Constant Reader discussion

Entertainment Weekly has a list of the top 100 books of the past 25 years.

It is interesting that two of them are on our upcoming reading list.

Here are the top 25.

1. THE ROAD by Cormac McCarthy
2. HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE by J. K. Rowling
3. BELOVED by Toni Morrison
4. THE LIAR'S CLUB by Mary Karr
5. AMERICAN PASTORAL by Philip Roth
6. MYSTIC RIVER by Dennis Lehane
7. MAUS by Art Spiegelman
8. SELECTED STORIES by Alice Munro
9. COLD MOUNTAIN by Charles Frazier
10. THE WIND-UP BIRD CHRONICLE by Haruki Murakami
11. INTO THIN AIR by Jon Krakauer
12. BLINDNESS by José Saramago
13. WATCHMEN by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
14. BLACK WATER by Joyce Carol Oates
15. A HEARTBREAKING WORK OF STAGGERING GENIUS by Dave Egger
16. THE HANDMAID'S TALE by Margaret Atwood
17. LOVE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA by Gabriel Garcia Márquez
18. RABBIT AT REST by John Updike
19. ON BEAUTY by Zadie Smith
20. BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY by Helen Fielding
21. ON WRITING by Stephen King
22. THE BRIEF WONDROUS LIFE OF OSCAR WAO by Junot Diaz
23. THE GHOST ROAD by Pat Barker
24. LONESOME DOVE by Larry McMurtry
25. THE JOY LUCK CLUB by Amy Tan

I have read 12 of those and have three here ready to read.

Jane

I always wonder what the crieria are for lists such as these, especially from such a non-literary source. Nonetheless, I'm with Jane. I've read a dozen and have a few more waiting in the wings.

Anne

I always wonder why they decide to do such lists on otherwise unremarkable years, like 2008. I know it helps sales, but will there be another best 100 next year, too?

Great to see Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and Joy Luck Club there! It's also nice that female authors are well-represented. But it's surprising I have less problem with their book choices than their movie list. My one exception: Bridget Jones's Diary was an awful book and really doesn't deserve its place here.

I am dumbfounded that anyone could include Bridget Jones's Diary and ignore The Known World, but, hey, it's Entertainment Weekly, right?

Well, I've only read five of these, so I guess that's not enough to criticize. Still, it's hard for me to imagine how they put a few of these in the same category as Love in the Time of Cholera or American Pastoral. But getting people talking is also one of the points, I suppose.

I have read 15 of these books. Of those I have not read I have seen 3 in movie form (Mystic River, Maus and Lonesome Dove.) I have never even heard of Watchmen, for some reason.

I wonder if EW's criterion is cultural (as in mass cultural) impact rather than inherent literary quality? I don't really see anything wrong with that, actually, and if that is the criterion I think it's pretty nifty that there is such a mixture here of highbrow, middlebrow and (relatively) lowbrow. Windup Bird Chronicle is one of my favorite books ever, for example, but I enjoyed Bridget Jones' Diary as well.

Why on earth did Love in the Time of Cholera make it over 100 Years of Solitude?

Theresa, the populist

Like you, Theresa, I've read 15. Seems an odd list to me, too.

Wow. I've only read 5 and haven't heard of half of them. Theresa, did you like the movie? I've seen Cold Mountain, but not the three you mentioned.

Hee- of the 25 Jane gave us of the 100, I've read only four -- and there are a few on the TBR shelf. BUT going with the culturaal impact idea, which I LOVED Theresa as it makes this list make sense to me in a way which it didn't before, I find myself remembering that personality test result which told me several times over that I am 1.?% of the population -- and I believe it now and I believed it the first time around. Yep, I obviously haven't been following the crowds much, but I'm perfectly happy with that.

If you go check my post about this list in Books on the Nightstand you will see a slightly different view of my reading from the 100 books.

I do like Theresa's cultural impact theory, but if this was their criterion, then one glaring missing link in the top 25 list is The Da Vinci Code. However much people have a right to dismiss its literary worth, this book certainly had the most impact on American culture in my lifetime. And imagine, it wasn't even an Oprah book club pick!

Da Vinci Code is on at number 96 though -- so the cultural impact theory holds in my opinion.

Ah, okay, criterion . . . criterium is a type of mountain bike race, as I have just found out. Which would be a different topic altogether.

I have not read The Da Vinci Code, but it certainly did have a cultural impact!

Theresa

I think there is really something to be said for cultural impact. I remember, a few years back, a maintainence man at the place I worked not only admitted to being illiterate, but sought help to learn to read, JUST because he felt he was missing out on something--that something being the Harry Potter series which his 10 year old son was reading.

Any book (or series) that gets people excited about reading is worth its weight in gold. The Bridget Jones Diary also did that to some extent, I think, by making books seem more accessible and not high brow.

I also often wonder how many people went on to read Pride and Prejudice after finishing Bridget Jones. It was there gateway book!

I've read 13 of the top 25. And I'm planning on reading at least a couple more soon. I'll have to go check the whole list.

