Snobbery, the literary form
Spending this week at home, I've found that the biggest inconvenience is the fact that I can't get my hands on a paper copy of the New York Times, and, thus, must read the online version, which while useful is something I find myself avoiding. The reasons for doing so are plentiful, but the main one being that I find myself ignoring articles that I might otherwise read in the print version due to my lack of patience for online text. Staring at a computer screen wares so thin after a period that I really only skim the headlines on most major sites and avoid reading anything unless it might be something of particular interest. So, it was with great surprise and interest that I found the following article about online book clubs on the Times' site entitled, Online Books Clubs as Lit 101 Fun. As readers are well aware, I've had a beef with the Times for the last few weeks for the relentless attacks on anything that might seem either conservative in tone or the least bit appealing to the mass public at large. Sadly, this article, which I hoped might be a change of pace and avoid criticism on what seems like a totally neutral issue, is yet another in a long line of articles that harshly criticize pop culture icons such as Oprah, Today, and Good Morning America for their roles in the decline in literary culture.

Basically, all the article is trying to report on is the rise of online book clubs that have sprung up in recent years as an accompaniment to the versions of the clubs that air on their broadcast counterparts. Oprah's club is the main subject of the story and the target for the most criticism. Oprah, as we are all aware, has a book club that went on hiatus after a stellar run that was met with tremendous success and some controversy, i.e. The Corrections fiasco. Well, now that she has decided to revive the club the major change has to do with the selection of books themselves. Gone are the contemporary titles in favor of the classics. Steinbeck's East of Eden and Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude are two of the most recent selections. As with most things in culture these days, the club has an online equivalent and extension that offers guides to the text and online chats.

Caryn James, the author of the article, does praise the notion that others that have been inspired by the Oprah formula have at least avoided the selection of "'Oprah books,' assumed to be middle-brow domestic novels with mawkish life lessons." The books are, in fact, "literary" in nature. Well, that's a relief! The success of the online accompaniments can be attributed to the fact that they are "enthusiastic" in tone and not "educational," which the author attributes to being a "dreaded" term.

James goes on to describe the book selections made by both Today and Good Morning American with some comment on their features. However, James takes a pot shot at the latter's segment entitled Read This!, which she describes as the "least literary" in approach. The segment is centered around a different book club from around the country. Their book gets chosen and featured in the segment. In this case, a book by Ann Brashare entitled The Second Summer of the Sisterhood, which was chosen, fittingly, by a club of mothers and daughters. James, though, feels the need to point out that when the author was available on line to receive email questions about her book, she was bombarded with the following, ""What do you think of the idea of mother-daughter book clubs as a way to bridge the generation gap?" This type of question is termed as being too "touchy-feely" by James.

I realize this is the clearest example of a pot shot taken by an author who is degrading all that isn't literary. Also, I'm probably the last person in the world who should be criticizing them for being snobbish in terms of literature. Regardless, it's not the words of the article that seem to be insulting so much as the tone. It's this condescending tone that seems to pervade the paper at times, especially with regards to the arts. Reading this article put me in mind of all the people I've met with harsh words for Oprah's club. Some have even gone so far as to wonder if they can still like a book if it was chosen by Oprah. This, to me, is pushing the boundaries of elitism severely. I appreciate the idea of loving something that isn't part of the mainstream, but this notion can, and often is, pushed to extreme limits. In this article, you can almost sense the snobbery involved in lowering one's self to participate in these types of discussions. There's something almost comical in the way in which the author describes the types of aides available to the masses on Oprah's site. It's almost as if she can't help trying to hide her snobbish tone and say, "Look at these rubes trying to read real literature. First, they need guides to keep track of all the characters and summaries of the material read, but let's not forget that this is a book that's, oh my God, nearly 500 pages in length! Do they honestly think they can read this stuff and really appreciate it?" The tone comes to the forefront when she states that the majority of these types of groups always have to "reduce fiction to the question: 'How does this relate to your own life?'" As if this is nothing more than a telltale sign of literature being read by amateurs.

It's an endless cycle, a catch-22, or any other type of conundrum you can think of when it comes to "high brow" literature. People who consume it grow frustrated by the fact that it doesn't sell, which is another way of saying that there's total schlock on the best-seller list. However, when Oprah or others like her try to make an effort to introduce the "classics" to the masses, it's greeted with a roll of the eyes and even outrage. It doesn't seem that there's anyway of pleasing the critics. Oprah could have chosen to stick with the contemporary writers, some of which were less than stellar, obscure, or even unknown, or she could do something that's really interesting, and choose to stick to the "classics," which is a welcome change. Oprah knows that she's powerful enough that every book she chooses becomes an instant best-seller, so why not rejoice the fact that books like East of Eden and One Hundred Years of Solitude are either being purchased or circulated instead of downgrading the effort because it's not "literary" enough and is pandering to an audience that won't appreciate the books for the "right" reasons? Writers at the Times, including the author of this article, should do themselves a favor by adopting the tone James describes Oprah of exuding: "The great secret of her success is that she is able to talk to, and not down to, her audience."