A critique of Oprah's book club

[Libra]

Was it Franzen who said he didn't want his name associated to her book club, I believe so....and I believe his point was on point. I usually avoid books labeled as being part of her grouping, of all the books I own I only own one with her seal of approval, and that's because I bought it second hand and it was already a well regarded book...a little of subject I know.

Actually,when his book The Corrections came out then,he was supposed to go on her show but he made a comment about how he is trying to reach male readers with it and never went on the show back then.

His new book Freedom is out and he was on Oprah the same day as the discussion we are having above and he explained.

 

[Libra]

Here's her Book discussions.

Oprah's Book Club and Books - Oprah.com

 

[pontalba]

That's just it, if she goes the superficial, simple route, so much will be lost. If people read it, but don't get any real understanding out of it, what use is it?

So,are you saying they should not bother with it?They are not smart enough or because it's Oprah?

I am only assuming because someone who loves to read doesn't just read one book a month.I will look into it though and get back to you.Does it matter what they read before and so what if it's the first book with any meaning comparing to the others they might have read? Baby steps like you said Pontalba.

No, I am not saying they shouldn't bother, and I certainly would not, and do not rate anyone's intelligence level by what they do or do not read. Readers read for a plethora of reasons, ranging from escapism to exploration, all good reasons IMO.

It matters what they've read before, and what they continue with, only if they, or anyone else for that matter wish to chart their reading progress, or lack thereof. I think most readers go through stages of reading in their lives, graduating, if you will, from one level to another in appreciation, learning to see and understand the nuances in writers, or genres.

I'd be interested to know if a person that reads Oprah's choices has read a book in that particular genre before, or if it is new, an adventure to them or not. Does Oprah's choice generate interest in a new genre for them? Do they actually read the entire book or buy it and then it languishes on their night table for months and then end up in a garage sale? If the latter is the case, there isn't much use in it...an unread book doesn't generate anything, except revenue for the book store. Which is a good thing actually.

 

[pontalba]

Here's her Book discussions.

Oprah's Book Club and Books - Oprah.com

Thanks for posting the link, the comments below the article are varied and interesting. Hopefully they will have a productive discussion.

 

[scribeswindow]

I once watched an episode of Oprah where she spoke of being able to read by age three and her mum would get her to read to people who came over as a bit of a 'party trick'. She also talked about her love of books and reading. I think that she created her bookclub for exactly that reason. She's enthusiastic and wants to share what she's been reading. And that's the crunch. It is what she has been reading, and really what does it matter? I always share what I've been reading. I tell people titles, I give books I've read as gifts. Because she's Oprah she just does it in a bigger way - cos she can.

 

[Peder]

I tell people titles, I give books I've read as gifts. Because she's Oprah she just does it in a bigger way - cos she can.

If that's the answer, then that's the answer.

But it does seem to me that the questions lurking subliminally behind this discussion relate to what she is hoping to accomplish and what difference she is making.

She is certainly a big splash in the pool.

 

[Landslide]

If that's the answer, then that's the answer.

But it does seem to me that the questions lurking subliminally behind this discussion relate to what she is hoping to accomplish and what difference she is making.

She is certainly a big splash in the pool.

She's getting people to read more and for that reason alone she deserves kudos in my opinion.

 

[753C]

She is certainly a big splash in the pool.

hehe

 

[Peder]

She's getting people to read more and for that reason alone she deserves kudos in my opinion.

Raising literacy levels is always a good thing, all the time and everywhere, if that is what she is doing.

Getting more people to read is a good thing too.

Getting people to read more is a different thing, presumably also good, depending upon just what one means by that very elastic phrase.

Just saying, trying to reduce the vagueness of the discussion.

I can't say one way or the other what she is accomplishing. I'm not a fan of Oprah's so I don't follow her life and doings.

If we all want to give a big hand to Oprah for her efforts, then we can just do it, even without facts. I have nothing against her.

 

[The Butcher]

I personally think books like these are not going to get kids to read.

I'm 16 and I just hate the classics, but I like reading books that adults like also(Micheal Connelly, Dean Koontz etc.).

I'm a big fan of Connelly, but I would not jump out and read a book just because he liked it.

 

[Peder]

I personally think books like these are not going to get kids to read.

I'm 16 and I just hate the classics, but I like reading books that adults like also(Micheal Connelly, Dean Koontz etc.).

I'm a big fan of Connelly, but I would not jump out and read a book just because he liked it.

You are far from alone in your hatred of the classics. Classics are indeed a hurdle for many readers, partly with good reason because of the frequent remoteness of their settings from the current scene, their more stilted or different use of language, their frequently slower plot lines, to mention a few reasons.

And then there is the question of raw reading "enjoyment." I'm not conviced that the "classics," or the "good" books to read, are necessarily as enjoyable as more modern reads that we prefer. Worthy perhaps, but more enjoyable? I don't know. I think they are an acquired taste, and Oprah's taste doesn't wiggle me.

 

[The Butcher]

You are far from alone in your hatred of the classics. Classics are indeed a hurdle for many readers, partly with good reason because of the frequent remoteness of their settings from the current scene, their more stilted or different use of language, their frequently slower plot lines, to mention a few reasons.

And then there is the question of raw reading "enjoyment." I'm not conviced that the "classics," or the "good" books to read, are necessarily as enjoyable as more modern reads that we prefer. Worthy perhaps, but more enjoyable? I don't know. I think they are an acquired taste, and Oprah's taste doesn't wiggle me.

You give me something like Poe, or Shakespeare, I will not read it.

You're right about the slow plot lines. Their characters are also horrible.