I think this list seems very logical...as all of these books were selling like crazy in book stores. I've read all 25 of them...but at least three of them weren't on any favourites list for me.

I didn't count exactly how many I've read on the 100 entire list, but a qquick run through I'd say I've read 80 of them at leas.

These are all books one could find at airports and mainstream readers...which is why I landed up reading a lot of them because either I bought them traveling or a friend passed one or another on to me. These are all easily recycled in second hand stores and all of them had a fair amount of press/and or word of mouth depending on what kind of group of people were spreading word. I was surprised to see Maus except it was intensely popular among counter-cultures in the 80's and it's fame would have grown out of that...getting attention through musicians promoting it for example.

I think it's a wonderful cross section of styles and popularity.

A cross-section of styles and popularity -- cultural impact? -- as opposed to a list of greats which will become classics. that's my take on it though as I note some may well become classics in the long picture.

Candy, I'm amazed at your numbers -- impressed amazed, that is.

Well, I don't think my reading amount on this list is that strange. I just had a few friends who passed me books around. Seriously, I think these are all books that have had a lot of exposure and press...and they are super popular. That is only a hundred books from the last 25 years.

Dottie how many books do you think you've read in the last 25 years? I've averaged about 200 books a year.

I remember we had a discussion of how many books a year Constant Readers read and I seem to recall the average was 80-100 books a year.

80 books a year for 25 years is 2000 books, right? So what is a hundred? I probably read about 5,000 books in last 25 years. A hundred is a drop in the bucket.

I think the only reason I read so many is because I was single all these years...I tend to read a bit less now that I am hooked up.

Candy, that's still an awesome accomplishment by any standards.

I have no idea really what I've read but I could guess by checking my shelves -- I know I've read 100 books in not long -- less that 25 years probably. I was just admiring the fact you'd read these -- I agree they have been touted and talked about and so on as you say -- I was, as I said, just amazed in the sense of impressed you'd read them. I mean -- I know your reading appetite my friend -- I shouldn't have been surprised -- but there ya go. Hee-hee-hee.

Okay -- who's going to go check my shelves? You or me? Wanna race?

Approximately 275 if I just count the last ten years. I'm erratic in how many I read in any given year -- and some of these years are incomplete but I have no info to bring the numbers into anywhere close to "correct" -- lost in the fog. I may come across notes that will help later and if so will adjust shelves.

Why on earth did Love in the Time of Cholera make it over 100 Years of Solitude? Because it was an Oprah book, of course! Theresa, I think your cultural impact theory is right on the mark. And I agree that cultural impact is a valid criterion. I don't have any problem at all with people's choices of what they will read. I had a father who always said that he didn't care what I was reading as long as I was reading. What I do wonder about is the result of having an Oprah-type figure choosing books for so many people. I would love to see a survey of Oprah Book Club readers to see if they branched out into their own selections after following Oprah's advice.

Mina -- now THAT would be an interesting research article to have at hand. I keep thinking positively that at least some percentage of those readers must continue reading along and being tempted to branch out and expand their own choices. They really must, don't you think? Maybe I'm too much of a Pollyanna, but I just mentally cross my fingers and hope I'm right about this.

Well, Dottie, I did do a lot of reading. I find it kind of embarassing like I am such a nerd. I basically really love art, literature and popular culture...it's much like my "work" I suppose. I treat it like a work of love. I sometimes set up reading (movies, art viewing) like a "homework assignment". (I am also highly analytical of these things...giving much meditation to them)

I guess... but I remember when we discussed that CR's read about 80 books a year...that is quite a few books. I think it's more than the average book worm even...maybe?

I wonder how many people branch out from reading after checking out an Oprah book. The thing is...I don't thik there is one kind of "Oprah reader". I've followed her online book boards on and off for a few years...and some readers read a lot...some don't. I think it's probably a pretty good reflection of readers in general.

I think anyone who exclusively (If there is such a thing) read only Oprah's recommendation...they would be doing them selves no harm. I wish more people would at least read Oprah's book lists...she has fairly excellent taste in books...and her list of classic reading has been pretty cool. Especially in the last five years. In fact, i would say her tastes in reading are very similar to a dozen CRs...

I think people choose books from airports, from best seller lists, from tv shows like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Martha Stewart, NYTs reviews, friends and newspaper booklists overall.

I think that's why Theresa's observation fits because all of the books on ET list really found thier market in these venues of pop culture.

I do know there was a study that showed those authors who had a book chosen by Oprah did not have higher sales for later books they wrote, so there may be someone out there studying the general reading habits of those who have followed Oprah's selections. But my guess is, they'll just lie in wait for her next recommendation. I have a hard time believing Oprah inspires independent thinking in her fans, just because of the earnestness of her pack following.

Her stamp of approval aside, I read Love in the Time of Cholera before she'd selected it and loved it, but I could never get into One Hundred Years of Solitude. I still can't.

