0
   

The Importance of Being Oprah

 
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 10:04 am
I remember Oprah doing a programme on celebrity lookalikes, must have been back in the 80's.There was the most amzing Cher and Madonna lookalikes.Does anybody remember that or know their names??
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 03:43 pm
Heeehee, I have to say have a kind of a worry about her being a devil.


A devil of self indulgent sentimentality and mawkishness.


But then again....




That is why I was interested in what people who might actually watch her, and observe her effect closer up, might have to say.


Oh, I think she could sell books her, too.

It was interesting the effect on Jonathan Franzen for a bit, after he expressed ambivalence about being chosen for her then book club. (There is a link to it)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 05:35 pm
Yeah, I had a lot of sympathy for Franzen!

He had an article in the New Yorker about it, I think. Gave some nice context.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 10:37 pm
Yeah, Franzen felt he'd be commercialized by going on Oprah's show, so he declined. He didn't want to be associated with the "schmaltzy, one-dimensional" books she sometimes picks to read. The whole row kind of worked out well for him, it got him a lot of publicity without having to go on her show.

She's good because she's gotten a lot of people to start reading, and those people who had already been reading regularly, they've gotten to hear some very good literary experts discuss what they're reading. Her reading show is like a mid-level undergrad course.

I don't know if she started doing the Faulkner stuff before or after Franzen's slight.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 06:05 am
After, I believe. I think (from the links I put here) that she stopped her first book club a bit after that, then recommenced with this American classics thing.


My particular prejudices say that getting people reading is good.


And I like American classics a lot.

Ok, she ain't no devil!



What about the schmaltzier and mawkishier (I KNOW that is no word!) aspects of her.


Was she just adding a bit of class to the schmaltz and mawk industries, or does she add to the overwhelming ickiness of it?

Like, has she made people aware in a non simply self indulgent way of things they would not otherwise be aware of?


Eg, I wonder if she made it more possible for abused people to speak out?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 06:36 am
Just wait till she announces that she's decided to be a Scientologist
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 06:39 am
It'll be a bestseller, too, eh?

Or gets "born again".
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 10:04 am
Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:
Where does it say I watch Oprah?

I read about her Katrina "efforts" in an article.



Oh. Sorry. <heh heh heh> I'm just surprised that you had so much knowledge of her, Slappy, and was imagining you'd seen her on TV. You certainly know more about her doings than I.

I'm always and forever distrustful of these breathless news reports: "Look, they gave, but not enough." Oprah seems ripe for every newscaster to have his day. The media circus about Oprah in Paris and the Hermes Debacle comes to mind. Why did so many people have opinions about that? Ugh.


As you say Deb, she seems to revel in the maudlin. I hate that and I don't care for that Dr. Phil guy, either, whom I think she launched.

My favorite complaint about Oprah was when Jon Stewart was picking on her because she'd been giving her studio audience (now they may be a cult!) some amazing gifts that were under their seats. It was pretty funny but I don't remember the details.

One of the earliest books in her book club was The Shipping News. I'd bought the book and seen a sticker that it was on Oprah's reading list. Had to have somebody explain it to me. I loved that book... not one-dimensional at all.

I thought it was very odd, even foolish, that Jonathan Franzen -- whose publishers were likely THRILLED to have Oprah choose him -- took such a stand. I'll have to look in my old New Yorkers because I can't remember any good reason, other than holding his nose at too much publicity. Yesterday, Salon called it "a gaffe."

Quote:
From yesterday's Salon:
Franzen has apologized and clarified, blamed his own inexperience in handling the media and attributed his reservations to not wanting to see a "corporate logo" on the cover of his book -- but it will be difficult for him to erase the impression that snobbishness caused him to diss Winfrey. And so, alas. Alas because "The Corrections" is a very fine book, one of the best I've read in several years, and Franzen is a well-intentioned, hardworking, serious and very talented writer whose work I've long admired (full disclosure: I know Franzen socially). "Oprah Winfrey is bent on demonstrating that estimates of the size of the audience for good books is too small," Franzen told the New York Times Wednesday, "and that is why it is so unfortunate that this is being cast as arrogant Franzen and popular Winfrey."


