Good review, but I disagree with some of your anti-Oprah rhetoric.

"Exploit" is a very strong term. I don't think anyone on Oprah is being exploited because all guests are voluntary. I don't even think Jerry Springer exploits people, and Springer would say that it's news that exploits people because everyday news forces people who don't want to be on TV into the spotlight, usually for a sensational story.

I also don't think you should dismiss Oprah as just one of many celebrity philanthropists. She's actually given HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of her own hard earned money to charity according to Business Week (more than any other black or performer in U.S. history). Yes she may get a tax break, but she's given far more money than most people with twice her net worth, and she had to overcome racism, sexism, weightism, poverty, illegitimacy, sexual abuse, drugs, and teen pregnancy to acquire the wealth she so generously gives.

And while you may have disdain for Oprah interviewing pregnant men, the book FREAKS TALK BACK by Yale sociologist Joshua Gamson argues that the tabloid talk show genre, pioneered by Donahue, but revolutionized and turned into a huge industry after the success of Oprah, did more to make gays mainstream and socially acceptable than any other development of the 20th century.

You may dismiss Oprah's newage psychobable, but she has brought the world a more inclusive, less dogmatic, and wholly secular form of spirituality. As for her materialism, her latest book club pick A NEW EARTH argues that materialism is the root of unhappiness.

And how are her book club selections dumbed down? On the contrary, no one has done more to make literature accessible to the masses, often excellent literature like Cormac McCarthy, Tolstoy, Faulkner, and Morrison.

Tina:

Exploit is the correct term. Oprah got rich expoliting the dumbest white trash out there. If one uses those not as powerful not intelligent for one's own selfish purposes, that is exploitation, regardless if consent is given. A retard can consent to let you play a joke on him in public, but it is exploitation.

As for her wealth, running a tv show is hardly hard work, any more than any other celebrity is a hard worker. The very notion of celebrity is being known sans accomplishment.

'she had to overcome racism, sexism, weightism, poverty, illegitimacy, sexual abuse, drugs, and teen pregnancy'

As for weightism, she has herself to blame. This is not something that, like skin color, she has no choice in, and sexual abuse- this is her claim. There has never been any proof of it, and those she accused are dead. And, if prego as a teen, whose fault is that- yours?

'pioneered by Donahue, but revolutionized and turned into a huge industry after the success of Oprah'

Donahue talked intelligently of homosexuality and a myriad of other topics. Oprah made it acceptable to revive freak shows on tv, the 21st C. equivalent of carnival exploitation- what a humanist!

And her 50th birthday bash was the most grotesque exercise in self-hagiography since the time of Midas.

'You may dismiss Oprah's newage psychobable, but she has brought the world a more inclusive, less dogmatic, and wholly secular form of spirituality.'

She's made the brain-dead ramblings of Joseph Campbell seem deep by comparison. Let's see, Buddha, Ghandi, and Deepak Chopra. 'Nuff said.

'On the contrary, no one has done more to make literature accessible to the masses, often excellent literature like Cormac McCarthy, Tolstoy, Faulkner, and Morrison.'

She only picked classics after trotting out Danielle Steel level trash for nearly a decade, then having her club implode with James Frey's crap. And, the 'classics' yuo mention are not even that great. Where's Melville, Twain, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn?

"Exploit is the correct term. Oprah got rich expoliting the dumbest white trash out there. If one uses those not as powerful not intelligent for one's own selfish purposes, that is exploitation, regardless if consent is given. A retard can consent to let you play a joke on him in public, but it is exploitation."

Well it's pretty elitist to assume that lower class whites are too dumb to know any better. Did it ever occur to you that maybe these people are proud of their lower class culture and have no problem with displaying it for all the world to see? The rest of TV reflected exclusively upper middle class values. What's wrong with having a space where lower class culture could be visible?

"As for weightism, she has herself to blame. This is not something that, like skin color, she has no choice in, and sexual abuse- this is her claim. There has never been any proof of it, and those she accused are dead. And, if prego as a teen, whose fault is that- yours?"

Well her weight problem developed after the trauma of childhood sexual abuse and having a baby who died when she was 14. She also recently discovered a thyroid imbalance. The baby she had at 14 is a consequence of her being a promiscuous teen which itself is a side effect of abuse. I believe her claims about abuse. She has proven to be a woman of exceptional honesty, in addition sexual abuse happens frequently to poor girls in the ghetto. It's believable, especially given the subsequent promiscuity and weight problem.

"Donahue talked intelligently of homosexuality and a myriad of other topics. Oprah made it acceptable to revive freak shows on tv, the 21st C. equivalent of carnival exploitation- what a humanist!"

Donahue talked intelligent about a lot of topics, but unfortunately he was a lone voice in a sea of traditional media. Then Oprah came along and focused the juicer topics Donahue was covering (homosexuality) and through in an element of personal confession, and quickly doubled his ratings and showed how much money and publicity Donahue's format could generate when taken to extremes. She was quickly followed by dozens and dozens of immitators (Ricki Lake, Jenny Jones, Geraldo, Jerry Springer,) eager to cash in to; each one juicier than the one before until gays, lesbians, transgender people, and transexuals were on TV all day, every day for well over a decade.

According to the Yale study Tina cited, these late 20th century freak shows provided much needed high impact media visibility for sexual nonconformists, as they were in the living rooms of tens of millions of Americans all day, every day (the genre even spread to Europe). They broke the taboo, desensitized North Americans to gays, and made them mainstream to the point where they started appearing on shows like Will & Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Broke Back Mountain. Gay teens began coming out of the closet younger and younger, gay suicide rates plummeted. It's the reason Ellen had Oprah play the therapist on her Coming Out show in the 1990s, and why Time magazine named Oprah one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.

"She only picked classics after trotting out Danielle Steel level trash for nearly a decade, then having her club implode with James Frey's crap. And, the 'classics' yuo mention are not even that great. Where's Melville, Twain, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn?"

A literary scholar named Kathleen Rooney did an analysis of all the books Oprah chose (prior to focusing on classics) and found that the majority of them got good reviews in elitist sources like the New York Times book review. The notion that she picks crappy books emerged mostly because a lot of literary elitists resented the fact that an overweight black female watched by soccer moms is the most influential literary figure of our time and thus trashed her book club at every turn. It's nothing more than racism, sexism, weightism, mixed in with good old fashion snobbery. Same old. Same old.

Tyler: getting a positive review in the NYT is nothing to boast about. That girl who wrote a fake memoir about being a gang member got a positive review in the NYT. So what? That doesn't change the fact that Oprah promoted dozens of bad PC writers.

"What's wrong with having a space where lower class culture could be visible?"

Nothing, except is does no good revealing them as fat slobs who engage in incest and who can't hold down a job--it only confirms the stereotype that elitists--or in this case--those who watch Oprah have against them. The point is that Springer doesn't take himself seriously but Oprah does, making it seem like her exploitation is somehow "good" for them and the culture, when nothing of any intellect, or greater good for the culture, is going on. It just gives people an excuse to gawk.

What purpose did the pregnant man serve? Other than redeeming her ratings (which have been lower this year than in previous years) that's all it did.

TYler:

'What's wrong with having a space where lower class culture could be visible?'

Nothing, if it does not indulge in stereotypes. Would you say the same if fat black women with head scarves were portrayed as lovin' fried chicken and looking after young white babies?

'Well her weight problem developed after the trauma of childhood sexual abuse and having a baby who died when she was 14. She also recently discovered a thyroid imbalance. The baby she had at 14 is a consequence of her being a promiscuous teen which itself is a side effect of abuse. I believe her claims about abuse. She has proven to be a woman of exceptional honesty, in addition sexual abuse happens frequently to poor girls in the ghetto. It's believable, especially given the subsequent promiscuity and weight problem.'

Again, there is only her claim- millions claim to be abused, but this is just a claim. Millions claim to be abused by Satanists and aliens, but it's just a claim, and this culture feeds on people who abnegate personal responsibility, something Oprah perpetuates.
Her promiscuity could also be because she was promiscuous, liked sex, and when confronted with it decided to find a catch-all excuse. All you are doing is rationalizing something you've no real knowledge of.

'She has proven to be a woman of exceptional honesty, in addition sexual abuse happens frequently to poor girls in the ghetto.'

What honesty, and the second part of your statement is a stereotype. No wonder you're a fan.

'Then Oprah came along and focused the juicer topics Donahue was covering (homosexuality) and through in an element of personal confession, and quickly doubled his ratings and showed how much money and publicity Donahue's format could generate when taken to extremes.'

Personal confession included lesbian nuns, women who had affairs, people involved in fetishism, and other sexual perversions? Again, this is all rationalization on your part. Oprah, as Jes points out, is a voyeur with no self-confidence. Even her billions cannot comfort her, so her weight fluctuates and she has now returned to unbridled exploitation since New Ageism has slid in the ratings.

'found that the majority of them got good reviews in elitist sources like the New York Times book review'

Romance crap and memoirs on Holocaust survivors whop claim to live with wolves get good reviews in the NY TImes. There is NO real literary criticism. And, even Oprah admitted her Book Club was lightweight, thus why she stopped picking contemporary crap for a while. Next.

"That doesn't change the fact that Oprah promoted dozens of bad PC writers."

Perhaps if you actually looked at her complete book club selections, you would realize that the majority are in fact good literature. As for the ones that are not; they had other merits like giving a voice to the female and African American experience. And sometimes she just wanted to give her audience a break with some fun summer reading.

"Nothing, except is does no good revealing them as fat slobs who engage in incest and who can't hold down a job--it only confirms the stereotype that elitists--or in this case--those who watch Oprah have against them."

