considered to be OBJECTIVELY "literary," but that
>there is a very small, very tight-knit, very exclusionary in group of people
>who determined what is "literary" and what is not, and those people do not
>accept much of anything that makes money.
>
> Elitist? Hell, yes, of COURSE it's elitist. That's why they do it.
>
>
>
Would it be safe to say then that nobody besides this tight little clique and
those who want to be in it gives a rat's ass about what they consider
"literary"?
Eileeeeeen from OH
tess gerritsen
-----------------
Today's Franzen
Jonathan Franzen's round of awkward apologies continues in today's
papers as he tells USA Today, "To find myself being in the position of
giving offense to someone who's a hero - not a hero of mine per se,
but a hero in general - I feel bad in a public-spirited way."
Hometown Chicago Tribune learns from "an assistant to Winfrey" that
the Oprah's Book Club emblem is not required. FSG's Jeff Seroy
indicates "Our understanding was always that the logo was not
optional. If it is, that was not apparent." (Warner's Tina Andreadis
says that whatever the rule is about the emblem, " You want it.
Honestly, this whole Jonathan Franzen thing is the first time I've
heard of anyone not wanting the logo.")
But the broader "debate" that Franzen cited in his first statement is
reflected in a disagreement between the co-owners of Washington's
Politics and Prose. Barbara Meade says, "I felt that he was not being
sufficiently gracious about being chosen as an Oprah selection, and he
was here and we talked about it. I told him that it had caused a great
big disagreement." Meade says that partner Carla Cohen "feels that
good literature cannot be an Oprah selection. She feels that Oprah
selections are not our kind of book, and I feel very strongly that
there have been lots of good books that Oprah has selected, and she
has put them in the hands of people who might not read them."
There's yet more from Franzen on his cover (still overlooking the fact
that he spent seven years laboring on the inside, not the wrapping):
"It may seem trumped up or sentimental to make any issue out of that,
but it's something I felt and worried about. That's my little moment
for me."
And the Cleveland Plain Dealer's book editor advises, "The literary
elite really ought to take a long look in the mirror. It might feel
good to boost oneself up on the backs of a mass culture to which one
imagines oneself to be superior, but the cost is steep. It means that
those who think of themselves as smart have a stake in keeping
everyone else dumb. This doesn't exactly lead to cultural renaissance.
"Back in the days when everyone was rolling eyes at The Bridges of
Madison County and how well that horribly written little novel was
selling, it was popular to bemoan the reading public's lack of
sophistication. But good taste and sophistication are acquired through
exposure to better material."
Chicago Tribune
USA Today
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Patricia Thompson
tess gerritsen wrote:
> "We used to wish Oprah would choose more challenging books. OK,
> > she did, and what happened? The author kicked her in the teeth, saying
> > 'Who needs you? You're not the sort of readers I want for MY book. Go
> > away.' Now we've got to wish Oprah will choose a challenging writer who won't kick her."
>
> Now, this is the part that puzzles me. People were hoping that Oprah
> would choose "more challenging" books?
>
> I've read several of Oprah's choices, and while I did not care for
> most of them (DEEP END OF THE OCEAN left me depressed for days) I
> would by no means call them UNchallenging. Does that mean I'm too
> simple-minded for Franzen's "serious" fiction?
>
> Does anyone know what the definition of "challenging" fiction is? Is
> it a book that requires lots of work and slogging to get through?
> Does that make it a better novel?
>
> Does that mean a book you can't put down is, by definition, a bad
> book?
I couldn't put down *Ulysses*. What does that mean?
Catherine
Patricia Thompson
ntn wrote:
> "Keith Snyder" <ke...@woollymammoth.com> wrote in message
> news:B7FCA28C.1737F%ke...@woollymammoth.com...
> > in article 20011024164859...@mb-fw.aol.com, BLIND 321 said:
> >
> > > "Literary" is a word used as a genre designation now.
> >
> > As long as I get paid, they can call it whatever they want.
> >
> >
> Quirky? Hip?
>
> I think that good writing has literary value, regardless of the genre
> arbitrarily assigned to it. Commercially viable and literary need not be
> antithetical concepts except in the eyes of the self-conciously literary.
> --
> Tommy
OK, say it with me--"It's all text, it's all text, it's all text."
Catherine
*who was almost convinced in LitCrit that the centre didn't hold--almost*
Hemlock Soames
wrote:
>The next installment in the Franzen saga from Publishers Lunch:
>
>-----------------
>
<good stuff snipped, go back and read it>
> Meade says that partner Carla Cohen "feels that
>good literature cannot be an Oprah selection. She feels that Oprah
>selections are not our kind of book, and I feel very strongly that
>there have been lots of good books that Oprah has selected, and she
>has put them in the hands of people who might not read them."
