I'd like to hear your-all's opinions on this article that was in our paper this morning. It's long, but I'm copying it here, a.) in case the link is taken down, and b.) 'cause I suspect more people will read it if I do!
The Power of Oprah
Can Queen Midas turn even mediocre books into gold?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By MARK COOMES
mcoomes@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
Talk-show host Oprah Winfrey held up her book club selection, John Steinbeck's "East of Eden."
The insular world of arts and letters is about to find out if a billionaire populist has the chops to upgrade the intellectual reputation of any old book she pleases starting with John Steinbeck's oft-maligned 1952 novel, "East of Eden."
If anyone can do it, Oprah Winfrey can.
Maybe.
"It's a pretty ambitious undertaking," said Gloria Murray, dean of education at Indiana University Southeast. "Can she create her own classics and sell a mass market on great literature? Even with her power, I don't know."
In terms of sales and publicity, Winfrey's ability to turn literary lead into gold is beyond question. For seven years, a thumbs-up from Oprah's Book Club turned obscure new books by often-unknown authors into runaway best sellers overnight.
But bestowing commercial success is one thing, critical acclaim quite another.
After a 10-month hiatus, Winfrey revived her Book Club in June, having told the Association of American Publishers that the second coming would focus on "classic works of literature."
By labeling her new recommendations as classics, the world will soon see if Winfrey's clout extends beyond the cash register to the court of critical opinion.
"Never underestimate the power of Oprah," said Purdue University professor John Duvall, editor of Modern Fiction Studies, an academic journal. "I think she has the potential to broaden the horizon of what a classic means."
Winfrey's first selection arched some eyebrows in academe.
The literati do not hold Steinbeck's "East of Eden" in particularly high esteem an opinion that begs some thorny questions that have occupied literary critics and English professors for more than a decade:
What is a "classic" anyway?
Who gets to decide?
Trying to answer those questions opens a contentious and complicated can of worms.
"I hope you know that you are stepping into the middle of what the '90s called the campus 'culture wars,'" said University of Louisville English professor Dale Billingsley.
At issue is the right of any group, no matter how learned, to decide which novels constitute the canon, the scholarly term for the small collection of works recognized as the acme of English prose.
The task of separating the great from the good has been traditionally reserved for an elite league of critics and academics who consider it their duty to guard the gilded legacy of English literature.
But modern critics of a more democratic bent argue that designating a work as "classic" is a largely subjective decision influenced by race, gender, economics and a host of other considerations not directly related to the work's intrinsic value.
"The canon traditionally consists of books written by white male authors of European heritage," said Samantha Earley, an assistant professor of English at IUS who specializes in African-American literature. "They are the books endorsed and taught by professors who had been taught those books by their professors and so on. The result is that the process sometimes didn't allow new voices to come in."
That started to change around 1950. Since then, the "Norton Anthology of English Literature" has expanded from one volume to five, "which better reflects the diversity of American culture and society," Duvall said.
Yet critics still debate which works and authors merit classic status.
For example, Steinbeck's most acclaimed novel, "The Grapes of Wrath," is almost unanimously regarded as a classic. But the author himself, despite winning the 1955 Nobel Prize for literature, is perceived by some to be a cut below such American authors as William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, Willa Cather, Ralph Ellison and F. Scott Fitzgerald.
The influential critic Harold Bloom declared of Steinbeck's work, "Nothing after 'The Grapes of Wrath,' including 'East of Eden,' bears re-reading."
"East of Eden," a loose retelling of the Cain and Abel story set in California's Salinas Valley during the 1920s, was a best seller that begat a famous movie of the same name, featuring the film debut of James Dean.
But most critics dissed the novel as an overcooked melodrama, and it is not among the Steinbeck works routinely studied in American classrooms. Cliff's Notes publishes study guides for five Steinbeck novels and short stories; "East of Eden" is not among them.
When Winfrey recommended "East of Eden" as a classic saying, "We think it might be the best novel we've ever read!" some folks who study literature for a living were aghast.
"She's crazy," said Dennis Hall, a UofL English professor and co-editor of "The Greenwood Guide to American Popular Culture." "If she says 'East of Eden' is one of the best novels she's ever read, either her tastes are very narrowly defined or she hasn't read many good novels."