This reminds me of the time Oprah debated a sociologist who condemned tabloid talk shows for portraying America as a country of dysfunctional marriages and dysfunctional families and people who cheat on their spouses, to which Oprah replied "HELLO! We are!" to huge cheers from the audience. Perhaps the reason she shows were so popular is because people were tired of seeing the perfect America as it was portrayed on the Brady Bunch, the Cleavers, the Cosby Show, and other unrealistic ideals that made people feel inadequate. They wanted to see the real America; they wanted to see shows that had a common denominator for them. And one reason Oprah was the most successful of them all was because unlike shows like Springer that were voyeurs into the lives of freaks, Oprah had the marketing genius to discuss all her own problems: troubled love life, incestuous sexual abuse, poor background, black, promiscuous teen years, emotionally abusive boyfriends, weight problem. She was her own best guest.

As for the pregnant man, the purpose that serves is to break yet another taboo, give visibility to those outside the mainstream, and to validate alternative life styles.

"The point is that Springer doesn't take himself seriously but Oprah does,"

Well back when Oprah hosted a tabloid talk show she didn't take herself seriously either. Since 1995, she has distanced herself from the tabloid talk show genre she popularized and has come to take television far more seriously, and Springer has exploited the void she left in the market.

"She's made the brain-dead ramblings of Joseph Campbell seem deep by comparison. Let's see, Buddha, Ghandi, and Deepak Chopra. 'Nuff said."

I think you're kind of missing the point. What Oprah did so brilliantly was secularized spirituality, giving millions of Americans an alternative to the dogma of the church. When you consider how much ignorance, opposition to science, homophobia, war, and violence has been promoted by religious fundamentalists all over the world, and all through history, Oprah's influence can only be seen as positive.

"Oprah's influence can only be seen as positive."

The fact that we are disagreeing shows this statement is not true. She can ONLY be seen as a positive? What about the point in the article where she asked Sting to elaborate on what he and his wife did in bed together? How is this relevant to his music career? Is this supposed to "validate alternative life styles" as well? What if she had been a man asking that of a woman? What do you think the media would have done? It's PC hypocrisies--something she has exemplified again and again, where she uses her personal woundology (as you are doing in her defense--her weight, race, being a woman, growing up poor, rape, etc) to fail to take responsibilities for her actions.

And we haven't even gotten into her spoiled sense of entitlement she has, though in fairness, most celebs have this anyway.

The majority of her books are not good literature, few of them are, and as for your comment about: "they had other merits like giving a voice to the female and African American experience."

Actually, no, since it does no good for the African American experience to promote a Hallmark Card writing hack like Maya Angelou. This is just making an excuse for bad writing. And then there was that kid in the wheelchair who is dead now. That's what passes for poetry these days, according to Oprah.

Your defenses are out of Political Correctness, the whole point that you are missing is that Oprah still exploits people, though at least in the 80s she was honest about it and had no pretenses. Now she claims to want to "validate alternative life styles" by having a pregnant man on her show, and she's managed to sucker in millions of gullible fans at her defense, getting them to believe her exploitations are really a "validation of alternative lifestyles."

But the worst is her dumbing down of the culture in the way she has. That's why I much prefer Charlie Rose. At least he asks tough interviewing questions, not "What do you and your wife do in bed together."

"What if she had been a man asking that of a woman? What do you think the media would have done?"

True, that's one of the few cultural advantages of being a female. But you overlook the disadvantages, especially of being a black female. One example is the backlash she got for giving her audience cars but not mentioning there were taxes. Of course a white male named Bob Barker had been giving away free cars and not mentioning the taxes for twenty years, but it only became an issue when a black woman did it. There is subtle racism and sexism when a black woman gets too big for her bridges.


"The majority of her books are not good literature"

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

"Actually, no, since it does no good for the African American experience to promote a Hallmark Card writing hack like Maya Angelou."

Well Oprah first read Angelou as a child and it had a profound impact on her life because for the first time her experience as a poor black girl who had been raped had been validated, and if it had such an impact on her, she felt it could benefit others. But there's no author who Oprah promotes more than Nobel prize winning Toni Morrison, whose books have not only been selected for her book club repeatedly, but also turned into a movie staring Oprah.

"Now she claims to want to 'validate alternative life styles' by having a pregnant man on her show, and she's managed to sucker in millions of gullible fans at her defense, getting them to believe her exploitations are really a 'validation of alternative lifestyles.'"

How exactly was the pregnant man being exploited? By going on TV and having Oprah complement him and his wife for an hour, telling them how courageous and spiritually evolved they are? Just because the show got high ratings does not make it exploitation. You could just as easily argue that he was the one exploiting Oprah by getting public sympathy and massive publicity for the book he's writing.


"But the worst is her dumbing down of the culture in the way she has."

Well Yale sociologist Joshua Gamson would argue that she's smartened up the culture, because the tabloid talk show genre she popularized did more to make gays mainstream and socially acceptable than any other development of the 20th century. Oxford scholar Kathleen Rooney argues that that she pioneered the use of electronic media to make literature accessible to millions of couch potatoes. And opponents of traditional religious would argue that her secularization of spirituality and weakening of the church is getting millions of Americans to question dogma.

"That's why I much prefer Charlie Rose. At least he asks tough interviewing questions,"

No he doesn't. Go to his website and watch his interview with Condi Rice. For an hour straight she evades each question by repeating one rehearsed talking point after another until Rose forgets what his original question was. Meanwhile Oprah's an entertainer, not a journalist. She's not supposed to ask tough questions, though she did a brilliant job of doing so with James Frey and his publisher Nan Talese. It was the first time I had ever seen anyone in media hold someone famous accountable for telling lies, and showed real respect for her audience.

The reason people criticized her hoopla over the cars isn't because she's black but because there are people out there who think she's "so generous, etc" when in reality Dodge was getting a free hour of advertising on her show. All those free vacations she gives her employees--when she advertises the resorts on her show, what do you think happens? You get hundreds of dumb housewives telling their hubbies they want to vacation in Hawaii--and stay at the same resort Oprah stayed in. It's all marketing. People are sheep. When she gives away free Sprint phones and she says at the end of the show: "Thanks to Sprint for hosting this event." Who do you think pays for them? Not her. Race has nothing to do with it. You're just playing the Race Card. Next you'll say because she's fat.

And I have actually read a number of those crappy books she's recommended. Why do you think Franzen pulled the book from the club? Because he knows the books are crap and didn't want his own associated with them (granted his own book isn't much better). But that is the reputation she has acquired. Deadbeat housewives will think otherwise, though they're not the literate opinions that matter in 100 years.

"Well Oprah first read Angelou as a child and it had a profound impact on her life because for the first time her experience as a poor black girl who had been raped had been validated, and if it had such an impact on her, she felt it could benefit others. But there's no author who Oprah promotes more than Nobel prize winning Toni Morrison, whose books have not only been selected for her book club repeatedly, but also turned into a movie staring Oprah."

Everything here is touchy feely. She "validated" her feelings of rape? Where is the mention of quality writing? You're making excuses for her addle minded writing because rape = validation, oh I have suffered, etc. I don't care if Oprah "connected" with Angelou, with that sort of power, she shouldn't be promoting doggerel. It also looks bad for African American writers to promote such a hack. Try Brooks, Charles Johnson, Margaret Walker, James Baldwin, Richard Wright, James Emanuel, Robert Hayden and then we'll talk.

And Toni Morrison is very overrated. Just because she has a Nobel doesn't mean she's a great writer--she's more known for being "the first black woman with a Nobel" than for her writing alone. She doesn't hold a candle to Johnson, Wright, or James Baldwin. And to bring up that silly movie she was is pointless. That was a joke.

"How exactly was the pregnant man being exploited? By going on TV and having Oprah complement him and his wife for an hour, telling them how courageous and spiritually evolved they are?"

That anyone is that insecure that they need to go on nat'l tv and be told condescending things like what you just wrote is exactly the answer. The guy cut off his boobs so he can't even breastfeed his kid. How selfish and idiotic can one be? We live in a culture where people believe they can have EVERYTHING their way--I want to be man! But I also want to have a kid! So you're going to rid yourself of your breasts so you can't even engage in breastfeeding? It's just ridiculous. And then Oprah celebrates that.

And I've watched far more Charlie Rose than you have, obviously. When has once Oprah ever spoken about art or ideas of depth? What passes for "depth" is this New Age psychobabble that you're defending. And who cares if someone from Oxford or Yale defends the Lowest Common Denominator?

"Oxford scholar Kathleen Rooney argues that that she pioneered the use of electronic media to make literature accessible to millions of couch potatoes."

Yes, "literature" like James Frey, Janet Fitch, Maya Angelou, and all the other books of whiney white woman's literature about rape, incest, abuse, etc. No where do we see the Hesses, Kafkas, Twains, Melvilles, or anything to promote higher thinking.

Those books she's promoted have done more damage for women's reputations as writers because people begin to think all women write about is rape, incest, abuse, etc. God forbid if they want to write about higher ideas and for once get off the self.

"though she did a brilliant job of doing so with James Frey and his publisher Nan Talese. It was the first time I had ever seen anyone in media hold someone famous accountable for telling lies, and showed real respect for her audience."

Frey should have told her to shove it. 1st of all, she was dummy who chose is poorly written garbage to begin with. It was never about the writing, but "feelings" and "intent." Oprah doesn't respect her audience because she doesn't treat them like adults. She babies and pats on the head saying things like: "how courageous and spiritually evolved they are..."

That's why other countries make fun of Americans, because they're in constant need of a nipple to suck on, and the Oprah Cult has encouraged that.

"The reason people criticized her hoopla over the cars isn't because she's black but because there are people out there who think she's "so generous, etc" when in reality Dodge was getting a free hour of advertising on her show."

Of course they were getting free advertising. That has been the case for virtually every TV give away. His point was that it was never a problem when white males like Bob Barker were doing it. And Oprah is "so generous" by the way. The giveaways on TV are sponsored by advertisers, but behind the scenes she's given several hundred million dollars of her own hard earned money to charity. That's a million times more than I've ever given, and I didn't have to overcome even 1% of the adversity Oprah had to overcome.