One imagines a quantum bookstore stocking good books that
aren't in stock and readers that don't read the books that they can't
buy.
Soames
"Never Mind World Peace, Visualize Using Your Turn Signal"
Mary
tess gerritsen wrote:
> The next installment in the Franzen saga from Publishers Lunch:
>
> -----------------
>
> Today's Franzen
>
> Jonathan Franzen's round of awkward apologies continues in today's
> papers as he tells USA Today, "To find myself being in the position of
> giving offense to someone who's a hero - not a hero of mine per se,
> but a hero in general - I feel bad in a public-spirited way."
Oh, good grief. How old is this guy? He sounds more and
more like an adolescent boy who thinks wearing black and sulking is the
very height of sophistication.
cheers,
Mary
Keith Snyder
> "To find myself being in the position of
>> giving offense to someone who's a hero - not a hero of mine per se,
>> but a hero in general - I feel bad in a public-spirited way."
Poor Franzen.
Keith
Cheryl L. Perkins
: tess gerritsen wrote:
He certainly has a knack for making apologies that aren't apologetic. I
assume that's what he intends, since he is a writer, after all, and must
know something about expressing himself verbally.
I don't think my parents would have let me get away with that after about
age 5:"All, RIGHT!!! I'll say I'm sorry to my sister, even though you are
wrong when you say that she's a nice girl and didn't mean to hurt me."
BLIND 321
more like an adolescent boy who thinks wearing black and sulking is the
very height of sophistication.
cheers,
Mary >>
Oh, so you HAVE read his book...
KS
ell...@webtv.net
Catherine>>
You got an "A?"
Ellen
Fran Read
> Since we have no electricity or computers, you are on the honor
> system. Please delete all of your files on your hard drive. Then
> forward this message to everyone in your address book.
> We thank thee.
I love it, Carlos!
Fran (choking on breakfast)
Jim Barker
J&J wrote:
Don't matter to me. I can'r stand South Park
Jim
Jim Barker
Carlos the Beatific wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 01:20:48 GMT, J&J <ski...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >> >Adding to my list of "literary" books and authors better than Franzen:
> >
> >> >Kathryn Harrison
> >> >Barbara Gowdy
> >> >Peter Moore Smith
> >> >Mary Karr
> >> >Richard Russo
> >> >KS
> >
> >> Is Russo the author who wrote about academic life?
> >> Loved it.
> >> B.
And he was great in Lethal Weapon 3 and Thomas Crown Affair.
Miftosyo
> discus...@hotmail.com (Miftosyo) wrote in message news:<f847aabb.01102...@posting.google.com>...
> > I think it's great how Oprah uses a daytime talk show to promote
> > reading. And that's guy thinks he's too good to be chosen as one of
> > her book club selections. What an elitist pompous moron.
>
> I don't think Franzen is necessarily an elitist, pompous moron. I've
> shot off my mouth far too many times before my brain was fully engaged
> to throw rocks at anyone else. I have the feeling he was just saying
> he wants to be recognized for his writing--what author doesn't?--and
> not because a popular television person chose his book. I feel that
> Oprah's choices lean mostly to women's issues--abuse, unwed pregnancy,
> second-class citizenry, single motherhood, divorce.....Certainly not
> the stuff that hits most males directly where they live--just as war
> novels don't hit me where I live. Franzen may feel, rightly, that
> being an Oprah choice categorizes as something he isn't--a women's
> writer. On the other hand, he could do worse than appeal to a large,
> understanding group of readers (who just incidentally happen to be
> women).
Of course he'd have no problem with a national book award sticker
being printed on the dust jacket.
It's kind of you to give him the benefit of the doubt but I don?t
think it's very realistic. I think he thinks he's too good for Oprah
and her fans, which is kind of funny considering Oprah Winfrey is an
absolutely brilliant impromptu entertainer who has completely
dominated the world's most competitive field for sixteen years, a
marketing genius, an incredible business woman, the world's richest
self-made woman, the first black woman billionaire in world history,
an Oscar nominated actress, the editor of arguably the most successful
magazine startups in history-I mean the list of her achievements goes
on and on.
And yet Franzen somehow thinks he's too good for her. I've read his
comments, and I can't even begin to fathom his point. I think he
perceives Oprah as someone who appeals to the masses, and he only
wants to appeal to the ?elite?. I think he's afraid that if he's
associated with Oprah (and people who watch daytime TV), this will
somehow threaten his rank in the culture of intellectual snobbery. The
irony is that Oprah's probably A LOT smarter than he is, and he should
be grateful she liked his book.