Winfrey's defenders note that her contemporary selections included complex, highly regarded novels such as Toni Morrison's "Paradise" and Johnathan Franzen's "The Corrections."
Others say she has every right to apply the classic label as she sees fit, the opinion of professional reviewers notwithstanding.
"It's very hard to say Oprah is wrong," said Matthew Biberman, a UofL English professor specializing in literary theory. "She seems to be reinventing the notion of a classic."
She is at the very least prompting a widespread reinspection of "East of Eden."
Winfrey recommended the novel on her June 18 show. Within 24 hours, the book catapulted from No.2,356 to No.2 in the Amazon.com sales rankings. Within three weeks, Penguin Group had sold 813,000 copies of a book that usually sells fewer than 50,000 a year.
Fifty-one years after the novel's original release, "East of Eden" was No.1 in the Aug. 3 Paperback Fiction division of The New York Times' best-sellers list.
Routine results for the Queen Midas of American publishing.
From 1996 to 2002, Winfrey recommended 46 contemporary novels to her avid TV audience. Almost every one sold at least 750,000 copies, according to Publishers Weekly.
Alas, sales alone do not a classic make. Case in point: John Milton's 17th-century masterpiece "Paradise Lost," an elaborate epic poem about the fall of Adam and Eve (Amazon.com sales rank: No.79,775).
In addressing his poem to a "fit Audience ... though few," Milton "seems deliberately not to seek a mass market and has succeeded enormously in that goal," Billingsley dryly noted.
Contrasting the critical stature of "Paradise Lost" with its lack of commercial success begs the old question about the tree that fell in the forest. How great can a book be if nobody ever reads it?
With readers galore, the scholarly reputation of "East of Eden" seems to fade to insignificance. Classic schmassic. By vaulting "East of Eden" back onto the best-sellers list, Oprah's army seems to pose a more relevant question:
Who cares about critical standing so long as people are reading good books?
Mark Hall certainly doesn't. The former UofL graduate student, now an assistant professor of rhetoric, composition and literacy studies at California State University at Chico, recently published a 21-page academic paper on the Oprah's Book Club phenomenon.
"The literary elite persist in dismissing Oprah and her readers ... (as) lowbrow, unworthy of serious attention," Hall said. "As a teacher, however, I struggle to engage my students in reading, and so I wonder if academics might learn something from Winfrey about how to tap into the interests of general readers.
"In my experience, the treatment of literature in the classroom often kills the joy of reading for many students. By contrast, Winfrey fosters the deeply felt pleasure that hooks readers and keeps them engaged."
These lists and definitions are arbitrary and as such, anyone can go out and make one. If you are a popular icon and you can use it to make people read more, it is wonderful.
I agree with maahey, if you can use it to make people read more, it is wonderful
My personal definition of classic is something (book movie etc.)which is old but is still enjoyed and valued. University required reading aside old, poor quality works tend to disappear and the best, as determined by the readers/watchers remains because it is still valued. There isn't a point system or a committee, thank heavens.
Reminds me of Mark Twain's definition of a classic: "A book which people praise and don't read.".
I have no idea whether East of Eden is good, great, a classic or utter tripe. I haven't read it. But I would like to know why so many people buy books on a talk-show host's say so. FWIW I've never seen Oprah's progamme either.
Bingley
A salient point stands out from all the above comments:
if you can use it to make people read more, it is wonderful
."A book which people praise and don't read."
...But I would like to know why so many people buy books on a talk-show host's say so
So theyre buying, but are they reading? I suppose that if only 1% actually read who otherwise would not, that is a worthwhile gain.
The lending library figures for the same works loaned out to new members over the same period would be interesting, but I doubt if those statistics are extracted from the records.
I'm sickened when academicians tell people what they ought to like. Many, MANY of them, for example, praise The Great Gatsby, despite it's being an unremarkable, mediocre book. It's okay. It's not a great book. This is exactly analogous to the great fawning over, say, Citizen Kane which is an unremarkable, mediocre movie. I think people who are prone to a particular political bent - capitalism is ultimately corrupt - are the ones who think highly of either of these.
It could be said, "Well, Keith, you only say that because you're a capitalist!" Nonsense. A great book, one of the greatest, is Madame Bovary, one of whose major themes is the corrupting value of money. The most evil characters in the book are conniving middle-class capitalists. OTOH, there's another major theme in the book, one that was earlier summarized neatly in Pope's Essay on Criticism: "A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, while drinking largely sobers us again."