"Why do you think Franzen pulled the book from the club? Because he knows the books are crap and didn't want his own associated with them (granted his own book isn't much better)"

He didn't pull out. He publicly criticized some of her selections and her audience, at which point Oprah politely excused him from the dinner, at which point Franzen and his publisher nearly begged to get back in but by then Oprah had moved on. Franzen seemed to think his book was far too intellectual for an audience of housewives to appreciate, he also stated that he was interested in attracting male readers and that the Oprah association might impede that goal. In addition, he didn't want to alienate all the literary elitists, and they really resent an overweight black woman loved by housewives dictating the best seller list.

"Deadbeat housewives will think otherwise, though they're not the literate opinions that matter in 100 years."

Have you any idea how elitist and sexist that sounds?

"Try Brooks, Charles Johnson, Margaret Walker, James Baldwin, Richard Wright, James Emanuel, Robert Hayden and then we'll talk."

Try naming a single LIVING black woman author who you think is worthy. At least Maya Angelou and Toni Morrison can come on TV and discuss their work.

"And Toni Morrison is very overrated. Just because she has a Nobel doesn't mean she's a great writer--she's more known for being "the first black woman with a Nobel" than for her writing alone."

Did you actually read, and more importantly UNDERSTAND her work? Books like Beloved and Paradise are considered too difficult for university undergraduates.

"Those books she's promoted have done more damage for women's reputations as writers because people begin to think all women write about is rape, incest, abuse, etc. God forbid if they want to write about higher ideas and for once get off the self."

First of all, not all her female authors write about rape and incest. Second, what the hell is wrong with writing about rape and incest? That's a huge part of the female experience, and to assert that these are lower ideas is to reinforce the patriarchal discourse that so oppresses women in literature and academia.

"The guy cut off his boobs so he can't even breastfeed his kid. How selfish and idiotic can one be? We live in a culture where people believe they can have EVERYTHING their way--I want to be man! But I also want to have a kid! So you're going to rid yourself of your breasts so you can't even engage in breastfeeding? It's just ridiculous. And then Oprah celebrates that."

Judgmental right wing opinions like that are exactly the reason we need Oprah to keep celebrating people who are outside the dominant heterosexual mainstream.

There is nothing right winged about my opinions Tina. I am an Obama supporter and Oprah's endorsement of him is about the only good thing she's done. (Though he would benefit keeping away from the Oprah a**kissing).

"The giveaways on TV are sponsored by advertisers, but behind the scenes she's given several hundred million dollars of her own hard earned money to charity. That's a million times more than I've ever given, and I didn't have to overcome even 1% of the adversity Oprah had to overcome."

Ok, lets reread this statement. Are you aware that she's a BILLIONAIRE? Of course she's given more money away! But guess what, so has Bill Gates (and he's a whole lot richer) but you don't see him pontificating New Age psychobabble to the world do you? No, he donates quietly. For all her talk of "modesty" she sure doesn't live it. And the reason she donates is because 1) tax benefits 2) gives fans like you reasons to defend her, and critics reasons to deflect off her. Hundreds of millions are just pennies to her. She's a billionaire, Tina. Remember that. Rowling has given lots of money too. So what? They're billionaires. They're willing to sacrifice some pocket change to be seen in a positive light.

And for your defense against Oprah's "materialism" take one look at her obnoxious birthday bash. What do you call that?

Also, your justification of Oprah over the Franzen thing shows what a hypocrite she is, and now you are defending that. If she really believed his book was that good, and worth recommending, what does it matter if he criticizes some of her choices? One is not supposed to merely sit back and be silent when he was well aware that her books were crap. The fact that she dismisses him so easily then means that the promotion of quality (or what she believes to be quality) wasn't the issue. It was all about her. It always is.

Have you any idea how elitist and sexist that sounds?

What would you call her fans? Would sheep be better? It's just their choosing to be that way, and besides, it's true. Get over it.

"Second, what the hell is wrong with writing about rape and incest? That's a huge part of the female experience, and to assert that these are lower ideas is to reinforce the patriarchal discourse that so oppresses women in literature and academia."

This is a HUGE part of what is wrong with culture. So rape and incest, according to Tina, is a huge part of the female experience huh? Is there anything else about the female experience that doesn't involve sex? Read what you are saying and how sexist YOU are sounding. How come men don't have this issue? Hmm. And there is nothing wrong with writing about these experiences, just save the mawkishness. Betty Smith wrote about attempted rape very well in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Those women writers resort to cliches and triteness and PC touchy feely "intentions" that mean nothing in art. The problem is that the touchy feely crap overwhelms the art, the quality, the higher thinking. But it's not like they're dealing with any higher ideas to begin with.

"Judgmental right wing opinions like that are exactly the reason we need Oprah to keep celebrating people who are outside the dominant heterosexual mainstream."

Get a clue. There is nothing "right wing" in calling a freak a freak and just so you know, I have every right to JUDGE--if he didn't want to be judged, DON'T GO ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.

You can't have it both ways.

"Did you actually read, and more importantly UNDERSTAND her work? Books like Beloved and Paradise are considered too difficult for university undergraduates."

Yes because there is nothing to understand. She's rather simple to digest. She's not the best at narrative and that is a fact. I didn't say she was bad, but cross her name off the book and look read it without her name on it and you would not be defending it.

And a quality living black female writer? Thylias Moss. I'll bet you've never even heard of her. The reason? Because she doesn't indulge in cliches and mawkishness and hence has not gotten Oprah to endorse her.

There really aren't that many quality female writers out there, the number that I can think of are British. They make fun of the American women writers because of this obsession with the self, the rape, incest, etc, and these ideas that are indulged by people in the culture who come to accept that this is a HUGE part of women's lives (like you seem to think) when it's actually a very small one.

There's a lot to a person Tina, not just skin color, sex, and trauma. Women are capable of higher things, though those Oprah promotes don't celebrate that. And neither do her brain dead sheep who worship her. I guess I just expect more from women as thinkers, where as you accept tripe.

All this over a tabloid talk show host. Why not defend Montel?

To Tina and Tyler.
Can you just stop? Having watched from the sidelines and read all the opinions I totally agree 100% with everything Jessica said and it's all based on the merits of her arguments, which I'll not repeat because I want to believe you're reasonable and intelligent people. As you don't know I'm well read, but I'll now clarify I know great literature when I read it most often, (9 times out of 10, and the 1 of out 10 times I miss it is because of the frame of mind I'm in....life sure has a way of impeding on even the best minds)and this runs the gamut of the so-called African American writers to those others, and this is regards of the genre so it can be the sharp brilliance of James Emanuel or as Thylia Moss as Jessica already noted. Also and perhaps as importantly to you both, I'm also Black so some of your arguments which you make on race and the attacks on Oprah as being racially motivated are sadly on slippery ground, as much as your arguments. It is what it is....

"I'm also Black so some of your arguments which you make on race and the attacks on Oprah as being racially motivated are sadly on slippery ground, as much as your arguments. It is what it is...."

Can someone translate this idiot into English?

With Oprah's book selections (book club or otherwise), there is no discernment. Yes, she did select good books for her book club like The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter, but compare the writing in that one to the James Frey book and they are worlds apart. He doesn't have the skill with prose or characters or narrative that McCullers has. Oprah has no idea about this difference, because she selects stuff that appeals to her for whatever thematic reason--'overcoming the odds' or whatever it is. Maya Angelou is a bad poet whose poetry is filled with trite sentiments, the Mattie Stepanek stuff would never have been published if it weren't for the kid's tragic story, and the countless self-help books she promotes are filled with useless advice. The Secret? Please.

As someone who worked in a bookstore when the Frey's book was first picked, a lot of the people who came in were the women who watched the show, and they basically were just sheep who bought whatever Oprah recommended. It would happen any time a book was on Oprah's show, even non-book club. Suddenly we'd be inundated with requests for that book. Or you'd have people who'd wander in asking for Oprah's Book Club books, though they had no particular book in mind. They just wanted to read whatever it was she'd selected. Oprah could have recommended any product and they'd go out and buy it. So that's why Jessica is right about the housewives who watch Oprah being sheep, by and large. This is why you never heard most of them complaining about the writing in Frey's book--they only got mad when it was revealed that his book wasn't pure 'truth' (big surprise).

"Hundreds of millions are just pennies to her."

Actually Oprah giving away several hundred million dollars is like the average American giving away his brand new car. It's a significant chuck of her net worth, and she's not only the most philanthropic African American of all time, but also the most generous performer in show business. And her philanthropy is all the more impressive because she was born with far fewer advantages than the average American. It's easy for us to just sit around blogging all day; meanwhile Oprah is making yet another hundred million she can give away.

"If she really believed his book was that good, and worth recommending, what does it matter if he criticizes some of her choices?"

Because he didn't just criticize her choices, he said his book was "a difficult book for that audience". Oprah is not going to promote a man after he belittled the intellect of the soccer moms who made her the billionaire Queen of all media. She kicked his ass to the curb. Oprah defends her soccer moms like a lioness defending her cubs. And when James Frey lied to her audience she dragged both him and his publisher on live TV, confronted and scolded them both face to face, and proceeded to give them the most riveting public flogging in media history. You disrespect Oprah's audience and she'll eat you alive.

"What would you call her fans? Would sheep be better? It's just their choosing to be that way, and besides, it's true. Get over it."

Why is her audience sheep? Just because they read the books she recommends. Maybe they've enjoyed her selections in the past, and thus are being quite rationale in choosing to follow her. Do we call all the men who buy books because they get good reviews in the NY Times sheep? What about the people who read a book because it won the national book award? Again, it's a sexist elitist double standard. Oprah's audience is dismissed as sheep because they are stay at home moms.

"Those women writers resort to cliches and triteness and PC touchy feely "intentions" that mean nothing in art. The problem is that the touchy feely crap overwhelms the art, the quality, the higher thinking. But it's not like they're dealing with any higher ideas to begin with."