Oh right...Yulia, I was going to add...I relly remember when Oprah first started her reading club...with Morrisons'book. And her audience...some of them were very moved and crying. They were so emotional because they often hadn't read since school...had been commited to family and work etc...and never set time aside for reading and for themselves.

Although I think it is not for sure that I think that there are many who read outside her recommendations...but then on her web boards...the readers are mostly and often very well read participants. I suspect...a reader reads...regardless of trends or recommendations. Readers read.

I am one of Oprah's "earnest pack" and I feel she does inspire independent and critical thinking. I've seen some of her guests and audience profiles and read many testimonials on her website...believe me...her "pack" is seeking independent and thoughtful reading and thinking experiences.

Oprah is all about the "aha moment"


:)

You're right, Candy. It's wrong of me to label her fans. But Ellen Tien wrote an article about my doctor in O Magazine and within a week he got thousands of calls. He seemed rather annoyed by all the attention, or was he just hiding his pride in his sudden fame?

I admit to having been an ambivalent but regular Oprah watcher when I had a television, but haven't followed her in the past two years since I no longer have TV. I never did read something because she selected it, however.

I wonder, will people who've been inspired to vote for Obama vote for other candidates in 2009 or 2012?

Well, no I think Yulia it's totally okay to label Oprah's fans or anything in life...but I may just come here and disagree with the label ha ha.

Afterall I am suggesting there may be somewhat of a label to Oprah's fan base and audience...they do tend to be people who want or seek out or enjoy "inspiration".

Oh my god...I think your doctor is very lucky to have had all the phone calls...which makes me think. If someone is on Oprah...or in her magazine...might be wise to hire extra temporary staff to herd the phone calls heh.

I am totally an Oprah audience...since the very beginning. It's been fascinating to watch the changes in her program, in her interests and the fallout and enduring effects in pop culture. I am a bit of a pop culture freak. Don't get me wrong...I am an edgy artist film maker "type" heh heh...but I am also very very inclusive in my tastes and intrests.

I find a lot of people use their reading and music tastes for promoting their own status in society...whereas...I am more like an anthropologist in my interests. I like all kinds of music and all kinds of movies and tv. I watch Oprah...which I realize is considered a "low brow" tv show. And I watch the so-called "high brow" tv shows too...Charlie Rose, PBS masterpiece movies and mysteries, HBO documentaries, Sundance channel, "planet Earth" and "Nova"...all the way to Survivor and all the dancing shows! I also follow several prime time shows, sit coms, Greys Anatomy, Two and Half Men, CSI, Law and Order, LOST, How I Met Your Mother, for example.

I don't watch every tv show ever made...but I watch a fair bit of the ones who compel me heh heh. I'm kind of a people person...so it's hard for me to get a "hate on" for popular shows...I am at the least curious to see what people are watching. I have for example only walked out of one or two movies in my whole life. It wouldn't occur to me to alk out of a movie...how can you have an opinion or be a "movie lover" on a movie if you didn't watch the whole thing? Heh heh

Meanwhile what a good question you ask about people inspired to vote for Obama.

This is certainly the most exciting Presidential candidate in decades. I hope he can keep it together...so many people believe he has integrity...and are inspired to vote.

I basically hope that people who claim to say they are going to vote for him...will do at least that and vote. If they vote for anyone else...well icing on the cake. My impression has been that so very few people vote in US. It's quite shocking.

Hmm...today Oprah sent out a newsletter and in it included "Five Books Everyone Needs To Read At Least Once"

Funny as this topic just came up here...

Here is her five books she thinks everyone needs to read at least once:

Lolita
by Vladimir Nabokov

It blows open a new understanding of the world, its gorgeousness, its corruption and pain, all embedded in the 20th century's most extraordinary English prose.

Four Quartets
by T.S. Eliot

This is the most musical and wisest poetry in the language of our time and place. (Short of that, The Complete Poems 1927–1979, by Elizabeth Bishop.)

The Wisdom of the Desert:Sayings From the Desert Fathers of the Forth Century
translated by Thomas Merton

We all sometimes need to imagine what it would be like to live simply and purely, dedicated to a force larger than ourselves.

Waiting For Godot
by Samuel Beckett

We need to remember that just because we're sad, that doesn't mean we're not also marvelously comical and transcendently courageous.

Things Fall Apart
by Chinua Achebe

This, the first in Achebe's monumental and unsparing trilogy of Igbo life in western Africa, is the strongest and most important novel of the postcolonial world.

Is that what Waiting for Godot is about? Interesting . . .

Lol, I am trying to imagine Beckett's reaction to that description and laughing hysterically. And while I sort of agree with her description of Lolita, it reads like one of those movie reviews people write JUST to get quoted -- Gigli: one of the top 5 movies of the year. Surface, surface, surface.

I like that Oprah gets people to read classics and other books they might normally not read, but its a bit too much of a herd mentality for my taste. Sheep talking about surface is my gut reaction, which I admit is an unkind and polemical response, but I cannot seem to escape it.

I have the typical reaction of the independent-minded reader to the Oprah lists, but that is a fine selection of five books. Thanks for posting that, Candy.