But his arrogance is so colossal that despite all her groundbreaking
achievements and talents, he feels her endorsement taints the
intellectual integrity of his ?masterpiece?. I don't know if it's
because she's black, or if it's because she's a woman, or if it's
because she appeals to viewers of daytime TV ?or some combination of
the three. I hope I'm wrong, but I don?t think I am. I've seen his
type before. You give people like that the benefit of the doubt and
you'll only get burned.
Keith Snyder
> he feels her endorsement taints the
> intellectual integrity of his ?masterpiece?.
Unlike that advance check he cashed.
Keith
Melissa
> I think it's wonderful that she promotes reading on her show, too; I just
wish
> all her picks didn't seem so similar. I think the only "Oprah" book I
ever
> liked was "Poisonwood Bible," and I read that before she ever picked it.
I totally agree, Jenni. I bought mine in England (no Oprah cover) and loved
it. But my friend who loans me lots of books (everyone should have a friend
like that) has recommended a couple of Oprah picks that I just HATED. Two of
them had hideous endings. Ugh. I couldn't even finish the most recent one
she loaned me. I just gave it back and asked her to tell me who drowned the
kid. I just didn't care what happened to the characters.
Melissa
JaneHadd
>those who want to be in it gives a rat's ass about what they consider
>"literary"?
>
>
>Eileeeeeen from OH
No, unfortunately it wouldn't.
For one thing, the people who give the major prizes cares about what this
group thinks is "literary," and so do they people who give out grants, which
many writers use to live on, and so do the people who give out the writers in
residence jobs.
The next American to get the Nobel in literature will belong to this "tight
little clique," and nobody else will even be considered.
Jane Haddam
ell...@webtv.net
<<I think it's great how Oprah uses a daytime talk show to promote
reading. >>
Jenni wrote:
<<I think it's wonderful that she promotes reading on her show, too; I
just wish all her picks didn't seem so similar. I think the only "Oprah"
book I ever liked was "Poisonwood Bible," and I read that before she
ever picked it.>>
That Oprah is a vigorous promoter of books and reading is
unquestionable. How successful she is at promoting reading of books
other than her book club selections is not as clear.
I remember speaking with librarians and teachers years ago about
children's author Judy Blume. I said, I thought she did a great job of
getting kids who never enjoyed reading, to read. And most of them told
me, "Yes--to read her books. It doesn't transfer. They don't want
suggestions for other authors they might like. They don't pick up the
'reading habit.' They just wait for her next book."
I've heard the same sort of comments about Oprah's readers. I don't
have facts and figures to back me up, but others who have discussed it
in print claim to. And as many of them have noted, her book club
members are not author faithful. Their eagerness to read a book that
Oprah promotes does not transfer to subsequent books by that same
author. (See, Wally Lamb's sales figures, for one example)
Ellen
ell...@webtv.net
<<Of course he'd have no problem with a national book award sticker
being printed on the dust jacket.>>
Not a very fair comparison, in my opinion. One is the endorsement of a
celebrity, the other a "literary" accolade by writers of stature.
All you've said about Oprah's accomplishments are true. But her fame
and popularity don't qualify her to be a judge of good books. I don't
say that she isn't--just that she has no more qualifications than I do
to endorse books, except that she's got millions of devoted viewers who
believe what she says.
Also, Oprah picks more often for content than for craftsmanship. Again,
nothing wrong with that, and I doubt that she's picked a badly written
book. It's just that her criteria are not those of literature award
committees.
<<And yet Franzen somehow thinks he's too good for her. I've read his
comments, and I can't even begin to fathom his point. I think he
perceives Oprah as someone who appeals to the masses, and he only wants
to appeal to the ?elite?. I think he's afraid that if he's associated
with Oprah (and people who watch daytime TV), this will somehow threaten
his rank in the culture of intellectual snobbery. The irony is that
Oprah's probably A LOT smarter than he is, and he should be grateful she
liked his book.>>
If you're judging "smartness" on the basis of which of the two is more
famous and richer . . . okay. Otherwise you have no way to judge who's
smarter--and a comment like that sounds aggressively anti-intellectual.
By the way, he did say he was glad she liked his book.
<<I don't know if it's because she's black, or if it's because she's a
woman, or if it's because she appeals to viewers of daytime TV ?or some
combination of the three. >>
I'd stick with "women" and "daytime tv." For all we know, this guy who
is supposed not to have a television set, didn't even know that Oprah
was black--if he knew who she was at all.
Ellen
ell...@webtv.net
intellectual integrity of his ?masterpiece?.>>
<<Unlike that advance check he cashed.
Keith>>
Should he have donated it to a Blocked Writers' Crisis Center?
Ellen
Thelma Lubkin
: I'd stick with "women" and "daytime tv." For all we know, this guy who
: is supposed not to have a television set, didn't even know that Oprah
: was black--if he knew who she was at all.
