Oprah Winfrey

The year in books

Dwight Garner reviews the events in book publishing in 1997

  • more
    • All Share Services

James Dickey died this year. So did Allen Ginsberg, who got off the best line about “Deliverance,” Dickey’s lone bestseller (“What James Dickey doesn’t realize,” Ginsberg mused, “is that being fucked in the ass isn’t the worst thing that can happen to you in American life”). Isaiah Berlin died. So did Kathy Acker, William S. Burroughs, Michael Dorris, J. Anthony Lukas, James Michener, V.S. Pritchett and Murray Kempton.

Call me morbid, but it seems appropriate to commence this piece with a list of 1997′s illustrious dead — a roll call of literary souls worth mourning. (In death, even Michener took on Texas-sized stature when the extent of his philanthropy was revealed.) Why? Because if on one level 1997 was the best year in recent memory to be an alert, yea-saying reader — for an abundance of reasons I’ll be getting to — it was also a year in which there were some seismic, queasy-making shifts in the lit world. Some of the old niceties began slipping away (some of them deservedly), a postwar generation of writers started to stumble, and a cold and crackling new economic order swept in under the doorjamb.

Civility, for sure, suffered a few head wounds in 1997. At a panel discussion at the New York Public Library in October, Barnes & Noble CEO Leonard Riggio gave novelist Cynthia Ozick a start when he outed her sales figures, revealing that his continent-girdling chain had sold but a few hundred copies of her Holocaust masterpiece “The Shawl.” In response, Ozick politely murmured something about how she’d like to sell more books — but so would Stephen King. The evening’s topic: “Book Publishing: Dead or Alive?” People left wondering.

Revenge had a bullish year. New novels from such celebrated old goats as Norman Mailer, Saul Bellow and Philip Roth were accompanied by frisky tell-all memoirs dictated by aggrieved former lovers. (Behind every great male novelist, it sometimes seemed, there was an extremely pissed-off woman.) Retaliation came into its own as a genre, and these novelists suffered some very ’90s-style indignities. The high-low point in Adele Mailer’s “The Last Party” — which is arguably better-written, and surely less pretentious, than Mailer’s own “The Gospel According to the Son” — may be when young Norman catches Adele in bed with another man (she was avenging his own cheating ways), strides into the room and stubs out a lit cigarette into the man’s naked buttocks. The low-low point is, of course, when Mailer stabs her. In “Handsome Is,” a memoir from Bellow’s former literary agent, Harriet Wasserman, we hear not only about the great writer’s abiding narcissism, but Wasserman also mentions that she would rather lick out a Times Square toilet bowl than say hello to Bellow’s new agent, Andrew Wylie. And in Claire Bloom’s “Leaving a Doll’s House” (a late 1996 title), we learn about her 18 years with Philip Roth — including news that, during their divorce proceedings, Roth charged her $150 an hour for having helped her go over her scripts.

Not all of the year’s aggrieved memoirists charged at writers: Mia Farrow dumped on Woody Allen in her mopey, elegiac “What Falls Away”; Kelly Flinn dumped on the Air Force in “Proud to Be”; and Paula Barbieri unwittingly dumped on herself in “The Other Woman: My Years with O.J.”

Those Mailer, Bellow and Roth novels were kept company by new books from John Updike, Kurt Vonnegut and Thomas Pynchon. Readers could be forgiven, in a retro-hellish year, for walking into bookstores and thinking it was 1973 all over again. (Even J.D. Salinger poked his squirrely nostrils out from his hole for a moment, sniffed the wind and apparently decided not to release his story “Hapworth 16, 1924″ as a novel. Next year he’ll get — what else? — depicted in another tell-all memoir, from his former teen lover, Joyce Maynard.) New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani has long ridden herd over this flock, caning the beasties who got too randy. Few were surprised when she bestowed her blessings on Roth’s relatively soft-focus “American Pastoral” while pounding Updike’s sharply lecherous “Toward the End of Time.” At times, however, a few of these aging writers seemed to be caning themselves. I read most of these books, and if you forced me into Entertainment Weekly’s bullpen I would grade them thusly: Mailer: D; Bellow: B-; Roth: B; Updike: A-; Vonnegut: B-. (The Pynchon I couldn’t get through, although unlike Slate’s estimable critic, Walter Kirn, that fact did prevent me from reviewing it.)