I read and liked Franzen's Corrections despite the author's horror over being an Oprah selectee. Last summer I was little put off about her pimping Love in the Time of Cholera, but then realized that that was a stupid feeling for me to have, since it's one of my favorite books. Am I too good or clever or tasteful to share such a liking with Ms. Winfrey? No, apparently I'm not.

Well, you know I really enjoyed reading these responses.

I have a bit of an independent-minded reader personality too Philip...so I relate.

:)

I also know there are many reasons to question authority, and to question "mob mentality" or popular culture.

I am one of those stereotypical "edgy" people...all pathetically artsy etc. I mean my favourite authors include William Burroughs, Nic Baker, Kathy
Acker, Chuck Pahulinuk...

...you get the drift.

And as much as I like to build my ego up with notions of how individual and clever and artsy I am...I have also found I needed to reconcile what had become during my teen and early adult years a knee-jerk reaction rejecting pop culture and the mainstream.

I don't believe that everything that reaches or is born of mainstream culture is "bad" or a "sell out". (and believe me I did once believe those things...)

I have a lot of faith in the emotional and imaginative life of humans...and I think many things in pop culture are popular because they touch a primeval chord in us, they inspire our thinking and feeling and we learn or recognize things about ourselves.

Mob mentality is dangerous when it comes to torture, or bullies or some over constraining social structures...but for "mob enjoyment" I believe is different than mob mentality.

I think massive amounts of people are attracted to Oprah because she reminds us of our selves...and the show and "cult of personality" is a sounding board for our own concerns in our daily lives. She gives us a place to get touchy feely, to explore ideas that our social constructs often have suppressed. In many ways Oprah speaks to the oppressed spirit of the individual...

It's true that in a one hour tv show it is challenging to get beyond the surface of a topic.

I find that often even in bookclubs and discussion boards it is challenging to get beyond the surface of a discussion too!

We get as much out of "Oprah" a "web board bookclub" or a discussion with neighbours and friends...as we put into these activities.

I think the mass appeal of Paris Hilton, McDonalds, sports, reality tv, cars, Bragelina...is superficial and suspicious.

But the appeal of these things also reflects a human compulsion to look to an "art object" or "narrative" as a sort of mirror for learning, discussion and transformation. I don't think being involved in popular culture is a sign of intelligence or "coolness" or lack there of...

I know...I know...I am alittle passionate about these topics ha ha...but in general I don't think people are that evil of an animal overall.

I guess I'm just not that cynical.

As much as we have done evil things among a mob...we have also done extrodinary life affirming exploration among a mob.

Candy, I apologize for not reading your prior post, because my remarks were meant to be an attempt at cleverness and certainly not a response to your own opinion about Oprah, her book recommendations or thoughts.

My thoughts below do not seek to address her (or you, by any means) as an individual, but to respond to some of your points and raise a few issues about the effect this one woman has on our culture. I certainly admire her incredible skill at cultivating and maintaining a strong and loyal fan base and of building an enormous corporate empire.

But its sort of like the point my friend Michele made about Simon Cowell and American Idol, that he, and his machine, are driving what popular music Americans listen to and thereby limiting the number of bands that can produce music different from that selected by or derivative of Mr. Cowell. More and more, Oprah drives the machine of what books we should read. And if we buy them at Wal-Mart, they are too (1/4 of ALL books in US; scares me to death. And somehow, despite their incredibly restrictive selection, they always manage to have a copy of the latest Oprah book).

There are already so many books out there, just NEW fiction, that it is a daunting task to separate the chaff from the wheat and find those truly worthy, special books that will last more than the next year, that will last into the next century. And its even more difficult when you have a pop-culture icon selecting, pushing and marking the books with her stamp of approval.

It's not that she is just "some woman" with a show. She is the head of a huge corporation with tremendous personal and corporate economic power. If she wants to ruin a writer, she obviously has and can. If she wants to make a writer, she obviously has and can. Being a huge liberal, I am crossing my fingers and hoping she can pull off getting a President elected and I have no doubt that she can.

My concern is how many writers, or WAY worse, editors and publishers, are writing or publishing, to their conception of the "Oprah base." How many versions Where the Heart is have come out since she picked THAT book ten years ago? How often do we worship at the alter of Toni Morrison since she picked Sula, I think, perhaps Beloved ten years ago. Like the book, hate the book, the woman is a major force in driving literature, so it seems more honest and realistic to think of her in that way, as one might perhaps describe the CEO of Random House, than as a woman with an inspirational show. Again, like her show, hate her show, these are not my concerns. My concern is how many years until one has to search, dig, bribe, and borrow to get something that is not selected by or derivative of her selections.

Of course there have always been sources driving the direction of reading, writing and literature. But they are diffuse in comparison. They do not have the same push behind them or the same audience to absorb them. I am fairly confident that the New York Time Book Review , NPR, and the New Yorker (none of which are picking ONE book)individually have no where near the same base as Oprah. I might even go so far as to combine them. This FRIGHTENS me and makes me understand Frantzen's reaction to her selecting his book.