I don't have a television set. I know about her TV show;
I know about her book club; I know about her movie [I
didn't see it]; I know that she is black. I probably
couldn't recognize her.
--thelma
in the real world, a little bit
: Ellen
Melissa
> I remember speaking with librarians and teachers years ago about
> children's author Judy Blume. I said, I thought she did a great job of
> getting kids who never enjoyed reading, to read. And most of them told
> me, "Yes--to read her books. It doesn't transfer. They don't want
> suggestions for other authors they might like. They don't pick up the
> 'reading habit.' They just wait for her next book."
I don't buy this, though. I LOVED Judy Blume's books, and I read lots of
stuff. My students now read Blume AND other things. They love lots of
authors, and they do wait anxiously for new things by their favorite
authors. But they do enjoy lots of other books too.
Kinda like we do, as adult readers. We wait anxiously for the new Stabenow
or Slaughter or Grafton, but we read other things too. We get
recommendations from other people, and read other things. My kids do this,
most of them anyway. They can't wait for Harry Potter #5, but in the
meantime they're reading The BFG, anything by Lois Duncan, War of the
Worlds, and Speak.
MElissa
ell...@webtv.net
Ellen >>
<<If I could find mine I would send it to you.
Naomi D.>>
Aww, thank you, Naomi. I thought it might have been published.
Ellen
Keith Snyder
ell...@webtv.net said:
> <<Unlike that advance check he cashed.
> Should he have donated it to a Blocked Writers' Crisis Center?
He should decide whether he's taking money for his work or not. If he's
taking it, he should take it from the unwashed. If he's not, he shouldn't
accept an advance.
I wonder whether he's a rich kid.
Keith
Ann Cornellier
>
> Catherine
You had Crazy Glue on your fingers??
Ann in Ottawa
Sarah Weinman
You mean..V.S. Naipaul's in the In Crowd?
BTW, looking over the nominees for the National Book Award (I think) are they
more in line with what this clique thinks, or something else? All I know is that
the listings sure baffled a lot of people.
Sarah
"At registration day in taxidermy school
I distinctly saw the eyes of the stuffed moose
Move."
Mystmoush
and give prizes and/or grants that noone-has-heard-of-or-cares-about-except
the-Nobel-and-Pulitzer-and-they-don't-have-a-chance-of -winning-those-anyway
really gives a rat's ass about what this group says?
I mean, how many grants are out there REALLY that actually support writers so
they can live off of them and write in an artist enclave?
It seems like a really inbred and small group. So what they consider
"literary" means nada to real live people who buy and actually read books.
Ergo, I and Erasmus and Joe Book Buyer reject them.
And I proclaim that the most literary book I've read in two years was a
children's book - "Holes" by Louis Sacher.
Ah has spoken.
Mammy Eileeeeen Yokum of OH
ell...@webtv.net
he's taking it, he should take it from the unwashed. If he's not, he
shouldn't accept an advance.
I wonder whether he's a rich kid.>>
I'm sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me. He worked (?) years
on a book that a publisher offered him an advance for, which represents
their confidence that they'll make the advance back, plus enough more to
make a profit.
And they did make a profit--before Oprah came into the picture he was on
the best seller list.
Who doesn't take money for their work? And why should someone who
aspires to be "literary" forgo payment for his efforts? Seriousness and
remuneration are mutually exclusive?
He should take it from "the unwashed?" He doesn't know the state of
cleanliness of every person buying his book. He's entitled to his 10%
royalty no matter who buys one.
Ellen
ell...@webtv.net
<<I don't buy this, though. I LOVED Judy Blume's books, and I read lots
of stuff. My students now read Blume AND other things. They love lots of
authors, and they do wait anxiously for new things by their favorite
authors. But they do enjoy lots of other books too.>>
But, Melissa, you're ignoring one important factor. You liked to read.
And you're teaching gifted kids, for whom reading is not a chore.
My impression was that Blume got reluctant readers to read. But she
didn't turn the majority of non-readers into people who now love to
read. And, from all reports, neither does Oprah.
Some, yes, probably were positively affected, and that's fine. But the
majority did not move on to other books, at least during the time their
teachers and librarians knew them. And, as I said, Oprah's readers, at
least in the past, haven't even moved on to other books by the same
authors they once propelled onto the best seller list.
Ellen
Mary
Keith Snyder wrote:
>
> I wonder whether he's a rich kid.
>
>
Well, upper-middle and indulged because he was avery bright
little boy for sure.
. But, he is more likely just another Swarthmore grad who is still defensive
about being rejected by the Ivy schools.
cheers,
Mary
cheers,
Mary