Posted
by Joel Mathis
June 5, 2007 at 5:41 p.m.
I surrender ... to Oprah
So: It's going to be tough for me to be a snob about Oprah's Book Club anymore.![][1]Why? Well, [let AP explain:][2]_Once associated with inspirational narratives such as Jacqueline Mitchard's "The Deep End of the Ocean," Winfrey has been increasingly willing to take on the most challenging books and the most challenging writers.On Tuesday, she announced her new club selection: Jeffrey Eugenides' "Middlesex," a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel narrated by a hermaphrodite - someone with both male and female sexual organs - and aired a talk with her previous pick, Cormac McCarthy, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author's first ever television interview."I am proud to be in the same company as Tolstoy and Faulkner and Cormac McCarthy," Eugenides said in an interview from his home in Chicago._Well, there you go. She's hit two home runs in a row, at least by my lights.[You already know how I feel about "The Road."][3] And you might remember [that I was conflicted about McCarthy going on Oprah in the first place,][4] even though I try - really! - not to be a big ol' book snob.But here's this: Say what you will about Oprah, but she's not - as is the common conception - picking easy, feel-good, men-bashing novels. "The Road" is rife with violence and even cannibalism, and it's "feel good" ending can be described as such only because it's less bleak than the rest of the book. "Middlesex," meanwhile, is done a grave disservice when it's described only in terms of its hermaphrodite narrator - it is, in its own way, a classic (and beautifully written) American novel about immigrant families coming to terms with their new and changing culture.And the truth is - Mitchard aside - Oprah's taste hasn't so easily fit the stereotype. She's done more to popularize Toni Morrison than anybody. Barbara Kingsolver's "The Poisonwood Bible" is a great novel. And Tolstoy and Faulkner, as Eugenides notes, kinda stand on their own merits.In fact, the Oprah book I read that did the least for me was "The Corrections" - whose author, Jonathan Franzen, nearly destroyed her club by suggesting his discomfort with mingling with the masses. Unfortunately for him, one of the central characters in his novel was a friggin' English professor. And I can't tell you how much I'm tired of that. (Franzen is much better when he's writing nonfiction essays.) (As long as those essays don't lament the state of the novel. Or of novel readers.)Besides, if the Prospero's guys are right and the American mind is closing - well, it's surely not Oprah's fault. She has a TV show, sure, but she's using it to give Cormac McCarthy a wider audience. That is surely not a bad thing.So Oprah, I surrender. You were right all along. [1]: http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/oprah-xm-satellite-radio.jpg [2]: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/4864154.html [3]: http://www.lawrence.com/blogs/mathis/2006/nov/02/road/ [4]: http://www.yahoo.com/
and 4 others
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
JohnB (anonymous) says…
Did you see the interview, Joel?
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
'Fraid not. I Googled up the press accounts today because there was no time to tune in.
Stupid work. Interfering with my Oprah watchin'.
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
Ah. Well I see that JohnB has blogged the interview here...
http://blogmeridian.blogspot.com/2007...
Seen through John's eyes, the whole thing comes off as slightly cringeworthy.
So I'm not going to pretend that Oprah's perfect. She's not. (John sez: "Life is pretty damn good"? Yeah: I wrote it down. But if that's the message of The Road, it's the most hard-won "Life is pretty damn good" that I can think of.) But I think, on balance, we're all better off if Oprah's out there promoting good literature than if serious readers try so hard to preserve their ghetto...
JohnB (anonymous) says…
Thanks for the link.
For me it was more weird than anything else: somewhat akin to seeing pigs fly after having come to believe as an article of faith that such a thing would never come to pass.
manofleisure (anonymous) says…
Joel,
While we will let the "'friggin'" English professor/teacher comment slide for now - and The Corrections was, whatever its faults or indulgences, certainly was about more than just Chip, who, in fact was a Professor of Literary Artifacts, which is much more cultural studies than English) I actually just watched the interview that you write about.
While I am not sure it crackled with the literary discussion I had hoped for, I found the whole thing to be, well, rather pleasant. He played it close to the vest, but did speak about some interesting things - being a dad at an older age, his approach to puncuation, his relationship with money.
I left feeling good knowing that the man whose bloodsoaked prose I do so enjoy is a relatively normal, rather sheepish old fella.
The link is here , scroll down and you'll need to sign up (takes two minutes, tops).
Back to the English professor comment. Did you ever used to see that bumper sticker that said if you want to complain about farmers don't talk with your mouth full? I would say the same holds true for teachers of literature and writing when one writes about books.
Cheers,
Mark
UKept (anonymous) says…
Joel, manofleisure's got a point. Lay off the English professors.
It's the book reviewers that ruin everything. No one likes those friggin guys.
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
Whoa, guys.
I have no problem with English professors. Hell, an English professor was best man at my wedding.
What I have a problem with, in this "write what you know" age, are all the modern novels featuring English professors as central characters. It's a real problem.
That said, I'll concede MOL is correct about, um, "The Corrections."
Friggers.
OtherJoel (anonymous) says…
I know what you mean, Mathis. English professors and books about writers (John Irving) get a little tired.
altheasus (Althea Schnacke) says…
See, I was just feeling special for reading "Middlesex" before it became an Oprah book. As much as I don't care for Oprah's show, I have yet to read one of her book club selections that was just plain bad. There's been a few that I don't care for personally, but I think that all of her selections of current works will hold up in 50 years.