Scientology? Good Gods. I hope Oprah never divulges more about her spiritual awakenings than a general understanding she might have been raised a Baptist.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 03:56 pm
dlowan wrote:
Was she just adding a bit of class to the schmaltz and mawk industries, or does she add to the overwhelming ickiness of it?


I think that's left up to opinion, and where one stands on the schmaltz, mawk meter. I used to watch her show and Phil Donahue's back in the day when I had a lot more time on my hands. I used to watch the soaps too, I'm afraid to admit.

For being rather ambivalent about her, I think I like her more than I don't.
0 Replies
 
mac11
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 04:42 pm
Well put, InfraBlue. I also like her more than I don't.

I do think she has made a difference among people who watch her. I've heard people discussing issues that never would have come up if they hadn't heard it on Oprah.

I love the fact that people may have forgotten she's black. Very Happy

Isn't she one of the top 10 richest Americans? (Don't actually know the stat, just know she's amazingly rich.)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 05:11 pm
Interesting, but to early in the morning to think....
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 05:37 pm
Piffka wrote:
One of the earliest books in her book club was The Shipping News. I'd bought the book and seen a sticker that it was on Oprah's reading list. Had to have somebody explain it to me. I loved that book... not one-dimensional at all.

I thought it was very odd, even foolish, that Jonathan Franzen -- whose publishers were likely THRILLED to have Oprah choose him -- took such a stand. I'll have to look in my old New Yorkers because I can't remember any good reason, other than holding his nose at too much publicity. Yesterday, Salon called it "a gaffe."

Quote:
From yesterday's Salon:
Franzen has apologized and clarified, blamed his own inexperience in handling the media and attributed his reservations to not wanting to see a "corporate logo" on the cover of his book -- but it will be difficult for him to erase the impression that snobbishness caused him to diss Winfrey. And so, alas. Alas because "The Corrections" is a very fine book, one of the best I've read in several years, and Franzen is a well-intentioned, hardworking, serious and very talented writer whose work I've long admired (full disclosure: I know Franzen socially). "Oprah Winfrey is bent on demonstrating that estimates of the size of the audience for good books is too small," Franzen told the New York Times Wednesday, "and that is why it is so unfortunate that this is being cast as arrogant Franzen and popular Winfrey."



Now, THAT worries me. Her celebrity means he is seen as bad?


Ah, I guess we had messiahs and prophets before, now we have Oprah and such.


Which does more harm, or good?


Were they the same thing?




(Brian: We are all individuals!!!

Voice from crowd: I'm not!)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 05:39 pm
mac11 wrote:
Well put, InfraBlue. I also like her more than I don't.

I do think she has made a difference among people who watch her. I've heard people discussing issues that never would have come up if they hadn't heard it on Oprah.

I love the fact that people may have forgotten she's black. Very Happy

Isn't she one of the top 10 richest Americans? (Don't actually know the stat, just know she's amazingly rich.)



THAT'S interesting.

Have they?


Have the black ones?


We know Oprah hasn't.


When and with whom else is that forgotten?


What does it mean?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 05:40 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Was she just adding a bit of class to the schmaltz and mawk industries, or does she add to the overwhelming ickiness of it?


I think that's left up to opinion, and where one stands on the schmaltz, mawk meter. I used to watch her show and Phil Donahue's back in the day when I had a lot more time on my hands. I used to watch the soaps too, I'm afraid to admit.

For being rather ambivalent about her, I think I like her more than I don't.
[/b]


Heehee.