Those tell-all memoirs aside, the book world in 1997 did occasionally feel like a tug-of-war between the sexes. Oprah Winfrey solidified her clout, sending a number of titles (Mary McGarry Morris’ “Songs in Ordinary Time,” Earnest Gaines’ “A Lesson Before Dying,” two novels by Kaye Gibbons) soaring onto bestseller lists and onto the counter of your local Starbucks. So pervasive was Oprah’s influence that the New York Times published a long, fretful piece about the potential “feminization” of literature. Because so many of Oprah’s viewers (and so many fiction buyers) are women, the Times reasoned, publishers might start to skew their lists toward books that are by and about women.

Sounds plausible — until you take into account one of the year’s other significant publishing trends, the rise of manly-men-against-the-elements narratives. Jon Krakauer’s “Into Thin Air” and Sebastian Junger’s “The Perfect Storm” both lingered on bestseller lists for months, and they seemed to provide a cultural antidote to wispy, so-introspective-it-hurts memoirs like Kathryn Harrison’s “The Kiss” (alternate title: “Hop on Pop”), a book about her long-running adult affair with her father. Harrison’s book was published in February, and the reaction to it was loopily fascinating. “The Kiss” prompted dozens of furrowed-brow panels on “The Rise of Memoir,” a brutal review by James Wolcott in the New Republic (Wolcott accused Harrison of, among other things, being a lousy mother by not waiting to publish her tome) and prompted Harvard child psychotherapist Robert Coles — in what must be a first — to withdraw his jacket blurb for the book.

 

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

The memoir glut showed no signs of slowing down (among the year’s best were J.M. Coetzee’s “Scenes From a Provincial Life,” James Salter’s “Burning the Days,” Thomas Lynch’s “The Undertaking” and Jean-Dominique Bauby’s “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”), but memoir as a cultural obsession and weekly Charlie Rose topic seems over, played out, kaput.

Other writers popped up in new and often surprising formats. Tom Wolfe released a discarded chunk of his new novel, “Chocolate City,” which is due next year, on audiotape only. Titled “Ambush at Fort Bragg” and read by actor and fellow Yalie Edward Norton, it was a brisk and dazzling slice of media criticism and surely the best fiction that came out of my (rental) car stereo this year. Updike popped up on Amazon.com, delivering the first and last sentences of a collaborative murder mystery, co-written with Amazon customers. Updike’s Kakutani-friendly opener: “Miss Tasso Polk at ten-ten alighted from the elevator onto the olive tiles of the nineteenth floor only lightly nagged by a sense of something wrong.” Amazon had a hit on its hands.

Stephen King’s silkiest move this year happened off the page. King fled Viking, his longtime publisher, and set out after someone willing to pay him a Jim Carrey-esque $17 million advance for each of his next three books. He wound up at Simon & Schuster with a deal that many in the publishing world will be watching closely — it guarantees him a $2 million advance per book and an unprecedented 50 percent share of the profits. Perhaps he’d been perusing Donald Trump’s “The Art of the Comeback.”

The King deal, with its repercussions, is merely one more reason for publishers to fret. Book sales have been off by as much as 5 percent for each of the last several years, and some began to panic this year. In June, shortly after posting a $7 million loss for the quarter, HarperCollins shocked many observers (and certainly some of its writers) when it tried to staunch the flow of red ink by abruptly canceling more than 100 titles.

Spookier still was the news that many publishers have begun to turn to book chains such as Barnes & Noble and Borders (which is among Salon’s sponsors) for advice about what books to publish and how. The New York Times noted that Grove Press abandoned plans to publish a memoir titled “Love Potion No. 9″ by songwriter Jerry Leiber after Barnes & Noble responded coolly to it and ordered a mere 1,200 copies. Similarly, when Random House was unhappy with the dust jacket for Mario Puzo’s “The Last Don,” it turned to a Barnes & Noble buyer for advice. (The cover changed from black to crimson, and was stamped with more eye-grabbing typography.)