And no, I cannot actually really drink the kool-aid that we have done extraordinary, life-affirming things as as mob. I suppose, with the 4th approaching, I am feeling particularly American in suggesting that I am EXTREMELY skeptical of any force that is shaping the desires, wants and needs of large groups of people. I do not trust large groups of people to think rationally and individually and do not believe that these same people wouldn't burn Love in the Time of Cholera if given the right encouragement.

And if anyone believes mob enjoyment is different from mob mentality, please send me your address and I will send you a copy of Fahrenheit 451. I could not disagree with this notion more strongly.

I am not rejecting popular culture or feeling the need to be edgy. I am quite sure that I am one of the least edgy people I know, being a happy little lesbian with her partner, her cats and her house. The things I like tend to be quiet, contemplative, and often solitary. In my early thirties, I have anything BUT my finger on the pulse of the counter-culture scene and would prefer to listen to the music I have enjoyed for the last fifteen years while watering my garden than find the newest band. My life is boring from the exterior.

What CONCERNS me is that twenty years from now, the masses will think the central crux of Waiting for Godot is "that just because we're sad, that doesn't mean we're not also marvelously comical and transcendently courageous."

Seriously. I cannot even properly respond to the fear that such a description generates. What concerns me is that twenty years from now, not only will our choices be pre-selected but also our notions of what literature means. We will read Eliot (who is probably my favorite poet of all time) and not Pound. Nabokov but not Orwell. Austen but not Eliot. AND we will be told that J. Alfred Prufrock is a "life-affirming story of one man's ability to overcome the challenges arising in a modern world." And that's just the canon.

So I am not a fan of the Oprah book club. I guess I am just that cynical.

(NEED brilliant Dorothy Parker quote to insert here).




PS: This is meant to be my response to an intellectual debate. I am quitting smoking, which is murderously hard and makes my brain crabby and fuzzy, so please forgive if anything is too, too . . .

Courtney, what a wonderful, thoughtful post. I have always been glad that Oprah has encouraged people to read, but I certainly understand your fear of groupthink. We do indeed need to be afraid of groupthink, even if some of the thoughts are those that we might, on our own, agree with.

Courtney, your thoughts and post is/are absolutely beautiful and it's the kind of thinking and posting I come to web board book clubs for...it's a rare post and a special one.

You know...I am with you on so many things you've written.

I do think there is an aspect to any culture reviewer that "controls" what people read.

Many critics have felt that Colbert and Maher and Stewart are controlling how viewers see US politics right now...as an example. I believe those shows are popular because there was a need and a similar viewpoint already in the making...

Meanwhile, yes, I could see why Franzen wanted to reject the "star making machinery behind the popular song" (thanks Joni Mitchell)...

Let me try things this way...by "mob enjoyment" I might include mob adaptations and evolutionary adaptations as an example. We pick up en masse things that are "positive" and life affirming as a primate...as well as ideas or negative things.

I'd like to see mob enjoyment of rejecting driving all those bloody cars (for christ sake why can't more people walk to the grocerystore...I do!)..I'd like to see mob enjoyment of urban vertical farming (cutting down the cost of produce, it's grown in one's neighbourhood organically, less emissions)

I'd like to see mob enjoyment adapt to less air conditioners, alternative energy for houses...etc.

I think programs with massive popularity like Oprah (or sorry, Martha Stewart) are going to be the path for many people to think differently about money, energy and their life style.

Meanwhile...Courtney you and I are not Oprah's audience (even though I am heh heh)

You are a unique individual thinker who is able to push your own ideas outside the box.

Not everyone is raised with that kind of independent spirit or drive. Someone like Oprah does inspire people who want to feel "community". and I think Oprah is attempting to gauge her own "power"...I think that is why in the last five years she has really begun to take meditation and personal responsibity and spirituallity in a new way...for herself. and for her audience. I think she understands recently how her own power might be "dangerous"...fortunately...I think Oprah is an okay person with a good heart. She ain't no Hitler...so I am not afraid of her popularity.

Mob mentality took down the Berlin wall...as a result of new technology so all the people could communicate outside of the governments monitoring with a high tech word of mouth fueled by rock and roll (don't believe that bs that Reagan had anything to do with it).

Mob mentality is straining at the bits for universal health care in US.

Mob mentality got marriage for gays in California.

Mob mentality outlawed public cigarette smoking (sorry...I am a smoker who has recently quit so I understand your pain...as a smoker I hated the laws being changed for smoking...but all other people love that lobby group and accomplishment)

Mob mentality may be the single force that brings down the totalitarian regime of Rove and Cheney...and elects a massively positive force into the White House.

Now as for Oprah's book club. I happened to read Morrison long before she had her book club, the very first entry Song of Solomon. I haven't always liked her book choices and often though I had read them before she had picked them...at first I found too many of her choices too "drama or soap opera" style. I don't like Jane Smiley for example or Wally Lamb. (sorry to those who enjoy those writers, just not my cup of tea.