I like that expression!
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 07:42 am
dlowan wrote:
Piffka wrote:
"Oprah Winfrey is bent on demonstrating that estimates of the size of the audience for good books is too small," Franzen told the New York Times Wednesday, "and that is why it is so unfortunate that this is being cast as arrogant Franzen and popular Winfrey."


Now, THAT worries me. Her celebrity means he is seen as bad?


Are you sure that's what he is saying? It was her celebrity which he saw as bad... at the time.

He is, in an awkward way, backpedalling... even now, four years later. To me, he's saying that since Oprah is "bent on demonstrating that estimates of the size of the audience for good books is too small"...

<And oh my God, what a mouthful!... but... this should be a good thing, right?... We want more people to think and read good books. We don't want to underestimate peeps just because there are too many of them.>

... that it is unfortunate they are not seen as being on the same page.

All of this is due to his choice. Too bad it couldn't die down, but it put him, as a writer whom we assume wants to be successful, in a bad light. The reason being, his choice makes little sense except for his own prejudice. Really, I think the guy was probably high on something when he made his announcement. It was certainly foolish and his book, which is said to be good, -- I haven't read it -- has dropped into obscurity.






Schmaltz-Mawk meter... LOL... Good one!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 07:47 am
No, no, I mean he was kinda demonized because he offended her and she has celebrity.
0 Replies
 
mac11
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 11:55 am
the bunny wrote:
mac11 wrote:

Well put, InfraBlue. I also like her more than I don't.

I do think she has made a difference among people who watch her. I've heard people discussing issues that never would have come up if they hadn't heard it on Oprah.

I love the fact that people may have forgotten she's black.

Isn't she one of the top 10 richest Americans? (Don't actually know the stat, just know she's amazingly rich.)




THAT'S interesting.

Have they?


Have the black ones?


We know Oprah hasn't.


When and with whom else is that forgotten?


What does it mean?


Deb, when I said
mac11 wrote:
I love the fact that people may have forgotten she's black. Very Happy

I was actually agreeing with Piffka from the page before
Piffka, in part, wrote:
She's the neighborhood success story. So all-encompassing that viewers forget she is black. I've seen her remind her audience more than once; a smile and a quick look down at the color on her arm.


I do think that due to her wealth and celebrity, Oprah has moved into a status which few attain. Her face and opinions are out there every week day too, which isn't true of most celebrities. She has tremendous power and I (mostly) approve of how she's using it.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 12:54 pm
Oprah has been responsible for civilizing some of the fringes of Mr. Noddy's extended family.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 02:15 pm
I forget which book the Oprah flap was about, but "The Corrections" has been huge (I haven't read it).

OK, looked some stuff up, it was "The Corrections." Hardly obscurity.

This is the article I'm thinking of, I think. It was called "Meet Me in St. Louis" in the New Yorker, here it's in the Guardian under a different name.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,6000,667209,00.html
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 02:26 pm
By the way, one thing that I confirmed in reading that and a helpful guide to the whole brouhaha that led me to the article, found here:

http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/vol3/issue1/oprah.htm

is that he didn't actually turn her down. (Forget if anyone here said it, but just saw someone claim as much in an Amazon review [it was a best of 2001 novel there btw], and double-checked.) He expressed some qualms, and then SHE disinvited HIM because of the qualms:

Quote:
Jonathan Franzen will not be on The Oprah Winfrey Show because he is seemingly uncomfortable and conflicted about being chosen as an Oprah's Book Club selection. It is never my intention to make anyone uncomfortable or cause anyone conflict. We have decided to skip the dinner and we're moving on to the next book.


(That was her statement.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Take it All - Discussion by McGentrix
Cancelled - Discussion by Brandon9000
John Stewart meets Bill O'Reilly - Discussion by Thomas
BEFORE WE HAD T.V. - Discussion by edgarblythe
What TV shows do you watch? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Orange is the New Black - Discussion by tsarstepan
Odd Premier: Under the Dome - Discussion by edgarblythe
Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"? - Discussion by firefly
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.1 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 04:44:02