 

[Landslide]

Raising literacy levels is always a good thing, all the time and everywhere, if that is what she is doing.

Getting more people to read is a good thing too.

Getting people to read more is a different thing, presumably also good, depending upon just what one means by that very elastic phrase.

Just saying, trying to reduce the vagueness of the discussion.

I can't say one way or the other what she is accomplishing. I'm not a fan of Oprah's so I don't follow her life and doings.

If we all want to give a big hand to Oprah for her efforts, then we can just do it, even without facts. I have nothing against her.

I don't see what the confusion is, I meant she gets people to read more books. As in the quantity of books people read. Because when you get in discussions about quality, it's always very subjective. What makes a good book to me doesn't necessarily makes it a good book for other people. I defend people should read what they like to read, what gives them pleasure, cause when you force people to read something they don't like (even if it is considered an excelent book) it can have the opposite effect and completely drive people away from reading.

Now I'm not an Oprah fan either, nor do I have all the facts about her book club merits or demerits, but I get the idea she gets people to buy a lot of books, right? Now I think it's safe to assume that if people spend money on the books then they'll read them. And if she gets people to read more books (as in a larger quantity of books) she deserves credit in my opinion.

 

[Will]

Whilst I am really cynical of these personality/TV-show-based book clubs, they're getting people to read/buy books/discuss books in great numbers. As a reader, and someone who loves books, I really don't see this as a bad thing.

I know the conversations preceding their creation were probably based on making x amount of $/£ from the x/y/z demographic - but you know what sometimes those marketing guys need a bit of inspiration before they'll sell an idea to benefit more people than just themselves.

 

[eclair]

High book sales, more readers, more discussions, getting Cormac McCarthy to interview, are all undoubtedly positive things. The ick factor comes from the suspicion her fans would go out and get anything she says, like some creepy game of Simon Says. To her credit she/her team go for a mixed range of books, if she did only self help or, ye gods, started to get into fundamental ideologies in her old age, there'd be trouble. I don't have any issues with her, if I had that kind of power I'd have abused it mightily by now. I do have issues with her diehard fans, they give sheep a bad name.

 

[Libra]

Thanks for posting the link, the comments below the article are varied and interesting. Hopefully they will have a productive discussion.

I have not looked into the discussions yet(let alone her site),hope to soon though,when I find some time.

 

[Will]

Really interesting article today on the Huffington Post that highlights something interesting regarding Oprah's pick of Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities and Great Expectations. A book seller finding it hard to shift copies, and one reason cited could be because it's available in the public domain on eReaders... interesting...

 

[Peder]

I don't see what the confusion is, I meant she gets people to read more books. As in the quantity of books people read. ... And if she gets people to read more books (as in a larger quantity of books) she deserves credit in my opinion.

Landslide, I was not commenting on quality or taste, and I think we agree that more means larger quantity. I was commenting on the possible differences in meaning between the two phrases

"people read more books" (the phrase you used)

and

"more people read books"

Getting more people to read books (the second of the meanings) would clearly be a good thing, if that is what Oprah is doing. I think both of us agree on that much, although you seem to believe and assume that actually is what is happening.

Getting people who already read to read more books, if that occurs, probably has its benefits also but is a different meaning.

Getting people who already read to shift their reading tastes and read more Oprah books and fewer of other books, if that occurs, has debatable merit, I would say.

Book sales of Oprah books apparently jump. Does that mean more reading is going on? Most people apparently assume so, although I would say not necessarily. Maybe this will be regarded as a small point, but "getting people to read more" can have a variety of meanings, ranging from good to neutral as I have tried to point out.

So my comment really was about what is meant by "more" in the context of statements like yours and others in this discussion.

Some example thoughts:

More of what? Books sales overall? Or sales of Oprah books?

More by whom? New readers? Or people who already read?

I hope that clarifies.

 

[Landslide]

Yes Peder, it does clarify your point. Thanks.

Getting more people to read books (the second of the meanings) would clearly be a good thing, if that is what Oprah is doing. I think both of us agree on that much, although you seem to believe and assume that actually is what is happening.

Well, I really have no way of knowing if that is what is happening but I am assuming that if people buy the books they mean to read them. If they were already readers or not, I have no way of knowing.

Getting people who already read to shift their reading tastes and read more Oprah books and fewer of other books, if that occurs, has debatable merit, I would say.

I haven't seen the list of books on her book club but I think this is a matter of taste. I'll get back to you on this one after I've seen the list.

Book sales of Oprah books apparently jump. Does that mean more reading is going on? Most people apparently assume so, although I would say not necessarily. Maybe this will be regarded as a small point, but "getting people to read more" can have a variety of meanings, ranging from good to neutral as I have tried to point out.

I would like to know how many books (as a total) were sold before and after Oprah's Book Club. That would probably be the best way to measure it's impact.

 

[Peder]

I would like to know how many books (as a total) were sold before and after Oprah's Book Club. That would probably be the best way to measure it's impact.

I too would like to see some believable numbers on just what impact she has had. She certainly generates a lot of news about herself and, as they say, where there is smoke there is fire. Maybe.

But I have the impression from my own delving that numbers of books sold are hard numbers to come by. Publishers make claims, but it was my impression from my last time around that they don't routinely publish factual data. Two questions I was once interested in were:

How many copies of Lolita have been sold?

and

What are the best selling books of all time?

It wasn't so easy to find numbers that agreed with one another, and the people who did post numbers indicated that they too had a tough time finding or estimating them.

There must undoubtedly be an industry or trade journal, but I concluded it will take somebody who is more expert about the book business to help with the answer. Is there anyone here?