The splashiest behind-the-scenes news this fall was Harold Evans’ departure from Random House after seven years as the publishing house’s scene-making president and publisher. Did Harry jump or was he pushed? Most seemed to agree it was a mixture of both. At the time of Evans’ exit, Random House was in a slump — out of the 30 titles on the New York Times bestseller list that week, only three were RH titles: John Berendt’s “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,” Arundhati Roy’s surprise-bestseller “The God of Small Things” and a book by Monty Roberts called “The Man Who Listens to Horses.” Worse for Evans was the fact that, as the Los Angeles Times pointed out, each of those titles was acquired by editor in chief Ann Godoff, Evans’ replacement.

Evans’ departure may mean the end of the Big Dick management style, at least at Random House. Evans liked Big Books by Big Names, and he threw for them the kind of parties that regularly landed him (along with his wife, New Yorker editor Tina Brown) in Page Six and other gossip columns. Among his successes were Colin Powell’s “My American Journey” and Anonymous/Joe Klein’s “Primary Colors.” Among his notable miscues were the $5 million he paid to Marlon Brando for an autobiography that tanked and $2.5 million to ex-Clinton advisor and foot-fetishizer Dick Morris. (Cynthia Ozick can take solace in the fact that Evans once admitted, famously, that the 29 Random House books that made the New York Times “notable books” of 1993 list collectively lost $600,000.)

Evans grooved on (self-spun) controversy, and 1997 had its fair share of it. Esquire’s literary editor, Will Blythe, quit in protest after then-editor Ed Kosner killed a David Leavitt short story because advertisers objected to its homosexual content. Romance novelist Janet Dailey admitted that three of her books included passages plagiarized from competitor Nora Roberts, the romance industry’s hottest writer (no wonder you thought all that stuff sounded the same). And Salman Rushdie and John le Carri pounded the crud out of each other in the letters section of London’s Guardian newspaper. (Rushdie to le Carri: “illiterate, pompous ass.” Le Carri to Rushdie: “self-canonizing, arrogant colonialist.”)

The Rushdie-le Carri feud started when le Carri published a Guardian piece in which he defended himself against allegations that his most recent novel, “The Tailor of Panama,” was anti-Semitic. The essay enraged Rushdie, who dashed off a letter saying he’d be more sympathetic to le Carri if “he had not been so ready to join an earlier campaign of vilification against a fellow writer.” According to Rushdie, when he became the subject of an Iranian fatwa, or death order, in 1989, le Carri “eagerly, and rather pompously, joined forces with my assailants. It would be gracious if he were to admit that he understands the nature of the Thought Police a little better now.”

The letters went ping-ponging back and forth for a week or so, giving U.K. newspaper editors a respite from the post-Diana doldrums. Le Carri responded: “Rushdie’s way with the truth is as self-serving as ever. I never joined his assailants. Nor did I take the easy path of proclaiming Rushdie to be a shining innocent. My position was that there is no law in life or nature that says that great religions may be insulted with impunity.” Rushdie got off what sounded like the last word: “Every time he opens his mouth, he digs himself into a deeper hole.”

This year, like every year, there were books by well-regarded writers that didn’t seem up to their usual standards, either critically or commercially. Among them in 1997: E. Annie Proulx’s “Accordion Crimes,” Paul Auster’s “Hand to Mouth,” Allan Gurganus’ “Plays Well With Others” and Carol Shield’s “Larry’s Party.” But they seemed like aberrations.

In general, 1997 offered myriad reasons to believe. Fine first novels by Charles Frazier (“Cold Mountain”) and Arundhati Roy (“The God of Small Things”) won the National Book Award and Booker Prize, respectively. Among the other writers who made impressive debuts were Arthur Golden (“Memoirs of a Geisha”), Alex Garland (“The Beach”), Kirsten Bakis (“The Lives of the Monster Dogs”) and Steve Lattimore (“Circumnavigations”).