To wit, shallow knowledge is often worse than no knowledge. In MB, this is evidenced in MB's initial forays into the romance novels of her time as well as the idiotic behavior of Homais, the sleazy pharmacist.
This introduces another point relevant to the discusson. Some people might (and many, many people DO) say, "It doesn't matter that a book is crap so long as people are reading more." This is said a lot in defence of books like Harry Potter (which I loved and which I loved reading numerous times to my own children). But it's also a dangerous misconception. There are books that can easily fill kids' (and adults) heads with garbage and their lives are not made better and they are not made into better citizens or better people because of their having read those books.
Finally, I agree that anyone could make a list, but only Oprah could make Oprah's list. She may not be a great academician, but she's a reasonably intelligent woman. Maybe there are better choices than "East of Eden," but there are a many, MANY, MANY worse far worse choices. I haven't read this particular book and already I know this. The pompous academics should stay in their rarefied air telling other academics what's good and what's not. For the rest of English speaking humanity, Oprah's doing fine so far.
If those jackasses had their way, millions of people would be turned away from reading entirely, because they'd be fawning over Henry James or James Joyce or any number of other writers whom they consider worthy, but not one normal person in a hundred (or maybe in a thousand) would enjoy (or even understand).
k
Jackie, Jackie, Jackie... tsk, tsk, tsk... look what have you done!!!
I'm sickened when academicians tell people what they ought to like. I don't like it either, but a lot of Oprah's other choices send me a'huggin the porcelin god with the same sickness. Many, MANY of them, for example, praise The Great Gatsby, despite it's being an unremarkable, mediocre book. It's okay. It's not a great book. I never thought his writing (nor that story specifically) deserved all the attention it gets. This is exactly analogous to the great fawning over, say, Citizen Kane which is an unremarkable, mediocre movie. I think people who are prone to a particular political bent - capitalism is ultimately corrupt - are the ones who think highly of either of these. Capitalism is ultimately corrupt because in order to perpetuate itself it needs a validation which it can't promote from within... it has to coerce the human condition into thinking *capitalism feels good... and I think both that movie and that book sucks , so there goes your theory...
It could be said, "Well, Keith, you only say that because you're a capitalist!" Nonsense. A great book, one of the greatest, is Madame Bovary, one of whose major themes is the corrupting value of money. The most evil characters in the book are conniving middle-class capitalists. OTOH, there's another major theme in the book, one that was earlier summarized neatly in Pope's Essay on Criticism: "A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, while drinking largely sobers us again." I think I'd be a bit more apt to allow for others' ability to absorb information in varying degrees before ignoring the snobery of such a position or tuning a blind eye to the creation of standards that say "there are those that CAN learn and then there are those that CAN'T".
To wit, shallow knowledge is often worse than no knowledge. Whereas, I do have examples of this, any bad thing that "happens" from it, if internalized as a lesson, is the kind of experience no book can teach. In MB, this is evidenced in MB's initial forays into the romance novels of her time as well as the idiotic behavior of Homais, the sleazy pharmacist. There's nothing like a novel (or an Oprah show) to establish for us what we can call sleazy (or not) evil grin-e
This introduces another point relevant to the discusson. Some people might (and many, many people DO) say, "It doesn't matter that a book is crap so long as people are reading more." This is said a lot in defence of books like Harry Potter (which I loved and which I loved reading numerous times to my own children). But it's also a dangerous misconception. There are books that can easily fill kids' (and adults) heads with garbage and their lives are not made better and they are not made into better citizens or better people because of their having read those books. I agree!
Finally, I agree that anyone could make a list, but only Oprah could make Oprah's list. She may not be a great academician, but she's a reasonably intelligent woman. Maybe there are better choices than "East of Eden," but there are a many, MANY, MANY worse far worse choices. I haven't read this particular book and already I know this. The pompous academics should stay in their rarefied air telling other academics what's good and what's not. For the rest of English speaking humanity, Oprah's doing fine so far. Well, I guess Jackie did ask for an opinion... but don't group "the rest of English speaking humanity" with your opinion.. although I might not call the language I speak "English", most of Oprah's audience would.