So often I enjoyed that Oprah picked a book, but not the actual book. On the other hand...she chose some books I did enjoy.

I think in the last five years her choices have been very interesting and very surprising...and she gets points from me for picking classics.

Jon Sewart and Colbert have writers and books at least a couple times a week...and I think they are influencing people like crazy...I don't think that is dangerous. I think they treat their audience like they have brains. I think Oprah does too.

Isn't it more important to worry about how parents and teachers introduce reading to children? I'd like to believe kids are being taught to "question authority" to think for themselves...to read all kinds of books.

Kids read Harry Potter and they rarely want to read anything else. In fact, kids were often bored with other traditional and classic storis after being introduced to the sensation action of Harry Potter...it's like they were inured to other books.

Also...because Harry Potter was a cultural currency among school children...kids had a "mob mentality"/"mob enjoyment" of Harry potter...they were brought to reading like sheep...not like independent thinkers.

Courtney I am with you on your perspective..except that I tedn to be amore inclusive about human activity and hope that more and more families and schools are inclusive and holistic about culture.

See...people get mob mentality about fast food...but they also get mob mentality about anti-oxidants and low carb diets...one is bad for us, and the others are good for us...

We are a "mob" animal...the nature and strength of primates is due to us being a social animal. Our survival is closely associated to the mob mentality...(and so is our destructive nature too)

we are liek a pendulum that must always monitor ourselves...again another human quality...and discussions like this are inspiration for such monitoring and reflective...rigorous thinking!

Big hugs Courtney!

love
Candy

About Waiting For Godot I am posting this under a different entry because my last post is too long.

Um...did you know that Robin Williams and Steve Martin performed the play on Broadway?

Did you know that Beckett described the play as a "game" and it's theme is "symbiosis"?

Did you know that often the production of the play is approached as a comedy?

It's true that Oprah's soundbite about the play...takes a braod stroke at the insides of the characters. The characters are in kind of depression. There is angst in an existential frame work. But these characters are also funny.

It is the sense of pathos and tragedy...with comic energy and acting that has been a popular interpretation of the play...by Williams and Martin and the comedic director was Mike Nichols! Comedy...has always been a force when interpreting the play. Folly and pathos.

So although Oprah's soundbite does use the words pathos and folly...I don't think it is that far removed from how performers would discuss the play.

I studied the play many times...once for an art class and the professor introduced the play..."the characters are in trouble but somebody gets a good idea"...and we took the play from there.

I think the nature of discussing Beckett and introducing his work especially Godot...is to remain as "wide stroke" as possible and yet support an audience by saying reassuring words about the themes...

The play is like entering a dark shaky room on drugs...so a sense of security and guidance and "soundbite" is a reassuring thing on some levels...no?

Point of Order. Mob mentality did not actually get the right to marry for gay and lesbian people in California. In fact, the California Supreme Court found that the laws enacted by the California legislature violated the rights of gay and lesbian people under the state constitution because it infringed on their particular individual rights to marry.

In fact, the PEOPLE of California could have given (or rather, restored, in keeping with the Supreme Court's language) these same people the right, at any time, by passing a law - certainly, after the City of San Francisco decided to issue licenses on its own as a de facto challenge to the law, the topic was more than in the public sphere.

Instead, the people of California (by this I mean the majority or the mob, as you say) chose to keep the law they had enacted, through their representatives to the legislature, which denied the rights of gay and lesbian people to marry (but was still WAY better than what we have here, not to be completely ungenerous to the people of California).

Indeed, were it not for the action of the California Supreme Court in protecting minority rights from majoritarian action, no gay or lesbian person would have a right to a state sanctioned marriage. Whether the people of California will overturn this opinion and prohibit gay marriage by amending the constitution remains to be seen. Many states, including my own, have.

Otherwise, as I stated in my first post, I like that Oprah gets people to read. I like anything gets people to read. I generally like the books she picks or can understand her selection. But groupthink and the future of American literature concerns me. Just because the person is good doesn't make her effect any less profound.

Courtney -- I've been reading your post around Goodreads -- not just here or our other group/s incommon -- and I must say I am impressed with what I'm reading. Wanted to say thank you.

I think this:
Otherwise, as I stated in my first post, I like that Oprah gets people to read. I like anything gets people to read. I generally like the books she picks or can understand her selection. But groupthink and the future of American literature concerns me. Just because the person is good doesn't make her effect any less profound.

could serve as a key to understanding why religious fundamentalism seems to me to derail most anything to which it is applied. Perhaps any fundamentalism, actually.

I'm totally with you Courtney. More than perhaps I am able to express in my previous post. I like your complex thinking, very inspiring.

Well, you know, I am a bit of a pollyanna...I know. And I believe ultimately people ...and the force of nature always move towards life. I know I am little overboard on my faith perhaps on human beings.

I was reminded of a book that was very important to me, still is...and the amazon blurb describes it as thus:

"This book challenges those who argue that we can change the world by changing the way people think. Harris shows that no matter how bizarre a people's behavior may seem, it always stems from concrete social and economic conditions."