A slew of old favorites returned with work that ranked with their best. Those books included Robert Stone’s “Bear and His Daughter,” Don DeLillo’s “Underworld,” Diane Johnson’s “Le Divorce,” Edna O’Brien’s “Down By the River,” John Banville’s “The Untouchable,” Muriel Spark’s “Reality and Dreams” and Richard Russo’s “Straight Man.” And happily, small presses seemed stronger than ever: If you missed Ellen Ullman’s “Close to the Machine” (City Lights), Eileen Whitfield’s “Pickford,” David Haynes’ “All-American Dream Dolls” (Milkweed) or Barbara Gowdy’s “Mister Sandman” (Steerforth), to name just three, it’s not too late to pick them up for Christmas.

Dwight Garner is Salon's book review editor.

Media Circus: Totally naked book wrestling

Pregnant lesbian strippers and unrepentant impotent bigamists debate the classics on Jerry Springer's Book Club!

  • more
    • All Share Services

He’s back! The last time we heard from Jerry Springer, you may recall, he was retreating, tail between his legs, from a short-lived second job as news commentator on a Chicago station, an embarrassing episode that left him, at least for a few days, the most hated man in the Windy City. But he survived this temporary setback — and he’s returned stronger than ever.

Springer’s show, after punching up its already-sleazy guest list (and inspiring its already-sleazy guests to punch up each other) is now getting its best ratings ever. “While other gab shows talk about cleaning up their respective acts, Springer’s … program — notorious for an endless parade of brawling, big-chested strippers, naughty nudists and brazen adulterers — has actually become more outrageous than ever this season,” noted Josef Adalian in the New York Post. “The result: … a stunning ratings surge.” Springer’s new, even tawdrier show closed in fast on Oprah Winfrey during the October sweeps, and actually beat Oprah for the week ending Nov. 30, leaving the Jerrmeister standing briefly atop the talk-show ratings world.

We are thrilled with Jerry’s comeback, but we think he can do even better! Indeed, with all due respect to Oprah, we think he can grind the Queen of Daytime Talk into ratings powder.

Publicly, Jerry shows Oprah nothing but the utmost respect. (“Oprah’s the best there is,” he recently told a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer.) But we know in his heart of hearts he’d love to vanquish her once and for all.

And we know how he can do it. What does Oprah have that Jerry doesn’t have? Only one thing: a book club.

Why can’t Jerry get one of his own?

We know what you’re thinking: “But Jerry’s guests can’t read.” Actually, that’s not true at all. Studies show that cross-dressers, for example, are extremely avid book-purchasers. And while white supremacists are, for the most part, illiterate, the majority of pregnant lesbian strippers have at least some college education — and a startling 35.2 percent have advanced degrees!

So we say: Jerry — You Go Girl!

Think of the possible topics for the show: “Cold Mountain, Hot Lesbian Strippers!”; “Angela’s Asses”; “The God of Small Penises”; “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, Crouching Down in the Bushes, Naked, with Binoculars.”

And imagine the edifying exchanges that could result once Jerry’s Kids throw themselves into the serious study of literature.

JERRY PROMOTES THE GREAT AMERICAN DIALOGUE ON RACE

Jerry: So what did you think of “The Turner Diaries,” Bruno?

Bruno: I thought they rocked! A kick-ass defense of our glorious Aryan heritage. And I loved all the race war stuff, just loved it. After reading it, I felt like blowing up a Federal Building. A big “Heil Hitler” for this book, Jerry!

Jerry: And how about you, Rabbi?

JERRY’S BOOK CLUB DOES TONI MORRISON

Lonya: Toni Morrison is one nasty-assed bitch.

Jerry: But, Lonya, you didn’t even read the book! Why do you say that?

Lonya: Well, why she call herself Tony, like she some sort of Italian dude? That’s nasty.

Jerry: You’re Lonya’s mother — what do you think, Mrs. Johnston?

Mrs. Johnston: Guido, Jerry. Call me Guido.

JERRY’S BOOK CLUB TALKS ABOUT THE CHILDREN

Jerry: So, Tom, what do you think of the book?

Judy: Don’t ask him. He didn’t even read the book — he was doin’ the nasty with the baby sitter!

Jerry: Is that true, Tom?

Tom: Nah. I was readin the book with her.

Judy: Naked?

Tom: I’m not ashamed of my body.