If those jackasses had their way, millions of people would be turned away from reading entirely, because they'd be fawning over Henry James or James Joyce or any number of other writers whom they consider worthy, but not one normal person in a hundred (or maybe in a thousand) would enjoy (or even understand). That's what we need - another person defining what "the norm" is or should be for everyone... living up to your *handle on porpoise?
Capitalism is ultimately corrupt because in order to perpetuate itself it needs a validation which it can't promote from within
No idea what this means or how that makes capitalism any worse than any other economic system.
it has to coerce the human condition into thinking *capitalism feels good
Likewise.
and I think both that movie and that book sucks , so there goes your theory...
No. I made no statement that all those who dislike capitalism will like this book and this movie - not that everyone who dislikes C would like them, but that they'd be prone to liking them.
I think I'd be a bit more apt to allow for others' ability to absorb information in varying degrees before ignoring the snobery of such a position or tuning a blind eye to the creation of standards that say "there are those that CAN learn and then there are those that CAN'T".
I don't think there's anything snobbish in what Pope said. Nor do I follow the point. I wasn't even aware there were standards that said there are those who can learn and those who can't. Nor do I know who is turning a blind eye to such standards - as I'm not even aware of them.
Well, I guess Jackie did ask for an opinion... but don't group "the rest of English speaking humanity" with your opinion..
No. She's doing fine, regardless of whether one thinks her choice is a great book. It may not be among the best books ever written. But as I said before, I'm sure it's better than the typical romance, self-help, or mystical insight nonsense that's available ad nauseum on book shelves. She could have done a lot worse.
That's what we need - another person defining what "the norm" is or should be for everyone... living up to your *handle on porpoise?
I'm not defining anything. I observe and draw conclusions. I don't conclude, for example, that most people are incapable of understanding topology (beautiful subject though it is) - only that most people aren't going to enjoy it. If we made that the entry point, we would likewise have few readers.
I assume most people are capable of understanding most things they're willing to put the effort into understanding.
k
i went back to the top, since i wanted to comment on the original question and some comments..
i don't watch Oprah, i have seen some of the show, but its just isn't a show i watch normaly
I have read some of the books from her book club, though, and while some were drivel, (a 16 year old girl takes up residence in a Wal-mart, and her life is magically improved... everyone in town befriends her, get her jobs, housing eventualy and she lives life happily ever after) but some were good.. a touching story of how hard it is for a woman to leave an abusive man, her running away from him, the difficulty in finding a job, housing, and other services once she arrives in a new town, the difficulty keeping a job with low wages, broken down car, kids to care for.. her small grudging success... not great literature, but atleast a believable story line, with interesting realistic characters.
any 90% of the books on her list are good reads.. not great books, no interesting words, or difficult styles, simple clear cut domestic fiction.
i haven't read Steinbeck's East of Eden, but i have read some of his other works, and they too, are good to better than average domestic fictions.
it will be interesting to see how it works out... when she stopped her book club some civic groups attempted to do the same sort of thing, (chicago did something, but no one in NY could agree on a book!)
Reading is a good habit. are some books better than others? sure. in general, i think non fiction is better than fiction, and i try to read a balance. I have read harry potter (1 & 2 so far) too, because its good to know some of the common vocabulary-- and that what harry potter- like it or hate it, its the talk of the town- and you should know something about it -- to be able to comment truthfully about it.
I do like Madame Bovery, and i think it tells a classic story well.. but i also remember the first time i read Little Women, i hated it- i have since changed my mind.
My daughter reads interesting stuff.. she wanted to know more about the phrase 'uncle tom'- so she went out and read Uncle Tom's Cabin-- has any one here read it? we all know the story-or think we do... its is a bit of propoganda as well as fiction- and Uncle Tom is not an uncle tom of the common venacular!
Classicism and commercialism ????
I take it from this statement that people automatically feel because something is commercial it's inferior? It appears that many psuedo intellectuals feel that if the masses enjoy it then it must have no substance. To my mind the opposite is the case. A classic is something that holds greater reverence with the masses rather than something with a cult following of a vocal minority
...any number of other writers whom they consider worthy, but not one normal person in a hundred (or maybe in a thousand) would enjoy (or even understand)That sounds like a *version of normalcy to me.
-----------
I think people who are prone to a particular political bent - capitalism is ultimately corrupt - are the ones who think highly of either of these.