Amazon has the book here:

http://www.amazon.com/Cows-Pigs-Wars-...

This has been a wonderful conversation, so much so that I almost don't want to interrupt the flow, but there are some things discussed that trouble me.

First is the universal assumption that Oprah is a "good" person. I really worry about the tendency to think that we know any person's character from what we see on TV. Decisions about what topics are covered on Oprah are the work of a large staff of people who want to see the show continue to thrive. I agree with Courtney that we would be closer to the truth by thinking of Oprah as "the head of a huge corporation with tremendous personal and corporate economic power", rather than as just a kind and compassionate woman who happens to have a popular show. Of course she has veto power, but she couldn't possibly micromanage every aspect of her empire.

This bothers me, not just with Oprah but also with other popular culture figures that we assume we know because we watch them on TV. I have nothing at all against Oprah - my daughter and I were on the show once to discuss our poorly understood illness, and we were very happy to have the opportunity to present our story. But frequently people have asked me to contact her about further advocacy for our illness, saying "you met her, she's so compassionate, she"ll want to help if you contact her." It just doesn't work that way. She's very professional, she does her job very well, but she's not (and can't be) emotionally invested in every topic she presents.

When it comes to the Book Club, I believe that a similar situation exists. Certainly some books are her personal choices - Toni Morrison certainly. But I'm sure that others are selected by her staff, and, if they are doing their jobs correctly, they look for books that will attract a broad audience, will be readable by most people, and won't antagonize too many people. That's fine, but if it influences publishing in the way that it has, it really homogenizes the kind of books that get published. I don't like any one person or corporation having this much power.

Candy, you mentioned that Oprah recommends classic literature. You are correct, of course, but that happened after the Jonathan Franzen incident. I think that Oprah & Co. decided that dead classic authors were safer.

Please understand that I have no ax to grind about Oprah, the woman or the show. There have been some truly unforgettable shows - the one about the current wars in Africa immediately comes to mind. I just think that we have to be realistic about all the images that are presented in the media, remembering the old line about TV just being another way to sell soap.

Candy and Courtney - thank you so much for this insightful discussion.

Mina, I couldn't agree with you more about making judgments of people we see only on television or the movies. And I agree that the move to classics was a tactical decision to be safer and avoid criticism for either not being literary enough or by offending self-important authors. But who's going to lambaste her choosing Tolstoy?

Oprah was fortunate to have you as a guest. You're one in a billion. (Nowadays, "one in a million" just doesn't have the same impact as it used to. All it makes me wonder is, how many people like me are in China or India?)

Oprah may well be a good person but even good people have faults and problems and I am with you Mina -- we really can't know the person in toto by what we see p[resented in the public persona of TV or film or any other situation.

I''m glad she gets people to read -- and as I said -- if only one small percent of those who do read a book she recommended and then go on to read others -- beyond her chosen books and sideways and in multi-directions and begin to really think and act according to what they gain from that reading -- then fantastic. But I see there could be many who are reading only the books she picks and only thinking as the discussions indicate Oprah thinks -- you see what i'm asaying, of course. It's the thinking for ones self that I hope at least a few people have discovered in reading books Ooprah chose for them.

And I agree -- this has bee a great conversation everyone. If I said that once already -- well, that's okay, too..

All insightful thoughts. I hope I didn't sound like I thought I "knew" Oprah. I guess I was being too casual when I thought she was a "good person". Just so you all don't think I am a complete nut bar...I know that because Iw atch someone on tv or in movies doesn't mean I know them...heh heh. Iguess, if I can have any impression of a tv star...any kind of intuition..I feel as if Oprah is a good person. Maybe she is the simulcra of a good person(there getting all philosophical-like fancy pants)

But...having said that...I'm totally freaking out that Mina was on Oprah. I may even be hyperventilating right now.

:)

I think it is exceptionally difficult NOT to think people on television or in movies, with whom we associate closely, are good people. One almost has to pull a Brecht move and start banging pots and pans in the middle of the show to wake up from associating and sympathizing with the people/characters and start thinking more analytically.

I think its human nature and, as I have been watching absolutely no television for the last month or so, a nature I am WAY more aware of. But on July 16th, Project Runway comes on. And can I tell you that when my life was at its darkest, I was certain that I would feel better if Tim Gunn just came and mentored me for a few hours. I am not only certain he is a good person but certain that my life would be WAY HAPPIER if he were my friend.

WHAT?

He is a man, albeit by all indications a thoughtful, kind, smart man who used to a dean at Parsons in NYC and is now a fashion consultant and mentor on a reality fashion show.

So WHERE did I get the idea that he was a good person, other than observing him on a show designed for me to believe certain things? I may have read an article about him forwarded to me once, but I have certainly undertaken no research as to his "goodness."

See how easy it is? I think almost all of us have our people, our poisons, and to a certain extent its not only fine, but understandable. If it wasn't Tim Gunn, it might be Bette Davis or Audrey Hepburn.