Jerry: That’s great. But why do you even have a baby sitter? Your baby isn’t even born yet.

Tom: She’s not a baby sitter, Jerry. She’s an adult baby sitter.

Jerry: She baby sits adults?

Tom: No no — she’s an adult baby. Um, and she sits around.

Judy: Sleeps around, more like.

JERRY’S BOOK CLUB DOES FAMILY VALUES

Jerry: This week on the book club we’re doing a modern-day classic: Kathryn Harrison’s “The Kiss.” And to discuss it we have two guests: Eddie Rex and his friend Jocasta. Now, Jocasta, it’s fair to say that you and Eddie are boyfriend and girlfriend?

Jocasta: Oh, yes, Jerry. I’m carrying his baby. We’re gonna get married next month.

Jerry: But you’re also his mother.

Jocasta: Well, yeah.

Chorus of audience members: Slut!

Jocasta: Well, listen here, [beep]heads, it got awful lonely after his poppa, the late Mr. Rex, God bless his soul, got killed by them highwaymen. [To the Chorus] You’da done it too, you dirty [beep]ers!

Chorus: You’re the [beep]ing whore, bitch!

Jerry: Eddie, before we get to the book, you’ve got something you want to tell your mom about that night, don’t you?

Eddie: Well, yeah. Me and pops was drinkin, and we had a little bit of a disagreement and … well, let’s just say that one stroke of my good staff flung him clean out of the trailer home and laid him prone, right where them three roads meet. I whomped him but good!

Chorus: Ooooooooh!

Jocasta: You wretch, in birth, in wedlock cursed! I’ll poke your damn eyes out, you [beep beep beep]er!

[Jocasta jumps on him, gouging out both of his eyes before being wrestled to the ground by Jerry's security guards.]

Eddie: Dark, dark! The horror of darkness, like a shroud, wraps me and bears me on through mist and cloud! Damn, mom! I can’t [beep]ing see [beep]!

Chorus: “Jer-ry! Jer-ry!”

Continue Reading Close

David Futrelle, a regular Sneak Peeks contributor, has written for The Nation, Newsday, and Lingua Franca.

Newsreal: Chickens have rights too!

They are not dumb, dirty and best served by your local Col. Sanders franchise, says Karen Davis, the Simon Wiesenthal of the poultry kingdom.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Soon after the recent re-release of “Pink Flamingos,” the New York Times Magazine asked filmmaker John Waters why he cast a chicken in arguably the most grotesque minage ` trois in cinematic history. “Chickens scare me. They are frighteningly stupid. They don’t even find happiness with each other in a pen,” replied Waters, who didn’t stop there. “We probably improved the chicken’s quality of life. It got to be in a movie, got to have sex and then we ate it … I don’t have a problem if they test cosmetics on [animals]. Eyeliner has been important in my life. If 10 chickens have to die to make one drag queen happier, so be it!”

Days later, Waters’ agent in Hollywood received a scathing letter intended for the director. “In response to your sarcasms about chickens,” the missive began, “you are wrong. Chickens are intelligent, sensitive, and social birds … It’s interesting that you eat creatures whom you despise. In calling chickens ‘frighteningly stupid,’ you are projecting an image of yourself onto them.”

The letter came from Karen Davis, president of United Poultry Concerns Inc. Davis — something of a Simon Wiesenthal for fowl — says she founded the not-for-profit organization seven years ago in part to memorialize her “companion” broiler hen, Viva, whom she had rescued from a chicken coop five years earlier. United Poultry Concerns’ main mission, explains Davis, is to “combat the negative stereotype of poultry as dumb, dirty and low on the evolutionary scale.”

Thanks to her vigilance, public criticism of the much maligned birds rarely goes unanswered these days. When Oprah Winfrey told viewers about how she switched from eating pork to turkey after seeing “Babe,” Davis fired off a letter recommending vegetarianism to the perpetually dieting talk-show host. When a farmer moaned to Dear Abby that neighbors were complaining about his rooster’s constant crowing, Davis offered her support. “In his own fascinating world of chickendom,” she wrote, “the rooster is a lover, a father, a brother, a food-finder, a guardian and a sentinel. He is nothing to scoff at.”