+
No. I made no statement that all those who dislike capitalism will like this book and this movie - not that everyone who dislikes C would like them, but that they'd be prone to liking them.You said specifically people prone to the political *bend that "capitalism is ultimately corrupt" are the ones who "think highly of these" ("these" being the movie/book.) You may have not wished to say it, but you did. I stand by my extrapolation (not necessarily my response
).
----------
I assume most people are capable of understanding most things they're willing to put the effort into understanding. I knew we were on the same page, basically.
- however -
Grouping academics into a *pile of pompousness is about as appropriate to this discussion as is accepting the lesser of two "evils" as a justification for normalcy... but let's not go there...
My point was: the Pope doesn't make "normal" standards for me, nor do I accept those from Oprah (ever so slightly less pious
)...
...and on a seperate note...your opinion of her opinion shouldn't be grouped in with "the rest of the English speaking humanity".
-----------
FF - We must reserve the rest of the political discussion for off board...
FF - We must reserve the rest of the political discussion for off board...
Thank you.
I agree with lapsus linguae's definition of classic. Incidentally nice to hear from you, I haven't seen you around for a while. (or else I was so interested in the posts I didn't notice the poster
)
I loathe slogans, but there's one saying I like in general. "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
I spend - as I suspect a good many AWADers spend - a fair amount of time in bookstores and libraries. There are huge sections on technology - rows of seven or eight foot shelves. This is fine by me, except it's harder than heck to find books on computer theory. The selection tends to be quite sparse. I can deal with the fact that a lot of the "science" books are pablum, but there are nearly as many books on spiritualism and religion and philosophy (which is also a lot of religion). There tend to be far more books in this arena than in real science. Plus the horoscopes, romance novels and the like. I'm not complaining. It's just an observation. I understand the bookstore is giving people what they want. They could stock the best books ever written at the cheapest prices and go out of business, as their potential customers would almost certainly go elsewhere.
Against this backdrop, I think Oprah has done well. It's not romance. It's not happy princess. It's not self-help or horoscopes or religion or political blather. If people don't like her recommendations, they are free to suggest alternatives. If the book is mediocre, it is at least not stupid. I would say the same thing had she recommended The Great Gatsby. Being less than perfect does not equate to being evil - at least not to my mind. I don't think we will improve the minds of the public by jumping straight to the Ulysses (even if it is the greatest novel in the English language, which I disbelieve). If you're thirsting in the desert and someone offers you a coke, do you refuse because "I really need pure water?" By any standard, her choice is okay.
I don't understand the relevance of normalcy to the discussion. I have described (above) a portion of what I perceive as the status quo. Oprah (for reasons I do not know) has started a "book club" to highlight and discuss books she has enjoyed. I don't know what books she discussed in her other book club. I don't what other books she has discussed in THIS club. I have not said directly, but indicated indiretly, that this book is a step above what appears the norm to me - getting people to try something they might not otherwise be inclined to try, namely "a classic." There are plenty of books she might have chosen better, but this is not a bad choice. Moby Dick would have been a better choice had she chosen Typee, but maybe she hasn't read Moby Dick or maybe she didn't like it (an understandable reaction).
There are always better choices. Those possibilities don't make her choice bad or wrong.
k
So it may be a good question to ask anyone who has loved novels:
"Which book would you have chosen as the first novel in the classics series?"
That question is even better than the desert island one.
I think I'd choose Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
What would I recommend as a first book?
I'm not sure, but I'd probably do a little research first. Maybe I'd recommend Of Mice and Men. Afterward the fellow participants and I could see various movie depictions of the story and compare notes. If I was familiar with East of Eden, perhaps I'd think it was a good first choice.
A Tale of Two Cities or Madame Bovary would be great choices. Les Miserables would also make an excellent first story, but I suspect the academics would complain about it's romanticism. But it's particularly a good idea, as many people have at least heard of the musical and may already have their interest piqued.
I'd like to suggest War and Peace, but I don't think that would be a good first choice - any more than Moby Dick or Ulysses would be good first choices. It's more something to work toward.