So Toni Morrison (picked by Oprah more than anyone) doesn't deal with higher ideas? Her books are full of metaphors and deep rich symbolism. Such abstract concepts are the essence of higher thought. And btw art is supposed to be touchy-feely. The greatest artists are those who unearth an emotion from their readers, and to assert that true art should be detached from "touchy-feely" crap is to deny a uniquely feminine perspective from literature.


"Get a clue. There is nothing 'right wing' in calling a freak a freak and just so you know,"

There is plenty right wing about ridiculing someone who is outside the dominant heterosexual culture and speaking out against his most basic of human rights (having a child) just because he refuses to conform to a traditional model. That's the essence of social conservatism: Resistance to change, resistance to that which is different.

"Yes because there is nothing to understand. She's rather simple to digest."

Tell that to Jodie Foster who wrote her Yale thesis on Beloved.

"There really aren't that many quality female writers out there, the number that I can think of are British."

LOL! I can't believe you just wrote that. But if that's really what you believe, you can't fault Oprah for not picking better female writers if so few exist.

"With Oprah's book selections (book club or otherwise), there is no discernment. Yes, she did select good books for her book club like The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter, but compare the writing in that one to the James Frey book and they are worlds apart. He doesn't have the skill with prose or characters or narrative that McCullers has. Oprah has no idea about this difference, because she selects stuff that appeals to her for whatever thematic reason--'overcoming the odds' or whatever it is."

She's also trying to select books that will appeal to a mass audience, so they can't all be Toni Morrison. Also, a true connoisseur of literature is able to understand and appreciate the appeal of any book, not just those that academia anoints. I see people all the time trashing popular books to show how sophisticated they are, but they're really just revealing their lack of intelligence. Oprah had the ability to bridge the superficial gap between high brow literature and low brow trash.

"the countless self-help books she promotes are filled with useless advice. The Secret? Please."

I think you're the one behaving like sheep because you're parroting a lot of the rhetoric I hear from the cultural elite who dismiss books like "The Secret" as useless trash. Are you aware of all the research showing that people who have an internal locus of control are far more successful than those who believe they are completely powerless, and that people who engage in positive thinking experience far less stress (a leading cause of death, unhappiness, and health problems) than those who don't? So while it's easy to mock books like "The Secret" as useless trash, they actually do a lot more good than you realize.

Tina, you're not getting it. The benefits of her giving away all that money far outweigh the financial losses she would suffer. The fact that she has fans like you saying: "also the most generous performer in show business. And her philanthropy is all the more impressive because she was born with far fewer advantages than the average American" is proof right there.

A woman who got rich on exploiting the dumbest parts of the culture for ratings yet disguises them as the good deeds of humanity. Great that she gives away her money, she should. See, I'm no right winger, (just not some hairy tree hugger). Would you like me to call you names? But the rewards she gets for her "donations" far outweigh her losses.

"Because he didn't just criticize her choices, he said his book was "a difficult book for that audience".

Oprah audiences are not the brightest, and what he says is true. Granted his book is fluff so it nulls the point, but again, you are failing to recognize the hypocrisies on her part. If she really believed in the book and wanted people to read it, what he said would not have mattered. Why not devote a show to this issue? Lord knows the woman has gobs of time.

"Why is her audience sheep? "

Read Anthony's post above.

"So Toni Morrison (picked by Oprah more than anyone) doesn't deal with higher ideas?"

No. Her last book was titled "Love". Case closed.

"Such abstract concepts are the essence of higher thought. And btw art is supposed to be touchy-feely. The greatest artists are those who unearth an emotion from their readers, and to assert that true art should be detached from "touchy-feely" crap is to deny a uniquely feminine perspective from literature."

You are wrong. Art is an intellectual experience, it's about the mind and the highest form of communication. If it can evoke emotion so be it, but art to succeed is not dependent on that. You can read a diary entry and weep and "connect" with it emotionally but that doesn't make it great art. Likewise, it's not likely you'll weep at the end of a Hesse novel, but that doesn't mean it's not great art. So you don't know what you're talking about.

"basic of human rights (having a child) just because he refuses to conform to a traditional model."

It is not one's basic human right to have a child while undergoing a sex change. You're failing to see the sense of entitlement here. If he really wanted to be man, then he shouldn't have a child. If he wants a child, then don't have a sex change. This PC culture tells people you can have everything you want in life, (sense of entitlement) which is childish and silly. Grow up. Deal with the hand you're dealt. But in reality, I don't give a sh*t what he chooses to do, it doesn't affect me one bit. But don't have him on national television and tell people not to judge and form their own opinions. Don't have him on national television and tell him how "brave" he is. Grow up.

And likewise, don't call me "right wing" simply because I have an opinion that what he is doing is childish and selfish.

"Tell that to Jodie Foster who wrote her Yale thesis on Beloved."

Well if Jodie Foster had trouble with it, then it must be tough!

"LOL! I can't believe you just wrote that."

Why not? It's true. But the point you make about Oprah not having many quality selections is spot on. There are a good deal of dead ones though.

And you've still failed to recognize the sexism in Oprah. What if a man had asked of a woman what she did in bed with her husband? Would you still be defending this trash tabloid talk show host? Didn't think so. Ah, hypocrisies! At least it's not just the Right that is guilty of them.

"Are you aware of all the research showing that people who have an internal locus of control are far more successful than those who believe they are completely powerless, and that people who engage in positive thinking experience far less stress (a leading cause of death, unhappiness, and health problems) than those who don't? So while it's easy to mock books like "The Secret" as useless trash, they actually do a lot more good than you realize."

You're hopeless.

"She's also trying to select books that will appeal to a mass audience, so they can't all be Toni Morrison."

If Oprah can turn Tolstoy into a best seller then this point about "mass appeal" is worthless.


Baaaaa....goes the sheep.

Tina--your whole schtick about the 'dominant heterosexual culture' is textbook academia. Aside from making homosexuals seem like victims in comparison, it is a bit ridiculous considering that a 'dominant homosexual culture' wouldn't be one that would last very long, given the need for reproduction to keep a species alive. Your average homosexual didn't just fall out of the sky one day.

If you give away lots of money, does that absolve you from lowering the quality of intellectual life in a culture? That basically seems to be what you're saying about Oprah. Many think that charity absolves them from other areas of neglect. It doesn't.

Just because someone criticizes Oprah and doesn't buy into the idea that she's done lots of good for America does not make them 'right wing'. That is a typically PC retort, and right wing implies something much more extreme than conservatism. If you were confident with your arguments in support of Oprah you wouldn't have to bother trying to make someone look like a far-right bigot.

And why do we care about what Jodie Foster wrote her thesis about? Because she's a celebrity, or because she went to a brand name Ivy school? There's too much bandying about of the world "Yale" in this discussion, and not enough attention paid to the weight of the actual arguments. Last I checked the Ivy League was producing literary heavyweights like Kaavya Viswanathan.

When people talk about bridging 'high and low' they are usually only talking about items that are associated with a particular class or a segment of culture. They are not actually comparing the inherent quality in given artworks--which has nothing to do with whether a book is associated with a certain audience, or with what class the author is a part of. Throwing together popular books with those that are perceived as more 'serious' is easy to do, whether w/ Oprah's book club or on a syllabus. It is typical in this day and age, but it doesn't mean that the quality of the writing itself is recognized. Virginia Woolf may be seen as more 'serious' than someone like Betty Smith, and their books might be seen as representing different classes, but in terms of the writing Smith's A Tree Grows In Brooklyn is better than To The Lighthouse, and it is the quality of the writing that makes Smith's book 'high literature'. Her class background or the fact that her book had a mass audience when it was released are irrelevant to that point.

Success in any arena is much more complicated than merely having a 'positive attitude' and manifesting 'abundance' with positive thoughts. What about talent? Not everyone has it in a given area. What about the shrewdness and cunning that makes many in business successful? What of personal connections and hard work? Or all of the various other things that go into why a person succeeds, in business or other aspects of life? The Secret just makes a buck off of people who aren't being realistic. It takes a lot more than just 'positive thoughts' to make great art, or become a successful business person, etc.

Tyler:

'This reminds me of the time Oprah debated a sociologist who condemned tabloid talk shows for portraying America as a country of dysfunctional marriages and dysfunctional families and people who cheat on their spouses, to which Oprah replied "HELLO! We are!" to huge cheers from the audience. Perhaps the reason she shows were so popular is because people were tired of seeing the perfect America as it was portrayed on the Brady Bunch, the Cleavers, the Cosby Show, and other unrealistic ideals that made people feel inadequate. They wanted to see the real America; they wanted to see shows that had a common denominator for them.'

You exchange one extreme stereotype for another. Most people are not perverted slobs not perfect Brady kids. That you see the pervs as real America says something about you, not America.

'Perhaps if you actually looked at her complete book club selections, you would realize that the majority are in fact good literature.'

I have, they're not. They are potboilers and melodramas. Next. And providing woman and minorities a voice is only good if their voices are of quality. Does Roseanne Barr or Louis Farrakhan represent ideals of good female or black nature?

'Oprah had the marketing genius to discuss all her own problems: troubled love life, incestuous sexual abuse, poor background, black, promiscuous teen years, emotionally abusive boyfriends, weight problem. She was her own best guest.'

You don't even realize you are praising exploitation in this sentence. What a hoot.

'secularized spirituality, giving millions of Americans an alternative to the dogma of the church.'

Secular spirituality is a nonsequitur; and Oprah is a Christian, who professes a belief in Christ- hardly an antidote to the church. You don't even know what you are talking about.

'Well Oprah first read Angelou as a child and it had a profound impact on her life because for the first time her experience as a poor black girl who had been raped had been validated, and if it had such an impact on her, she felt it could benefit others. But there's no author who Oprah promotes more than Nobel prize winning Toni Morrison, whose books have not only been selected for her book club repeatedly, but also turned into a movie staring Oprah.'

Do you work in O's PR dept.? This is actually funny, in a 'Look at the zombie' sort of way.

'You could just as easily argue that he was the one exploiting Oprah by getting public sympathy and massive publicity for the book he's writing.'