This group, in particular, is the type that WOULD bang the pots and pans ala Brecht. Or turn it off, when it was over, and think about it.

But OH MY GOD. I have friends and professional acquaintances for whom, I believe, the television is microseconds away from becoming "the family" in Fahrenheit 451. For whom that ability to separate their experience watching a show and their knowledge that the show is prepared to make them think, believe, want, and inevitably buy certain things has almost eroded away. At this point, Mr. Rodgers cultural influence could have profound and inevitably negative consequences.

So, ladies and gentlemen, get out the pots and pans.

I love...how is this...the persona of Tim Gunn.

I do...love Project Runway am beside myself excited to watch art being made in time limits and with almost no money.

A big stress for me (how lucky I am) is to remember to set record on dvr before I hit the road filming and interviewing for my documentary.

I don't know, maybe I like movies and reading and art galleries and tv too much.

I find looking at art work and watching the stress and politics of someone making "haute couture" out of paper garbage adds a layer of meaningto my life.

Does it define my life, I don't think so. But does it add a layer of meaning to my life...yes a little.

I don't think it's a family. I don't think Tom Hanks is my best friend and I don't think Kathy Griffin is my confidant.

I think I watch sit coms and Planet Earth because I see through compassion and empathy...myself and understand myself just a little.

And as much as I may fall under a delusion that Tim Gunn is a "good person" (and I think he seems like a good person) I am actually enjoying the things about him that remind me of...well me!

I think when we read, empathise with a character, cry at Mark Rothko paintings, laugh when Seinfeld makes a big deal about "man hands" we are laughing or relating to these personas and settings because we see ourselves in them.

Compassion and empathy are some of the pots and pans...

I'm surprised to see The Joy Luck Club and Bridget Jones's Diary up there. In the top 25! *gasping for breath*

OMG. One is boring as hell. The other is a disgrace for women.

that's IMHO and Just sayin'....

The books in the overall 100 new classics books by EW definitely not representing enuf genres. Where's Thomas Friedman? Noam Chomsky? Stephen Ambrose? And no technothriller too.

I'd rather pick the old *cough*real*cough* classics.

Again, just IMHO.

PS: I am also puzzled why One Hundred years of solitude should be in the list. It was published in 1967, whereas the list only...ah you get my point ;p

I've got to disagree on "The Joy Luck Club", Silvana. First, because I really did enjoy the book tremendously. I loved the way that Amy Tan used two generations of Chinese American women to tell her stories - 8 women altogether with very different lives and experiences. And secondly, if, as we mentioned earlier, we're considering cultural impact, she was the first to bring the lives of Asian American woman to a mass audience. She broke down long-standing stereotypes - no small achievement, in my opinion!

Hi Wilhelmina, yeah I got some friends who also disagree with my dislike for The Joy Luck Club ;p
I guess it is just not my genre. Spent a week in agony reading that one. But it's still better than Bridget Jones's Diary *eww*

Per the Oprah conversation in this thread, there's a very interesting book out there that I read recently that covers the Oprah Book Club phenomenon and its impact on society, readers, and the publishing industry. It's called Reading With Oprah: The Book Club That Changed America by Kathleen Rooney.

I'm not surprised to see Bridget Jones's Diary on the list, as to me it's one of the early vanguard works of what has become a hugely popular genre. It's not the finest book literary-merit-wise, but its popularity certainly blew apart the notion that romance has to be all heaving bosoms and Fabio-esque men, and there's something to be said for that.

I've read about 1/3rd of the books on the list, and I think it brings a nice mix of genre, popular fiction, high-brow, and non-fiction that many "lists of bests" don't manage. I was thrilled to see And The Band Played On and The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down included - both have a tremendous amount to say about the state of medicine and society and made a big impact on me personally. I also enjoy that it nods to some of the great work that YA and childrens' authors are doing with the inclusion of Philip Pullman, Louis Sachs, and Lois Lowry.

That said, I cannot understand the love for A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. I guess it just activates that part of my brain that causes me to hate music critics as well - to me, it just goes past the point of tongue-in-cheek and straight round to obliviously self-congratulatory again.

Jen,
I personally found Bridget Jones Diary laugh-out-loud funny. You have to be able to appreciate neurotic, obsessive compulsive humor (it helps if you have some of these traits) to enjoy the book. If not, you will probably hate it.

I am an ESl teacher and I also thought that The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down was a wonderful exploration of the effect culture has on medicine and human relationships. For those of you who are not familiar with this book, it tells the true story of a little Laotian girl racked by severe epilepsy. Her uneducated, immigrant parents are very loving but completely unequipped to deal with the modern medical system.

On the other hand, I also liked A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers, so we don't agree 100%. Eggers's What is the What about a Sudanese boy caught up in his country's civil war is a much better book. The Sudanese boy grows up and immigrates to America, where life if much better but is still very, very difficult. This book is billed as a novel, but is based on the real life experiences Valentino Achak Deng. That is the book that I truly found heartbreaking.

Ann D.