speaking of unimportant, non-events
Don't believe everything that you read.
I was told that a long time ago, long before I actually started reading much of substance.
I am having a hard time fathoming why such a furor is being made over James Frey's book, A Million Little Pieces, and more specifically why Oprah Winfrey's reactions to the book (pre- and post- reactions, that is) are deemed newsworthy. Let me clarify: they are not.
What this boils down to is: Oprah Winfrey likes books, and thought she liked Frey's but changed her mind. That's it. There is nothing else to this story.
If Winfrey thought the lessons to be learned from Frey's book were valuable, then they were, whether they were true or not, embellished or factual to a T. The valuable lesson frequently does not come from facts but from thought, supposition and consideration. I think what really went down here is: Oprah Winfrey supported a writer, then discovered everything wasn't 100% true in his book, and decided she'd been made to look foolish in her support of him. And we all know how well celebrities appreciate being made to look like they backed the wrong horse. Oprah has the ability to say "this or that book is very good, I liked it" and her millions of fans take her word to heart, and read said book. In this case, she said something positive about something flawed, and assumed her fans would not accept the lesson in their hearts but would instead rebel against her. So she flayed the author on a recent televised show, and frankly, I wonder why Frey even sat still for the relentless beating he took. If he was approached that the show would be a basic interview and had no idea of the lynching to follow, I'm shocked he didn't have the guts to walk out on the whole affair.
Oprah's opinions on anything are just that. They are not news; they are not special. Hers are no more important than your own, so don't be mislead by the flash and glitter of celebrity suggestion.
As for James Frey, the only issue there is that he should have said up front that his work was kinda-sorta-true, used some of those fun phrases like "composite" and "based on". More importantly, his publishers should have at least anticipated that some basic questions would be in order before printing a million little copies.
But I lay a greater blame on Oprah's head than James Frey's. He just wrote a book. She over-reacted and gave the book all the attention it kinda-sorta-maybe did or didn't deserve.
After the Hermes debacle (and specifically her handling of it), this does not surprise me but it does make me feel bad for those who blindly follow her as never wrong, untarnished, and beyond reproach.
I was told that a long time ago, long before I actually started reading much of substance.
I am having a hard time fathoming why such a furor is being made over James Frey's book, A Million Little Pieces, and more specifically why Oprah Winfrey's reactions to the book (pre- and post- reactions, that is) are deemed newsworthy. Let me clarify: they are not.
What this boils down to is: Oprah Winfrey likes books, and thought she liked Frey's but changed her mind. That's it. There is nothing else to this story.
If Winfrey thought the lessons to be learned from Frey's book were valuable, then they were, whether they were true or not, embellished or factual to a T. The valuable lesson frequently does not come from facts but from thought, supposition and consideration. I think what really went down here is: Oprah Winfrey supported a writer, then discovered everything wasn't 100% true in his book, and decided she'd been made to look foolish in her support of him. And we all know how well celebrities appreciate being made to look like they backed the wrong horse. Oprah has the ability to say "this or that book is very good, I liked it" and her millions of fans take her word to heart, and read said book. In this case, she said something positive about something flawed, and assumed her fans would not accept the lesson in their hearts but would instead rebel against her. So she flayed the author on a recent televised show, and frankly, I wonder why Frey even sat still for the relentless beating he took. If he was approached that the show would be a basic interview and had no idea of the lynching to follow, I'm shocked he didn't have the guts to walk out on the whole affair.
Oprah's opinions on anything are just that. They are not news; they are not special. Hers are no more important than your own, so don't be mislead by the flash and glitter of celebrity suggestion.
As for James Frey, the only issue there is that he should have said up front that his work was kinda-sorta-true, used some of those fun phrases like "composite" and "based on". More importantly, his publishers should have at least anticipated that some basic questions would be in order before printing a million little copies.
But I lay a greater blame on Oprah's head than James Frey's. He just wrote a book. She over-reacted and gave the book all the attention it kinda-sorta-maybe did or didn't deserve.
After the Hermes debacle (and specifically her handling of it), this does not surprise me but it does make me feel bad for those who blindly follow her as never wrong, untarnished, and beyond reproach.
posted by scn at 7:48 AM
<< Home