True, but a freak exploiting his freakdom is not as heinous as the person profiting from the freak's idiocy and blithe ignorance of their freakishness. You'd have a different opinion if Oprah was promoting midget bowling or dwarf tossing.

'"That's why I much prefer Charlie Rose. At least he asks tough interviewing questions,"

No he doesn't. Go to his website and watch his interview with Condi Rice. For an hour straight she evades each question by repeating one rehearsed talking point after another until Rose forgets what his original question was. Meanwhile Oprah's an entertainer, not a journalist. She's not supposed to ask tough questions, though she did a brilliant job of doing so with James Frey and his publisher Nan Talese. It was the first time I had ever seen anyone in media hold someone famous accountable for telling lies, and showed real respect for her audience.'

Watch the bulk of his interviews. He's great, but no one asks tough q's of Bushco, which is why we are in Iraq. The Frey piece was hilarious, but Oprah only did that because she was too stupid to realize the book was filled w lies- like the dentist w/o anestheia, when she read it. She was covering her ass because her fans felt SHE had betrayed them. YET, never did Oprah diss the book for its bad writing- it's real sin.

Tina:

'He didn't pull out. He publicly criticized some of her selections and her audience, at which point Oprah politely excused him from the dinner, at which point Franzen and his publisher nearly begged to get back in but by then Oprah had moved on. Franzen seemed to think his book was far too intellectual for an audience of housewives to appreciate, he also stated that he was interested in attracting male readers and that the Oprah association might impede that goal. In addition, he didn't want to alienate all the literary elitists, and they really resent an overweight black woman loved by housewives dictating the best seller list.'

Unless you are on helium, if you are invited to someone's home, and decline, that is you saying you don't wanna belong. He didn't beg to be in her club, he just tried a PR move and it worked.

'Did you actually read, and more importantly UNDERSTAND her work? Books like Beloved and Paradise are considered too difficult for university undergraduates.'

Morrison is a mediocre writer who cannot tell a good story. That you need to seek an authority figure to cement your ideas is an old fallacy- the appeal to authority. And, you are in effect saying since Academics are morons, the work mst be good. Great defense.

'First of all, not all her female authors write about rape and incest. Second, what the hell is wrong with writing about rape and incest? That's a huge part of the female experience, and to assert that these are lower ideas is to reinforce the patriarchal discourse that so oppresses women in literature and academia.'

Jess actually made the point that all women writers do NOT write of rape and incest. Had you read what she wrote you would not be strawmanning an argument. And, rape and incest are small parts of the human experience. Most people- male or female, will not be sexually abused. You are sounding paranoid and pathological in such an assertion.

'Judgmental right wing opinions like that are exactly the reason we need Oprah to keep celebrating people who are outside the dominant heterosexual mainstream.'

So now you are proving what was already discernible- you cannot and do not read what others type.

"Tina, you're not getting it. The benefits of her giving away all that money far outweigh the financial losses she would suffer. The fact that she has fans like you saying: 'also the most generous performer in show business. And her philanthropy is all the more impressive because she was born with far fewer advantages than the average American' is proof right there."

The fact that I'm forced to defend her charity in the first place negates your point. Ever heard the saying "no good deed goes unpunished"? With charity comes responsibility, comes expectations of more charity, and comes a lot of criticism. Are there also benefits? Of course! And there should be. Good behavior deserves to be rewarded.

"A woman who got rich on exploiting the dumbest parts of the culture for ratings yet disguises them as the good deeds of humanity"

You only view it as exploitation because you see her guests as too dumb to know any better. I strongly disagree with your elitist perspective. You call it exploitation because of the cultural stereotype that blacks can't make money without committing some kind of crime, so you search for a way to see something unethical about her business. Blacks have been the victim of this kind of moral oppression for far too long, and it shows up in our racially biased legal system. Where is your disdain for the white billionaires who make money off of polluting the environment, profiting off of wars, and polluting the drinking water of third world countries? That's what I call exploitation, not some black lady getting rich because people beg to come on her show and talk about their sex lives.


"Oprah audiences are not the brightest"

Don't make assumptions! For all you know they could be the brightest audience on TV, after all they're more receptive to book endorsements than any other audience, and they've figure out away to stay at home watching Oprah while still having enough disposable income to buy everything she promotes. They're also a lot more open minded than the average American, as seen by their applauding of the pregnant man.

"Granted his book is fluff so it nulls the point,"

He would say you're just not bright enough to appreciate it.

"If she really believed in the book and wanted people to read it, what he said would not have mattered."

Because when he dissed her audience, her disdain for the author overpowered her love for the book. If there was a way to promote the book without the author benefiting, I'm sure she would have been all for it.

"No. Her last book was titled 'Love'. Case closed. "

Well a lot of people would argue that Morrison's work is extremely sophisticated, and that you simply lack the insight to appreciate it. Not my call to make.


"You are wrong. Art is an intellectual experience, it's about the mind and the highest form of communication. If it can evoke emotion so be it, but art to succeed is not dependent on that."

Emotions are part of the mind and great art should connect with both feelings and thoughts. A great artist is one who can make you laugh, cry, fear, and think. In short art connects with that which makes us uniquely human.

"It is not one's basic human right to have a child while undergoing a sex change. You're failing to see the sense of entitlement here. If he really wanted to be man, then he shouldn't have a child. If he wants a child, then don't have a sex change."

It's easy for heterosexuals to say that. We can do both quite easily, with both the cooperation of biology and society. If someone wants to have a baby and be a man, and science has progressed to the point where one can do that, then we as a society should quit being so judgmental and offer our support.

"Why not? It's true. But the point you make about Oprah not having many quality selections is spot on."

No that's not the point! The point is that is if you really believe quality female authors are so rare, then it's hypocritical of you to criticize Oprah for not being able to find them.

"And you've still failed to recognize the sexism in Oprah. What if a man had asked of a woman what she did in bed with her husband?"

Personally I wouldn't care. Would you like to know what I do in bed? I'm more than happy to tell you. Is it a double standard that Oprah can reduce a man into a sex object, but men shouldn't do the same to women? Of course it is, but that's because men already have too much power so trivializing them serves the goal of social equality, where as trivializing women does the opposite.

"If Oprah can turn Tolstoy into a best seller then this point about 'mass appeal' is worthless."

Well Oprah did make Tolstoy a best seller, he didn't sell nearly as well as her low brow picks. Hence she's careful to include a lot of light reading, but the majority of her books got good reviews by the majority of book critics at the time of their publication.

"Tina--your whole schtick about the 'dominant heterosexual culture' is textbook academia. Aside from making homosexuals seem like victims in comparison, it is a bit ridiculous considering that a 'dominant homosexual culture' wouldn't be one that would last very long, given the need for reproduction to keep a species alive. Your average homosexual didn't just fall out of the sky one day."

Learn about reproductive technology.

"If you give away lots of money, does that absolve you from lowering the quality of intellectual life in a culture? That basically seems to be what you're saying about Oprah."

No we're saying Oprah dramatically increased the quality of intellectual life. The tabloid talk show genre she popularized in the 1980s did more to make gays mainstream and socially acceptable than any other development of the 20th century. She made literature accessible to millions of daytime TV fans. As Tyler explained, her secularization of spirituality and weakening of the church is getting millions of Americans to question religious dogma.

"The Secret just makes a buck off of people who aren't being realistic. It takes a lot more than just 'positive thoughts' to make great art, or become a successful business person, etc."

No one is suggesting that positive thoughts alone make one a success. Nothing by itself is sufficient, however to dismiss "The Secret" as useless trash is to dismiss mountains of empirical research showing that positive thinking reduces the toxic effects of stress and that having an internal locus of control is one of the most significant mental variables in predicting achievement of any kind.

Michael: '"I'm also Black so some of your arguments which you make on race and the attacks on Oprah as being racially motivated are sadly on slippery ground, as much as your arguments. It is what it is...."

Can someone translate this idiot into English?'

Why? Correct English already eludes you.

Tina:

'So Toni Morrison (picked by Oprah more than anyone) doesn't deal with higher ideas? Her books are full of metaphors and deep rich symbolism. Such abstract concepts are the essence of higher thought. And btw art is supposed to be touchy-feely. The greatest artists are those who unearth an emotion from their readers, and to assert that true art should be detached from "touchy-feely" crap is to deny a uniquely feminine perspective from literature.'

You are really wallowing in cliches. First, Morrison is not a rich writer- but she's better than Alice Walker, et al. The greatest art is NOT about emotion, but about transmuting ideas- which CAN incl. emotion, into a form that communicates to others. This is a fallacy akin to saying all art is political. One can reduce a POV to one correlative- all art is about poodles, and logically make some hay, but the point is art that lacks intellect is NEVER great art; and Oprah's books are written for a junior high school level. And, emotions are not the only thing woman can contribute- they have minds (granting you a well earned exemption, of course), and men also have feelings.

And Jodie Foster is cited as an intellectual? And there is a right to reproduce? In what article of the Constitution?
'So while it's easy to mock books like "The Secret" as useless trash, they actually do a lot more good than you realize.'

So do drugs, they provide immense joy to many- but, overall, the downside is worse than the up. So?

Tina:

'With charity comes responsibility, comes expectations of more charity, and comes a lot of criticism'

Which is why her school in Africa was being run by sadists- no responsibility shown, but bad PR that can be embarrasing, so cover it up.

'You only view it as exploitation because you see her guests as too dumb to know any better. I strongly disagree with your elitist perspective.'

You're the one who stereotypes women and men into separate roles- that's elitist and dumb.

'He would say you're just not bright enough to appreciate it.'

Nor you her point.

'Well a lot of people would argue that Morrison's work is extremely sophisticated, and that you simply lack the insight to appreciate it. Not my call to make.'

Do you have a single opinion you have not gotten approved by someone else, or a polling group? Or is that why everything you type is so generic?

'In short art connects with that which makes us uniquely human.'

