So now onto the book club. I have no problem criticizing Oprah’s mawkish, dumbed down book club selections, but if one is going to do so, one also has to have his facts straight. Bonvillain provides a list of the author names Oprah’s chosen for her club, and has divided the authors up between male and female and also into races. He lists Carson McCullers, the author of The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, as a male author, when just a simple Google search could have fixed that problem. Also, his complaint isn’t that the many books she chooses are equivalent to the Beavis and Butthead of literature (many are, not all) but that she doesn’t choose enough black people.
Also, did you know that Oprah and Gayle King are lesbians? How does he know, you are wondering? Here’s what he says:
“Gay partners enjoy traveling together. Oprah and Gayle have seen the world through each other’s eyes.”
“Gay couples enjoy fine dinning [sic]. Oprah and Gayle have dinned [sic] at some of the finest restaurants in the world.”
“Gay couples enjoy going to events and parties together. Oprah and Gayle have been photographed thousands of times at events and parties.”
“Gay couples enjoy planning things together. Oprah and Gayle have planned balls, parties, charity events, trips, shows, and much more.”
Are you laughing yet? Okay, even if this were real and true “evidence”, what does that matter? I can’t stand Oprah for her phoniness, her materialism, and her New Age psychobabble, yet even if she was a “lesbian” that isn’t anyone’s business, and frankly I don’t care. And neither should you.
Ruthless then has over a hundred pages of typed transcripts, all with hyperbolic headings like, “Oprah’s Attorney has called and he is scared!”
For as much as the author wished to “expose” Oprah as the phony and liar she is, he certainly didn’t succeed with this book. Yet he does mention the point about when Oprah and Gayle went on their cross-country trip together and “crashed” two weddings and then later aired them on her show. The book claims they had crashed four weddings - yet the pair had been asked to leave at two of them. This little point was left out when the show aired. Yes, Oprah is a megalomaniac who believes she can “crash” anyone’s wedding and will thereby be welcome simply because she’s a rich celebrity. This selfish feeling of entitlement is something that her fans continually overlook.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Tina
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.
2 - Dan Schneider
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?
3 - Tyler
"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.
4 - JSchneider
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.
5 - Dan Schneider
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.
6 - Tyler
"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.
7 - JSchneider
"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."
8 - Tyler
"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.
9 - JSchneider
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.
10 - Tina
"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.
11 - JSchneider
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?
12 - w. kingslee
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....
13 - 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?
14 - Anthony
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).
15 - Tina
"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.
16 - Tina
"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.
17 - JSchneider
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.
18 - JSchneider
"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.
19 - JSchneider
"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.
20 - Anthony
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.
21 - Dan Schneider
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.
22 - Dan Schneider
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.
23 - Tina
"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.
24 - Dan Schneider
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?
25 - Dan Schneider
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.