But Davis’ activism transcends mere letter writing. Aside from building a skylit sanctuary for injured chickens (don’t call it a coop in her presence) onto her Seneca, Md., home, UPC’s president has testified before Congress in a bid to extend “humane slaughter” legislation to poultry, promoted the concept of an “eggless” Easter, lobbied for schools to end classroom hatching experiments and been arrested for disrupting a Pennsylvania pigeon shoot and for trespassing at a county fair in Virginia that featured ostrich races.

Lately, Davis and her flock of 6,800 poultry protectors are throwing their weight behind a grass-roots campaign to halt forced molting, the systematic starvation of hens to control laying cycles. “To manipulate the supply of eggs on the market, hens are deprived of all food for an average of 10 days,” charged Davis. “It puts the birds into physiological shock, so they lose their feathers and stop laying eggs. It’s an extremely cruel practice. You can’t starve your dog or cat and get away with it.”

Davis is heartened by the recent attention focused on campylobactor, a bacteria that infects between 70 and 90 percent of chickens and annually causes millions of Americans to suffer from cramps, abdominal pain, bloody diarrhea and fever. But she still worries that her feathered friends face a bleak future. “Their fate is worse than extinction,” Davis laments. “As the world population grows, poultry will be produced in greater and greater numbers and be subjected to continued misery and degradation … We have a bad attitude towards chickens as symbolized by depraved comments like Waters’. He disgraces our species.”

Waters, however, remains unrepentant. “I’d be willing to bet that [Davis] has a rotten sense of humor and no (human) friends,” he said with a chuckle during a telephone interview. “Her letter was astounding. I thought I had written it to myself as a parody. I’m just glad this woman doesn’t have my home address, because she’s the kind of person who will one day don a chicken outfit and be at my door with a chain saw.”

Continue Reading Close

Drink the latte! Buy the book!

Oprah goes into business with Starbucks and book publishing gets another much-needed jolt of caffeine.

  • more
    • All Share Services

for the last several weeks thousands of readers have plunked down $13.95 for a book they know nothing about. Not the subject. Not the author. Not even the title. Why? Because Oprah said to.

Since she launched her book club last fall — with a televised promise to “get the country reading” — the queen of talk TV has proven she can sell books. Lots of them. Each month Oprah’s Book Club selection outsells all of the big book clubs’ main selections combined. Now Oprah’s got Starbucks behind her.

In a brilliant blending of brand names, Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz announced early this month that, starting with Oprah Book Club Selection No. 8 — Mary McGarry Morris’ “Songs in Ordinary Time” — which was announced yesterday, Oprah’s Book Club selections will be for sale at all 1,200 Starbucks stores. Schulz says he plans to donate the proceeds from Oprah book sales to literacy causes and has hired a full-time staff to oversee all such disbursements.

Apparently Schultz, a mega-gazillionaire known for supporting numerous charities and PC causes, had a bit of trouble getting Oprah’s attention. For weeks she didn’t return his calls. Perhaps that’s because anyone who has even dreamed of selling a book has called Chicago and tried to whisper sweet nothings in Oprah’s ear. When Schultz finally got through, Oprah had no trouble smelling the coffee. As Adam Handlesman, the Starbucker in charge of the company’s literacy project puts it, “The two major powerhouses finally came together and saw a great opportunity.”

Handlesman says the Starbucks-Oprah alliance springs from Schultz’s sincere interest in American literacy. Skeptics will note that it no doubt also occurred to Shultz that Oprah books would bring more people — and more money — into his stores.

And the opportunity for both Starbucks and Oprah is great indeed. Four million people fill their cups at Starbucks each week. The coffeehouse has long been a meeting spot for readers and writers, as is noted in the Starbucks press release announcing the Oprah-Starbucks alliance. Why not offer those 4 million latte drinkers a little something they can read as they sip?

For a dramatic insight into her prowess as a bookseller, look at the case of Oprah’s very first book club selection: “The Deep End of the Ocean” by Jacquelyn Mitchard, a grim but well-reviewed first novel about the disappearance of a 3-year-old child. The book had sold a respectable 68,000 copies before Oprah announced that it would be the club’s first selection. It sold an unprecedented 750,000 copies in the month between Oprah’s announcement and the day her first book club feature aired. The book charged up the bestseller list, topped the chart and has proceeded to sell more than a million copies.