Oddly enough, I'm about half way through "The Corrections" right now. While I'm in general agreement about higher learning being overdone in novels, it really hasn't bothered me since the book is more about aging and midwestern malaise than sitting through faculty meetings.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
The Kite Runner was pretty cringeworthy, in my estimation. Ended up being sentimental tripe for the most part.
manofleisure (anonymous) says…
UKept - Yes, those (said like Roy Williams) "friggin'' critics. They, like herpes, ruin everything. I am not sure who UKept his, but he must know my other job. But take a look around and you won't have critics to kick around much anymore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/boo...
The downside - other than people losing the ability to get huffy at book reviewers - is that more and more people will blow $28 based on but a wire review. With fewer books being reviewed, there will be far less small press books that get covered. If you thought corporate rock was bad...
Plus, I wrote for T. Weaver at AJC for several years. She's a peach. And my work at SF Chron & LA Times will be less b/c of these changes.
Joel - Of course, all in jest. Just ribbing you. Jonathan Franzen is a grandstanding, self-important prig. And that's the nice thing I have to say about him.
Have it well, guys,
Mr. Critic
ps for some reason my html skills seemed to have failed. I can't figure out whay I am doing wrong...any suggestions (msluce AT sbcglobal.net) would be that.
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says…
Sigh. I friggin *love* this town!
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
MOL: I think big papers cutting their review sections are just rendering themselves irrelevant to the critical discussion of books - it's not going away, it's just moving elsewhere.
There are some decent literary sites on the Web. I'm a fan of Bookslut, myself, and Edward Champion. Champion has done a decent job of chronicling the disdain that newspaper book critics seem to have for litbloggers - which I confess I don't quite understand. Do you have insight?
There's things I like about the changing model -- the interactivity, for one. I'm not going to pretend that my short blog about "The Road" back in November was anything but shallow. But through the comments section - including your comments, if I remember correctly - and other blogs, the blog became part of a larger conversation that deepened my thinking about the book ... and, hopefully, let anybody peeking in on the conversation decided whether they wanted to spend that $28.
All that said, it's still an uncomfortable time for people in your biz. I'm interested in your thoughts about how it should all shake out...
JohnB (anonymous) says…
It occurs to me that, strangely, as I think back on the interview, the sort of reader I wanted Oprah to be was something like a critic. I say "strangely" because I know she is not a critic. She is a fan: she gets excited about a book because it moves her emotionally. It may move her intellectually as well, but that's not how she presents it to her audience. And there's nothing wrong with that, not in the least; nor is it a criticism of her intelligence. Hence the sorts of connections she was making ("a good Father's Day gift," she said of The Road) and the sorts of questions she was asking ("Is it fair to say The Road would not have been written if your son had not been born?"). Also in fairness to Winfrey, it's just fact that the general public doesn't know much about McCarthy, so it's appropriate for her audience that she cover some of the territory that she did. It would have been a very different interview if, say, Harold Bloom--who likewise admires him, though for more high-brow reasons--had interviewed him.
Having said all that, though, the selections for Oprah's Book Club 2.0 have (pace Morrison) more heft to them than did those of the club's first incarnation. It's hard to imagine Middlesex being pitched as a "beach novel," which Oprah did yesterday, but that doesn't lessen the novel's quality.
As for books about English teachers: I admit to wanting to read The Human Stain, but because Philip Roth wrote it and not because it's about academe. I already know something about how that world works, so I tend not to be drawn to books about it.
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
To be fair, biographers 50 years from now may well be writing about the influence of late-life fatherhood on McCarthy's writing -- we're still seeing books about Einstein's and Galileo's relationships, and who the heck doesn't know about Sylvia Plath or Virginia Woolf's life experiences?
We kind of want McCarthy to retain his mystique - but it's impossible for any revered writer to make their work just about their work. In fact, when they try, they become famous for their reluctance to talk. McCarthy is a good example; Salinger is a more famous one. And I'm no fan of "Catcher in the Rye," so part of me suspects that novel would've lost its cachet long, long ago had Salinger been conducting his icky affairs in the public eye...
manofleisure (anonymous) says…
Joel,
I think the reason that critics get so grumbly about blogs is the same reason "mainstream" journalists get grumbly about blogs - it's a turf thing, for both sophomoric and legitimate reasons.
I have never really had a prob. with lit blogs, and, in fact, I think they help foster an overall discussion of books in a way that newspaper reviews simply can't. That said, I do think that print critics (books, I won't speak to music or film criticism) do actually serve a solid function - almost a public service to the book-buying public. I think, too, that there is something to be said about the background/credentials of print critics. Anybody with Blogger can talk about books, but can they perform the "criticism" part of it? This, of course, raises a larger question, is it more important/better for people to simply talk about books, or is it more important/better for other people to critically examine them in a public arena? I dunnaknow.
My hunch is that books pages will always occupy a couple of pages on Sunday in most major dailies. However, we will see that increasingly in papers other than NYT, LAT and WaPo, that national reviews of big books will be wire copy, which, to be snotty, never seem to be as good - chalk it up to workload. Again, I can't stress enough that by limiting the number of cirtical voices on a book you do a disservice to both authors and readers.
Cool thread. Keep 'em coming.
ML
slowburn (anonymous) says…
I think mayonnaise is the key ingredient of a BLT.
slowburn (anonymous) says…
and what's a burger without some catsup?