|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
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."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 95
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 95 |
Reminds me of Mark Twain's definition of a classic: "A book which people praise and don't read.".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
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
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
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!
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,331
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
854
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