That it's doubtful I would suggest the same book as Oprah should, of course, in no way be construed as a criticism of her selection.
k
one advantage of a 'book club' reading, even if its not a real book club, is you can find someone else reading the book..
i remember some years (20 or so!) picking up Joseph Waumbaug's The Onion Fields -- i started it, and chapters were good... but the book didn't make any sense... i was about to give up on it, when one of my sister's and my mother saw me with it, and asked how do you like it..
i told them i was about to give up, it made no sense, and they both said, "you're just about page 100 right? read a few more chapters..it will all come to gether, and love it..
and so i plowed on. By page 125, the book had turned arround. all the threads of the previous chapters, that seems to have nothing to do with each other, suddenly came together into a riviting story. I would have missed it, but for a bit of luck.
Sharing books, whether in an informal club, or in a formal one is a great way to read. every one brings there own experience, and understanding. oprah's choice of books might not be great ones, but they are for the most part interesting books, and because of her recommendations, you can almost always finds someone else reading the book at the same time.
Many of the oprah book club books have comments or afterwords by the author, some have a list of questions for discussion. sure they are fomula type questions, but romeo and juilette, is boy meet girl, fall in love, seperate, get to gether, and tragicly die... there are lots of formulas in fiction, it doesn't make them all bad.
I can't say I'm personally enthusiastic about any of Oprah's reading suggestions, but then again I don't think they are aimed at someone like me, or anyone else on this board really. I think what Oprah is doing, though, is wonderful.
Most people working average jobs never read much in school, and their parents probably didn't read much to them either. They took the easier classes, and probably got by with a large dose of Cliff's Notes on top of that. After high school they didn't go to college, or if they did, they majored in business or accounting or something and didn't read much. Hell, most of the physicians I know haven't read much beyond the odd John Grisham novel. They wouldn't know Atticus Finch from Barney Fife.
We live in a different world from those people. I really don't consider myself particularly well-read, but to a lot of people with average educations I am some sort of walking library. When I make recommendations of books to people, though, they won't read them. They don't have time. They're not interested. Alex has weird taste. I couldn't talk a confectioner into reading Roald Dahl, but Oprah ... now that's another story.
I don't think critics need to concern themselves with Oprah. Her choices are beneath their contempt, and I mean that in a good way. Instead of sneering, they should just be glad that she is doing remedial work with a nation that didn't learn much in school.* Let people enjoy East of Eden. If they like it, say to them, "well here's one that's even better," and give them a copy of something you like. And while you're at it, toss in something for their kid.
*Disclaimer: I had to look up the spelling of "remedial." LOL
>I can't say I'm personally enthusiastic about any of Oprah's reading suggestions, but then again I don't think they are aimed at someone like me..
of course not; they were aimed at (the women in) her audience -- and she knew her demographics.
Jackie, Jackie, Jackie... tsk, tsk, tsk... look what have you done!!!
Yes--this is exactly the kind of thing I'd hoped would happen! Intelligent, multi-faceted discussion without rancor. Though I was really hoping to hear from our bookstore lady who, besides liking these kinds of discussions (I think), may have a foot in both camps, as it were.
Keith, I'd just like to say that, when you referred to "her" choice, I hope you meant Oprah, not me. I haven't read the book, either (very apt, that praises-but-doesn't-read remark!), and in fact don't read Steinbeck at all because I don't like to read depressing things.
I don't watch Oprah, either, but from what Helen says, it sounds like she (Oprah) makes an effort to have a varied list.* I can't make a blanket statement such as, "Reading ANYthing is better than not reading at all"; but--I think I have to say that, for the chance that SOME people will read her recommendation(s) and go on to improve themselves, Oprah's book club is a good thing. This somewhat relates to what I said in the thread about education in our country these days: that there needs to be a wide-based change in society, i.e. that learning and academic achievement are good things that one should strive for; and if a star can use his or her name-recognition to even plant this seed, then I'm all for it. A whole LOT of people will watch Oprah but wouldn't go to a library or bookstore.
*I got curous and went to the club's website (something just told me there'd be one!). It doesn't say who the targeted audience is, but I'd say it's a safe bet to agree that it's primarily women.
Jackie,
Yes, I was talking about Oprah's choice.
I'm going to state the obvious, now:
People appreciate things that their minds are trained to appreciate. It's not that people can't ever understand something complicated. The issue is this: people CAN understand and even appreciate complicated things IF their minds are gradually trained for it. If I expected my daughter to sit down with her violin and play some extremely complicated piece, she'd decide she didn't want to play any more. But as her teacher started her with very simple pieces that are monthly and weekly growing more complicated, she's staying with it.
