When studying in London, I found myself increasingly impressed with the English people.
Aside from their proper manners and interesting accents, I found myself impressed with the general interest in literacy the country seems to maintain.
Riding on the tube is perhaps the best example of this. Whereas on the New York subway, commuters spend their ride analyzing the graffiti on the walls or examining the engrossing article in Maxim magazine, on the London tube, virtually all of the commuters can be seen reading books. And I am not talking Danielle Steel or Tom Clancy — no, the Brits are reading classics and Booker prize nominees.
The difference in reading styles of Americans and Brits serves as a metaphor for how our country views reading and the types of materials that can make reading beneficial. There have been several movements in this country to get people to read more. Amongst these campaigns include celebrity public service announcements and ineffective public policies introduced by Barbara Bush. All of these have done little to move people away from their TVs and into the local Barnes and Noble — this was of course, until Oprah came along.
In 1996, Oprah Winfrey started a book of the month club, in which viewers were encouraged to purchase books and participate in discussion about the novel's material. The idea behind the book program was somewhat good and you could argue that Oprah's book of the month club did for some adults what Harry Potter did for children — it got people reading.
All of a sudden, housewives across the country were introduced to starving writers who craved the richness that the Oprah endorsement promised them. Viewers across the country waited diligently each month for the title of the next book selected, and began to look to Oprah as a literature instructor. She became their judge of good reading material.
So what happens when the Queen of TV talk shows runs out of books she deems worthy? She quits promoting reading.
Recently, Oprah announced cutbacks in the book of the month club since she had a difficult time finding anything worthy of "sharing" with her audience. Apparently, she has run out of depressing stories about women, bad love, and menopause to share with her readers. I guess she also missed that section of the bookstore where Austen, Fitzgerald and Hemingway line the shelves. Oh well.
Should viewers be disappointed with Oprah's inability for finding anything worthy of reading?
I would hope not. While Oprah's intentions with the book club might have been admirable, the idea was twisted by corporate sponsorship and questionable reading selections.
With the exception of Toni Morrison, the quality of many of the books on Oprah's list could easily be found at the supermarket checkout lane next to the weekly Enquirer.
Oprah was getting people to read, but by dawning her scepter on only books she deemed worthy, she closed her audience to a world full of writers that have colored our lives and painted our histories.
Oprah kept to contemporary authors who wrote at a high school level, as opposed to introducing her audience to writers of the past. Writers like Hemingway and Fitzgerald would have never made her list.
My personal love of literature definitely makes me biased, however, I do think it is important for Americans to move away from the TV and move towards reading books that challenge them.
This is not to say that a little John Grishman is bad now and then, but we should strive to raise our level of literacy.
To do so will not only improve our ways of thinking, it will improve culture on a deep and profound level.
Karen Engler is a graduate student in literature. Reach her at karen.engler@asu.edu.