Correct, and that's the intellect, for any pet owner can tell you animals can love- but none has written a poem or symphony. Next.

'The point is that is if you really believe quality female authors are so rare, then it's hypocritical of you to criticize Oprah for not being able to find them.'

It's called Oprah's Book Club, not Oprah's Female Author's Club, so there is no need to seek female authors, unless, again, you are only wanting to miss the point....again.

'Would you like to know what I do in bed? I'm more than happy to tell you.'

So, you connect with O cuz you're an exhibitionist. Wd it not have been easier to just acknowledge that in post 1?

'Learn about reproductive technology.'

Yes, and it's still a decade or two b4 men and women will be replaced by machines in that scope. Next.

'however to dismiss "The Secret" as useless trash is to dismiss mountains of empirical research showing that positive thinking reduces the toxic effects of stress and that having an internal locus of control is one of the most significant mental variables in predicting achievement of any kind.'

Do you prefer Tony Robbins, Marianne Williamson, Deepak Chopra, or Wayne Dyer? Because, people like you keep these parasites in the money. You are funny, I'll grant you that, but the laugh lines can be a bitch.

"the Frey piece was hilarious, but Oprah only did that because she was too stupid to realize the book was filled w lies- like the dentist w/o anestheia, when she read it."

Well you don't know if she actually believed it, or just thought it would sell well. And he was too stupid to realize that when Oprah invited him on her show to discuss the book, she was actually setting him up for the biggest public flogging in media history, and there she had him and his publisher cornered like trapped rats on live TV, and proceeded to rips them to shreds face to face. Oprah conned the conman. It doesn't get any better than that.

"Secular spirituality is a nonsequitur; and Oprah is a Christian, who professes a belief in Christ- hardly an antidote to the church. You don't even know what you are talking about."

Secular spirituality is just church free spirituality. And Oprah defines herself as a free thinking Christian in that she admires Christ as a person, but does not view him as the only path to God. On the contrary she and Eckhart Tolle argue that God is nothing more than the combined awareness of all living things. They say that God is not a belief but a feeling. Her current book club selection is essentially preaching atheism or agnosticism, and it's sold four million copies.

"The fact that I'm forced to defend her charity in the first place negates your point. Ever heard the saying "no good deed goes unpunished"?"

Resorting to cliche once again. No wonder you like Oprah and her simplicity. And the points that I and others have made that you have yet to acknowledge: charity does not excuse stupidity. Maybe you should go toss some dwarves.

"Blacks have been the victim of this kind of moral oppression for far too long, and it shows up in our racially biased legal system. Where is your disdain for the white billionaires who make money off of polluting the environment, profiting off of wars, and polluting the drinking water of third world countries? That's what I call exploitation, not some black lady getting rich because people beg to come on her show and talk about their sex lives."

You're turning everything into a race agenda. I'm not disagreeing that there are corrupt white billionaires out there. But there are also corrupt black ones. She's polluting the environment with her dumbed down sentimentality and emotional manipulations. Duh. Which is what you're doing. That's why wit's gotten to a point where if you rip on a bad writer like Angelou, you're somehow "mean" and "unsympathetic" because she's been raped. Her bad poems are a rape to my eyes.

"Well a lot of people would argue that Morrison's work is extremely sophisticated, and that you simply lack the insight to appreciate it. Not my call to make."

Most critics just crib from one another or grant favorable reviews to books with ideas they agree with. I don't. Oprah disgusts me, but that didn't make me write a positive review about this silly book.

"Don't make assumptions! For all you know they could be the brightest audience on TV, after all they're more receptive to book endorsements than any other audience, and they've figure out away to stay at home watching Oprah while still having enough disposable income to buy everything she promotes. They're also a lot more open minded than the average American, as seen by their applauding of the pregnant man."

They're not assumptions. Your arguments exemplify that. And Oprah fans not open-minded. You're exemplifying that as well. They're the 1st ones to lecture you on "not judging" (even though at the same time they'll stress the importance of being "strong" and having an opinion etc but as long as it's something they agree with...)and they also call people who disagree with their touchy feely BS "right winged." Sound familiar?

"the majority of her books got good reviews by the majority of book critics at the time of their publication."

So did Frey, Kaavya Viswanathan, the girl who faked her gang memoir, Alice Sebold's trash, etc. Funny how you can't make a single opinion without relying on "what critics said."

"The point is that is if you really believe quality female authors are so rare, then it's hypocritical of you to criticize Oprah for not being able to find them."

I don't think you want to go into all the hypocrisies your arguments have had.

"Is it a double standard that Oprah can reduce a man into a sex object, but men shouldn't do the same to women? Of course it is, but that's because men already have too much power so trivializing them serves the goal of social equality, where as trivializing women does the opposite."

This sounds like pseudo feminist psychobabble you'd find in a pamphlet somewhere being handed out of some beat up Volkswagen on your way to a Phish concert.

"Resorting to cliche once again. No wonder you like Oprah and her simplicity. And the points that I and others have made that you have yet to acknowledge: charity does not excuse stupidity"

What you call stupidity, I call social progress.

"You're turning everything into a race agenda. I'm not disagreeing that there are corrupt white billionaires out there. But there are also corrupt black ones. She's polluting the environment with her dumbed down sentimentality and emotional manipulations."

That's your interpretation of what she's doing. Others argue that she's made the world more tolerant and compassionate and shattered taboos.

"That's why wit's gotten to a point where if you rip on a bad writer like Angelou, you're somehow "mean" and "unsympathetic" because she's been raped. Her bad poems are a rape to my eyes."

Fair point. Angelou is not a great poet and is mostly famous because Oprah felt it was important to see more black women represented on the best seller lists, and thus allowed diversity to trump merit when making some of her selections.

"They're not assumptions. Your arguments exemplify that. And Oprah fans not open-minded. You're exemplifying that as well. They're the 1st ones to lecture you on 'not judging' (even though at the same time they'll stress the importance of being "strong" and having an opinion etc but as long as it's something they agree with...)and they also call people who disagree with their touchy feely BS 'right winged.' Sound familiar?"

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I did interpret a lot of the arguments against the pregnant man as right-wing, but perhaps that was just my perspective, as I am very far to the left so it's all relative.

"Funny how you can't make a single opinion without relying on 'what critics said.'"

My personal opinion of a book's merits proves nothing. The only way to be objective when it comes to art is to cite the consensus of a panel of judges trained at assessing the subject at hand. But as you say, if they are not independent thinkers, this too may be insufficient.

"This sounds like pseudo feminist psychobabble you'd find in a pamphlet somewhere being handed out of some beat up Volkswagen on your way to a Phish concert."

So that was you? I knew your picture looked familiar.

"Which is why her school in Africa was being run by sadists- no responsibility shown, but bad PR that can be embarrasing, so cover it up."

Now you're just resorting to cheap shots. She didn't cover it up. She hired a team of investigators, a child trauma specialist, replaced most of the staff, and held a press conference and gave detailed non-evasive answers to every single question.

"What you call stupidity, I call social progress."

You'd probably enjoy the DVD FREAKS. Oprah's circus is not far off.

"Others argue that she's made the world more tolerant and compassionate and shattered taboos."

She's not shattered taboos but only played to the worst stereotypes. That Americans are a bunch of insecure, needy, self-entitled losers who read bad books and pretend its literature. Taboos shatter on their own, with time. This ever so polite PC culture has only created more. But eventually those will won't matter either--people will look back on the Oprah daze and ask: "Why were people so stupid back then?"

"I am very far to the left so it's all relative."

I've been called a bleeding heart liberal by some real right wingers, it just depends on what I'm arguing. Many hated Oprah for endorsing Obama. Objectively speaking, she should probably keep out of politics, but I support Obama so I'm not complaining.

"So that was you? I knew your picture looked familiar. "

I was the one in the dress handing out the sandwiches laced with "that special something."

"She's not shattered taboos but only played to the worst stereotypes. That Americans are a bunch of insecure, needy, self-entitled losers who read bad books and pretend its literature."

But we ARE a bunch of insecure, needy, self-entitled losers who read bad books and pretend its literature. It's not Oprah choosing these books you don't like, it's us who have chosen Oprah as the ultimate arbiter of our culture. If she's not good enough for you, then America's not good enough of you. And the rest of the world does not have a problem with the American culture. That's just propaganda to deflect attention from what really bothers the world about America: It's foreign policy.

And the notion that the tabloid talk show genre didn't shatter taboos is demonstrably false. There's been mountains of empirical evidence showing how the tabloid talk show genre, pioneered by Donahue, turned into a huge industry by Oprah, and taken to absurd extremes by Springer, had single handedly mainstreamed gays, and given them a decade and a half of high impact media visibility.

Now since 1995, Oprah has more or less distanced herself from her tabloid talk show roots, and spent the last 13 years secularizing spirituality and promoting literature you don't like, and self-help fads which reveal America to be needy and insecure. I suspect it's the last 13 years of her her career you have the biggest problem with, because during the first 9 years she was simply a black Ricki Lake.

"But we ARE a bunch of insecure, needy, self-entitled losers who read bad books and pretend its literature. It's not Oprah choosing these books you don't like, it's us who have chosen Oprah as the ultimate arbiter of our culture.

Speak for yourself as far as being insecure and needing a nipple to suck on. That's you Tina, not me. The majority of people in American culture are not Oprah zombies who enjoy watching pregnant men on television. Sorry. Most people have jobs.

"If she's not good enough for you, then America's not good enough of you."

Spoken like a true cult follower.

"And the rest of the world does not have a problem with the American culture. That's just propaganda to deflect attention from what really bothers the world about America: It's foreign policy."

Oh gee, ever hear of September 11th? Or was that just 'propaganda'? Are you high or something? Is this a joke?

"And the notion that the tabloid talk show genre didn't shatter taboos is demonstrably false. There's been mountains of empirical evidence showing how the tabloid talk show genre, pioneered by Donahue, turned into a huge industry by Oprah, and taken to absurd extremes by Springer, had single handedly mainstreamed gays, and given them a decade and a half of high impact media visibility."