The next month, Oprah followed with Nobel laureate Toni Morrison’s 1977 classic, “Song of Solomon.” Then came Jane Hamilton’s novel “The Book of Ruth,” the 1989 PEN/Hemingway Foundation Award winner. Blam! Another million copies each, and instant No. 1 paperback bestseller status. Each successive book followed the pattern and right now those four books — “The Heart of a Woman” by Maya Angelou, “The Rapture of Canaan” by Sheri Reynolds, “Stones from the River” by Ursula Hegi and “She’s Come Undone” by Wally Lamb — are all still on the bestseller lists; Angelou’s latest installment of her memoirs is now No. 1 in the nonfiction paperback category.

To put these numbers in context, you need to compare Oprah to the next most popular book club — the Book of the Month Club. The 71-year-old organization, now owned by Time Inc., is actually made up of 11 different clubs with just over 4 million members. The charter club, which has a million members, goes gaga when it’s able to sell 100,000 hardbacks of its main selection, something that only happens with established names like Stephen King, Tom Clancy and Anne Rice. This is through aggressive direct marketing in a billion-dollar business that has had it’s best year ever despite sagging profits by most publishers. A BOMC subsidiary, the Quality Paperback Club, has 800,000 members and tends toward literary selections that the club’s editorial director, Linda Lowenthal, says correspond with San Francisco-area bestsellers. In the last year one of QPC’s biggest sellers was David Denby’s “Great Books,” moving roughly 50,000 units. This month’s selection, Robert Fogel’s much-praised new translation of “The Odyssey,” is enjoying a similar sales pace.

These numbers are anemic compared with Oprah’s club, especially since Oprah spends zippo promoting and announcing her choices. While many in the literary community scoffed at the spectacle of the talk show queen choosing fiction titles, the conventional wisdom within the book world has been that Oprah has done a decent job, picking fairly difficult, quasi-literary titles. Through her well-oiled publicity machine, Oprah assures publishers and her viewers that she alone chooses each title, based solely on what strikes her fancy, and so far she seems impervious to hype or pub dates. There was minor grumbling when she chose Morrison because Oprah’s film company owns the rights to another Morrison novel, but it’s difficult to find fault with Oprah’s selections.

On the other hand, Oprah’s Orwellian ability to create the book of the month is terrifying. She wields so much power that she can command utter secrecy from the book selection authors and publishers; if word leaks out before Oprah announces the selection, she says she’ll pull the book. So far, despite the headaches involved in getting enough books into stores to meet an instantaneously massive demand, no one has violated her secrecy rule. What’s more, Oprah even dictates the price for which selections sell. No one in the book business seems willing to risk offense to one of publishing’s biggest powers.

Meanwhile, the secrecy surrounding Oprah’s book choices, naturally, helps build suspense — and viewers — for the monthly shows on which Oprah announces her selections. As do all Oprah’s Book Club shows, Wednesday’s program featured four Oprah viewers at dinner — and subsequent pajama party! — with last month’s book selection author, Maya Angelou, this time around. Oprah ended the show with what she called a big announcement for a really big book; she said readers could have the rest of the summer to finish Mary Morris McGarry’s 740-page tome even though she read it in less than a week herself. Then, in a moment that must have roasted Howard Shultz’s beans, she announced the Starbucks deal; holding McGarry’s book aloft, she urged viewers to get up the next morning, head for Starbucks, “have a latte and buy this book.”

Trying to come to terms with the Oprah-Starbucks connection is something like staring at a difficult cubist painting: One sees what one wants to see. Those predisposed to seeing signs of an endless march toward a streamlined, thoughtless McCulture will be horrified, while those who believe that only corporate giants and celebrities can cure society’s ills will say don’t worry, be happy, have a Grande Frappuccino and Selection No. 8. The choices have already been made for you.

Continue Reading Close

Rob Spillman is co-editor of Tin House magazine.

Page 24 of 24 in Oprah Winfrey