The literary mind requires no less a kind of training or preparation. I'm sure there is a 10 year old somewhere who can read War and Peace and get something worthwhile out of it. I seriously doubt that most of them would enjoy the experience - until their minds are prepared. (My own 10 year old read Hesse's Siddhartha and Orwell's Animal Farm this summer. These are what I would call borderline for her. I suspect maybe only 5-10% of 10 year olds would really enjoy these.) Adults minds are very different than children's minds, but we share a few very curious characteristics, for example, the oddity that we are more comfortable around things that are more familiar.
No matter what choice Oprah made, there would be someone who could find reason -probably even legitimate reason - to complain about it. While I admit to not having read East of Eden, I have read several other things by Steinbeck. His style is very simple, but very powerful. He's a great stepping stone to other writers. I reckon that's why so many of his short stories are used in schools. They want to get budding readers hooked.
I forgot who made the point about the latent and probably false assumption that commercial interests are necessarily bad - but I agree with it. If she makes money from this - so what? There are plenty of cheap editions - probably even some used stuff available. There are libraries, as well.
I hope she's not discouraged by the feedback she gets. I'm very curious to see how this pans out.
k
I have nothing to add to this well-tuned discussion. At the same time I have so much to say I could write a treatise that would out-length the longest posts here.
Maybe I'll be able to distill commentary in the next few days. But thanks so much for bringing this up, Jackie.
Meanwhile, if anyone's curious to see the entire list, go here and then click on "printable list":
http://www.oprah.com/obc/obc_landing.jhtmlShe's got a kiddie lit list too.
Here's an interesting (*I think) stock room story: Eagerly-awaited hardcovers -- like John Grisham's latest, say -- arrive in the regular shipments with signs on the boxes reading: "Street Date: 13 August 2003. Do not display prior to this date." If you commit this sin, you sever your relationship with the publisher. This gets in the news every now and again when somebody violates (inadvertently or not) the rule and puts out a Harry Potter before its time.
Well, whoever is publishing the current Oprah doesn't bother with that. The Oprah Book arrives on The Day she announces it, so no chance of violating the agreement. Sure publishers pay extra for the special delivery, but look what they earn.
of_troy,
Before I leave on vacation, I wanted to get a note off to you in response to this message. I have never belonged to a book club; however, I have a close friend who belongs to two different clubs. She likes one and LOVES the other. In the larger club, everyone reads the book before discussing it. In the smaller club - of only three people where she works (actually she's a co-owner and one of the others is the other owner) - they meet and discuss after every few chapters. It meets more regularly and she feels that they all have a much better understanding of what they've read, as well as a deeper appreciation for it.
I've tried to get involved with a club myself, but my schedule (and the demands on my life in general) are far too erratic to permit me the luxury of knowing what I'll be reading day to day. Plus, from time to time I change my plans. It just happens. I just won't keep up with it, but I really miss being able to discuss what I read with other people. My best friend at the current time is extremely smart, but he HATES reading. The weirdest thing. He really has no patience to listen to me blather on about something I've read.
Anyway, in general, I think if people can belong to a club and think there's a remote possibly they might enjoy it, then they ought to try it. No matter how carefully I read something, when I talk to someone else about it - even someone like myself with no literary background - I find they can bring things to my attention that I never considered.
k
i don't watch oprah either Jackie, but her book club books always have stickers on the label, so i know i have read a dozen or so books from her list.
I liked *** Edward's (can't think of the first name this second!) book Slaves in the Family, that documented his family's history of slavery-- and all that went on, (like an unmarried uncle, who openly lived with a black woman (born into slavery, but freed) and had a dozen children with her, during their 25 year relationship, but was always refered to as he was unmarried. (the white family totally ignored his relationship, and his children.)
Cane River (on Oprah list) is an other history of a family, half in half out of slavery, and its involvement in mixed common law marriages. its not as well detailed or documented, and its very different in style, but since my family is an immigrant one, this past history of the US, is something unreal to me. But, as a citizen of US, it is part of my history too, so i need to know about it. (I don't feel entitled to take all the good of the past, like the constitution, with out accepting some of the responsiblity for the past, like slavery)
neither book focuses on physical hardships, (beating, etc) but on the emotional damage to families-- both sort term and long term. Edward's book was better, i think, but Cane River wasnt' bad. i suspect Cane River reached a wider audience as a result of being on Oprah list.