You're confusing shattering taboos with exploiting stereotypes. And you're wrong--Donahue was huge before Oprah--she was the one who began the the whole vampires who have sex with their mothers on national tv. Just a freak show, and Donahue did it to compete with her when he was losing ratings to her trash. Springer has never had any pretensions like Oprah, so he's not as bad. He doesn't have followers (like you) who take him seriously like Oprah does because he does not take himself seriously. He's a joke and knows it. Oprah is a joke and doesn't.

"I suspect it's the last 13 years of her her career you have the biggest problem with, because during the first 9 years she was simply a black Ricki Lake."

You admit it! Ricki Lake just does her trashy show but does not pontificate and spout New Age psychobabble to insecure delusionals in need of "validation" the way Oprah does.

When you have someone who is week and desperate for "validation" you don't make it worse by babying their insecurities. You tell them to grow up.

Grow up.

Tina:
'Well you don't know if she actually believed it, or just thought it would sell well.'

The first time Frey was on Oprah praised its honesty and truth; so, she either lies, does not read the books she selects, or is a media whore- or all 3. Choose her poison.

'And Oprah defines herself as a free thinking Christian in that she admires Christ as a person'

But, since there is no historical record of Jesus of Nazareth, she is believing in a myth, and perpetuating religion's ignorance.

'Others argue that she's made the world more tolerant and compassionate and shattered taboos.'

Again, parroting other opinions. Do you make you living sitting on someone's knee and having their hand up your ass?

'The only way to be objective when it comes to art is to cite the consensus of a panel of judges trained at assessing the subject at hand. But as you say, if they are not independent thinkers, this too may be insufficient.'

The only objective way is to know what constitutes quality in a field- be it architecture or art, and be able to discern those qualities. You only use the appeal to authority fallacy. So did alot of Germans and Russians under Hitler and Stalin. Not a wise way to live one's life.

'She didn't cover it up. She hired a team of investigators, a child trauma specialist, replaced most of the staff, and held a press conference and gave detailed non-evasive answers to every single question.'

She covered it up for months, and only when the 'victim' went to the local press and it exploded did she deal with it. Let's not flat out lie now, Tina; ignorance is a great enough ignominy for you to bear.

'But we ARE a bunch of insecure, needy, self-entitled losers who read bad books and pretend its literature. '

Now you are playing to the fallacy of self-limits. Many people are as described, and which you manifestly embrace. But because you are a whiny loser means not that I or any reader of this is.

'pioneered by Donahue, turned into a huge industry by Oprah, and taken to absurd extremes by Springer, had single handedly mainstreamed gays, and given them a decade and a half of high impact media visibility.'

First, Donahue made talk a big industry; Oprah ripped him off. Second, gays were mainstreamed by Tootsie, Philadelphia, tabloid tv and papers long before Oprah or any of her competitors took off. Again, making up things as you go along does no good.

'"If she's not good enough for you, then America's not good enough of you."'

Thank you, Joe McCarthy.

And Oprah has returned to her exploitive roots, which she never totally abandoned, but since her show is down nearly 50% from its 1990s high, go back to the moneymaker- Deepak Chopra's old news but lesbian nuns needing plastic surgery are.

"And the rest of the world does not have a problem with the American culture."

I'm Canadian, and Oprah gets on my nerves. She influences Canadians too - and presumably people anywhere her TV show is syndicated.

"That's just propaganda to deflect attention from what really bothers the world about America: It's foreign policy."

American foreign policy is the disaster it is in no small part because of the bread & circuses fed to the masses to keep them from thinking about anything very deeply. Americans are not inherently stupid, but their culture keeps them stupider and more passive than they need be. And Oprah, with her sanctimonious drivel, is a prime purveyor of the worst aspects of American popular culture.

Look at her influence on the publishing industry. Thanks to her promotion of sappy "female empowerment" rape/abuse/self-esteem soap operas, that's become the only kind of manuscript most editors want to see, ESPECIALLY if the author is female! And with media consolidation, with corporate ownership, & with the rise of the big chain bookstores in every city, that means authors EVERYWHERE, not just American authors. She hasn't increased opportunities for talented female writers, she's decreased them. In a world where Oprah can single-handedly make a book a hit, an ambitious editor would be crazy NOT to give top priority to maudlin "empowerment" tripe, & take a pass on manuscripts of real quality.

"There's been mountains of empirical evidence showing how the tabloid talk show genre, pioneered by Donahue, turned into a huge industry by Oprah, and taken to absurd extremes by Springer, had single handedly mainstreamed gays, and given them a decade and a half of high impact media visibility."

Donahue did way more to mainstream homosexuality than Oprah. You're absolutely right if you're talking about Donahue's impact, but why give Oprah credit for his courage and his pioneering? Oprah only likes the gays around as little eunuch-like drones buzzing around and catering to the needs of the queen bee. And Donahue is still taking on the bullies, like when he appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show and took him to the cleaners about the war in Iraq.

"Fair point. Angelou is not a great poet and is mostly famous because Oprah felt it was important to see more black women represented on the best seller lists, and thus allowed diversity to trump merit when making some of her selections."

But the problem isn't that she promotes bad black writers. The problem is she promotes bad writers, PERIOD, because she agrees with what she takes to be their "message." It's why a movie like CRASH (written & directed by a Canadian: see, we can play the finger-waving sanctimony game quite as well as you guys can!) or SCHINDLER'S LIST wins a ton of Oscars and treated like the greatest film of the year or the decade, because people agree with "the important message" about "racism" or "the Holocaust," and shunt real art to the sidelines because its themes aren't so transparent.

I think her detractors would be overjoyed if she promoted some of the major black artists mentioned in earlier posts (Thylias Moss, Baldwin etc). But she won't do that because they don't tie their work up in nice little bows. It could even be argued that it's much harder today for serious black writers to get published and recognized than before Oprah started influencing the publishing industry, because now editors all want black artists to fit into their little niche markets, especially the Oprah "sob story" niche. If you're a black woman writer, and you're not either the Terry MacMillan "Waiting to Exhale" soap opera niche, or the Alice Walker/Maya Angelou "empowerment" niche, good luck to you!

"She covered it up for months, and only when the 'victim' went to the local press and it exploded did she deal with it."

Do you have any evidence to back up this disgusting smear?

"Donahue did way more to mainstream homosexuality than Oprah. You're absolutely right if you're talking about Donahue's impact, but why give Oprah credit for his courage and his pioneering?"

I give them both credit. I give Donahue credit for pioneering the format, but I credit Oprah for popularizing and revolutionizing the genre. For years Donahue was the sole progressive voice on TV, but Oprah doubled Donahue's ratings and negotiated the best deal in television history. It was only after Oprah demonstrated how lucrative Donahue's format could be when one focused on the more taboo topics like gays that it exploded into a giant industry providing a decade and a half of much needed high impact media visibility that did more to make gays mainstream than any other development of the 20th century. I'm not claiming Oprah had noble intentions; she had simply found a formula that worked, and it kicked off the most important counter-culture movement in modern media. But of course without Donahue, there would have been no Oprah so he deserves a ton of credit.

"American foreign policy is the disaster it is in no small part because of the bread & circuses fed to the masses to keep them from thinking about anything very deeply. Americans are not inherently stupid, but their culture keeps them stupider and more passive than they need be. And Oprah, with her sanctimonious drivel, is a prime purveyor of the worst aspects of American popular culture."

I don't think Oprah's mainstreaming of gays and secularization of spirituality or encouragement of reading has dumbed down the culture; just the opposite actually. And in fact the average American IQ has increased 3 points since Oprah began, and in fact America has one of the highest average IQ's in the world (mostly because it's a rich country where the brain is well nourished).

You can't blame foreign policy on the American stupidity or American's wonderful popular culture and entertainment industry that is loved throughout the world. You could just as easily blame sports and wrestling for dumbing us down instead of ridiculing female entertainment, or blame great literature for getting us to read make belief stories instead of paying attention to the real events of our time.

Who you should blame is the powerful lobbyists who have a stranglehold on congress and the white house. You can blame it on the fact the fact that only a handful of people control all the major news shows and newspapers and they deliberately distort the news to mislead people.

"Oh gee, ever hear of September 11th? Or was that just 'propaganda'? Are you high or something? Is this a joke?"

The fact that you think Sept 11th happened because the rest of the world hates America's popular culture is a perfect example of how you've been duped by the news media. They want you to think America is hated because of it's culture, secularism, and alternative life styles when the real reason is it's policy in the middle east. Fortunately they have gullible sheep like you insisting American culture is the problem, thus allowing them to continue their policy.

"Look at her influence on the publishing industry. Thanks to her promotion of sappy "female empowerment" rape/abuse/self-esteem soap operas, that's become the only kind of manuscript most editors want to see,"

You're confusing the content of her show with the content of the books she promotes. Oprah's selections include Cormac McCarthy, Faulkner, Tolstoy, Morrison, Franzen, James Frey, Steinbeck, Joyce Carol Oates, and countless others who don't engage in sappy soap operas. And she only selects several books a year. I somehow doubt that publisher are rearranging their entire publishing policy just on the outside chance Oprah might pick their book. Now if Oprah had inspired every host on TV to start book clubs with the same kind of themes, then your argument might make sense.


"The problem is she promotes bad writers, PERIOD, because she agrees with what she takes to be their 'message.'"

She promotes writers YOU think are bad. She obviously doesn't think they're bad. The consumer obviously doesn't think they're bed. And the majority of her selections got good reviews at the time of their publications. What makes you think all these people are wrong, and YOU know the truth about good art. You remind me of a religious fundamentalist with your dogmatic assumption that only the text you worship is worthy, and everyone else is misguided.

And at least Oprah has gotten millions of couch potatoes to read challenging high vocabulary literature like Toni Morrison, which is a hell of a lot more than they were doing before she started her book club. And since many in her audience are moms, many black moms who live in the inner city, and since the biggest influence on a child's literacy is the literacy and reading habits of her mother, Oprah's probably done more for child literacy than almost any single individual. I think you need to step out and look at this from a different perspective.

"You remind me of a religious fundamentalist with your dogmatic assumption that only the text you worship is worthy, and everyone else is misguided."

You're the one who runs to an authorized "holy text," the New York Times Book Review or whatnot, for "proof" that something is good. That makes you the fundamentalist, since you think whatever gets the "official" book reviewer's seal of approval is good. The fact that NONE of the mainstream reviewers clued into the fact that James Frey's memoir was fake, whereas at least a couple fringe publications did, shows the mainstream reviewers don't have very good judgment. Amazing how they keep falling for one fake memoir after another. Obviously they don't have a very good bullshit detector.

"Oprah's selections include Cormac McCarthy, Faulkner, Tolstoy, Morrison, Franzen, James Frey, Steinbeck, Joyce Carol Oates, and countless others who don't engage in sappy soap operas."

I give her credit for putting Tolstoy on her list, but how can she read ANNA KARENINA and then read A MILLION LITTLE PIECES and think they are both "important"? That's like someone looking at Edward Hopper, then looking at Thomas Kinkade, & thinking they were both great artists needing celebrating.

The problem is for every good thing she does she does something else that cancels it out. She promotes Tolstoy, but then she promotes some piece of maudlin empowerment drivel. She talks about not being materialistic & how to be more spiritual, but then a day later she's hawking the latest "must have" item of clothing or product. Then her fans say you cant criticize her because she did this or that good thing.

"I somehow doubt that publisher are rearranging their entire publishing policy just on the outside chance Oprah might pick their book."

Well, you think wrong. The whole publishing industry is dominated by the desire for more ChickLit for the girls, tenth-rate thrillers for the guys, and sappy (and often fake) memoirs for both genders. Of course Oprah didn't create these problems, but she exacerbated them. It was already hard for good work to get into print and get noticed, and now it's even harder. Don't underestimate the role she played there. She helped changed the whole climate of popular understanding and popular culture, legitimizing the tawdry, the weepy, and the rankly sentimental.

You say I've confused the content of her show with the content of her book club. But her book club was only briefly concerned with the classics (the one phase of it I approve of), & besides, it's the content of her show that helped dumbed down the whole media landscape in the first place. She played a significant role in dumbing down general public discourse in America, and since American media is beamed into homes all over the world, certainly including Canada (most Canadians watch much more American TV than Canadian TV), I feel entitled to criticize her choice to turn mainstream media discourse into a big, tacky soap opera. She didn't do it single-handedly, I know that, everybody knows that, but she DID play a major part in doing that. She doesn't deserve all the blame but she does deserve some.

"Do you have any evidence to back up this disgusting smear?"

Is that what you asked your gyno when you got your results back?

"And in fact the average American IQ has increased 3 points since Oprah began, and in fact America has one of the highest average IQ's in the world (mostly because it's a rich country where the brain is well nourished)."

Ok, so like talk about pulling shit out of your ass. How's that hand doing?

"The fact that you think Sept 11th happened because the rest of the world hates America's popular culture is a perfect example of how you've been duped by the news media."

I never said that was the only reason, but nice attempt at distortion. But I'm also not the one claiming your ridiculous IQ points (or lack there of)above.

"She promotes writers YOU think are bad. She obviously doesn't think they're bad. The consumer obviously doesn't think they're bed. And the majority of her selections got good reviews at the time of their publications."

There you go relying on others' opinions. Quality is not subjective. Oprah is a moron who thinks Maya Angelou is a deep writer and that Crash is a great film. Good reviews don't = quality. Most of Kubrick's films are panned at the box office but Spielberg's crap is praised. So what?

"And at least Oprah has gotten millions of couch potatoes to read challenging high vocabulary literature like Toni Morrison,"

You have no idea how funny this statement is. Next you'll say 'like Harry Potter'

"Oprah's probably done more for child literacy than almost any single individual."

Oh you mean like the doggerel written by the kid in the wheelchair?

"You remind me of a religious fundamentalist with your dogmatic assumption that only the text you worship is worthy, and everyone else is misguided."

There you go again with your "judging" of someone who doesn't buy into your BS. Ah, hypocrisies!

No Oprah Zone: you said it perfectly. Her head is cement though, it will be painful when she tries to excavate it out from her ass.

"I never said that was the only reason, but nice attempt at distortion. But I'm also not the one claiming your ridiculous IQ points (or lack there of)above."

The fact that you think it's even a significant reason is astonishing and shows your OBSCENE level of ignorance about U.S. foreign policy in the middle east. And no wonder if your biggest concern in life is whether good or bad poetry makes the best seller list. GET A LIFE JESSICA!!!!!!!!!!! And you have the nerve to complain about other people dumbing us down!

And of course my claim about IQ going up (in sharp contrast to your dumbing down theory) is absolutely supported by the facts. It's known in psychology as the Flynn Effect. Average IQ in America has been rising at a rate of 3 IQ points per decade for the past several decades, just as average height has been rising through the 20th century. That's why IQ tests must be constantly re-normed to keep the average IQ at 100. So contrary to your assertion that Oprah feeds off of a dumbed down culture, the truth is she emerged during the most intelligent period in American history.

You see intelligent people LIKE reading Toni Morrison, they LIKE opening their minds to alternative spirituality like Echart Tolle and alternative life styles like pregnant men and psycho analyzing themselves with the latest self-help book. Intelligent people also tend to have more empathy and so they cry along with little boys in wheelchairs, understanding that the quality of his poetry is not the point.

And now you're mocking Toni Morrison's vocabulary. Next you'll claim you were reading her in the second grade. Too bad even Nobel prize winning authors can't meet the exceptional high literary standards of Jessica's blog.

The fact that you think it's even a significant reason is astonishing and shows your OBSCENE level of ignorance about U.S. foreign policy in the middle east.

Tina, dearest. You are an idiot. This is what you said: "And the rest of the world does not have a problem with the American culture. That's just propaganda to deflect attention from what really bothers the world about America: It's foreign policy."

It is well known that other countries laugh and make fun of the US Oprah Winfreyish crap, the self-help, the whines, the losers in search of validation. That you don't know this is your own delusions. It's also well known that the Middle East resents much of the American culture for it's materialism, the shallowness, the sense of entitlement. You were the one who brought up Foreign Policy claiming that: "And the rest of the world does not have a problem with the American culture."

Clearly, that's untrue.

"And no wonder if your biggest concern in life is whether good or bad poetry makes the best seller list."

Since when has poetry made the best seller list? When did I say this? Nice try.

GET A LIFE JESSICA!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny this comes from you who feels the need to argue with a reviewer on BC. Again, the hand, the smear. How goes it?

"And you have the nerve to complain about other people dumbing us down!"

Just look at your own comments and distortions for that one.

"And in fact the average American IQ has increased 3 points since Oprah began, and in fact America has one of the highest average IQ's in the world (mostly because it's a rich country where the brain is well nourished)."

This is what you said. Do you subscribe to The Bell Curve as well? Do I smell a racist?

"intelligent people also tend to have more empathy and so they cry along with little boys in wheelchairs, understanding that the quality of his poetry is not the point."

One who praises intent is not celebrating intellect. Intelligence has nothing to do with empathy. And quality is the point. Intellect has nothing to do with like. That you can't see these basic points shows you're significantly lacking.

"Too bad even Nobel prize winning authors can't meet the exceptional high literary standards of Jessica's blog."

So this is what it's about. There's better poetry on my blog than any place you'll find published. Would that Toni Morrison were as good.

"You're the one who runs to an authorized 'holy text,' the New York Times Book Review or whatnot, for 'proof' that something is good. That makes you the fundamentalist, since you think whatever gets the 'official' book reviewer's seal of approval is good."

Actually my point was that Oprah's choices have been popular with BOTH the public and the critics (at least before she picked them), so it's arbitrary and meaningless for you to say they're not good books when both the general public and those who study literature disagree. Who died and made you king?

"The problem is for every good thing she does she does something else that cancels it out. She promotes Tolstoy, but then she promotes some piece of maudlin empowerment drivel."

If she only picked books like Tolstoy her club would never have lasted more than a year. What she's trying to do is get Americans in the habit of reading for pleasure and the way to do that is to offer a wide range of selections, not just those YOU approve of. The whole world doesn't have to think like you. Oprah is taking people who are used to watching daytime TV and transforming them into readers. Not all of them have the education to appreciate all Tolstoy all the time. Would you rather Oprah closed shop so that Anne Coulter could rule the best seller list? It's not like Americans make better choices without Oprah.

"Well, you think wrong. The whole publishing industry is dominated by the desire for more ChickLit for the girls, tenth-rate thrillers for the guys, and sappy (and often fake) memoirs for both genders. Of course Oprah didn't create these problems, but she exacerbated them."

ChickLit is popular because women read for pleasure at higher rates than men do. Oprah exacerbated what YOU see as a problem by encouraging even more women to read, but the reason she sells books so easily in the first place is because she reaches a female demographic.

"She played a significant role in dumbing down general public discourse in America"

I think you're confusing the dumbing down of public discourse with the feminization of public discourse. Certainly Oprah made the discourse more feminine (i.e. Bill Clinton claiming he could feel our pain, stars like Rosie O'Donnell joking about their weight problem). But America's biggest problem is not that it's too feminine. It's that it's too hyper-masculine and aggressive to the point that much of the world views it as a bully. Oprah may have glorified victimization and portrayed America as a nation of sissies, but if there's one thing American foreign policy could benefit from, it's a lot more empathy for other countries.

Tina:

Your pathologies explain why you are an Oprah fan.

'Do you have any evidence to back up this disgusting smear?'

Yes, it ran on all the major news outlets that it was mos. between the abuse and Oprah's handling of it. Next.

'The fact that you think Sept 11th happened because the rest of the world hates America's popular culture is a perfect example of how you've been duped by the news media.