![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[For ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
embers_log who was upset when I deleted my last post on this topic.]
Ran into a fellow novelist (actually a published one) on my way to the wine store this afternoon. He used to own a genre book store and ran a genre book club I'd joined in the late nineties until it disbanded like all book clubs eventually do. This one made it almost eight years before going the way of the Dodo.
At any rate, he told me he had an adventure tale, a la Indiana Jones coming out, as well as a novella entitled Chasing the Dragon. Then we chatted about the Stephanie Meyer phenomena otherwise known as Twilight for a bit, which he compared to The Da Vinci Code. Except of course for one teeny little detail, Da Vinci is better written. I was actually able to make it through the Da Vinic Code and enjoyed aspects of it (the movie's better by the way), not so much regarding Twilight. Hmm, if the film version of Da Vinci Code was better than the book - maybe the film version of Twilight will be better? Amazing as it might sound but there are some novels that actually translate better to the screen - The Godfather, The Exorcist, and Rosemary's Baby are examples. [Not to imply that The Godfather, the Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby weren't well written, they were, and in no other way shape or form compare to Twilight, well except for Rosemary's having a monster child...but outside of that...not so much.]
**For those who don't know what Twilight series is - it a series of poorly written young adult gothic romance novels. The story focuses on a naive and "pure" young girl who crushes madly on a handsome boy who happens to be a vampire in a northwestern small town. After many misunderstandings and entanglements, they get married and have a baby. (I clearly could care less if I spoil anyone on this factoid.) The girl is pretty but dumb. The boy is pretty and dangerous, filled with all sorts of disasterous cravings. The book defies logic and contains a lot of adverbs and syrupy description. It is similar from a romantic perspective not a plot perspective to the Buffy/Angel and Moonlight romances, except the female character is not very strong intellectually or physically, and swoons a lot. In short she's a damsel.
It's not the book Twilight that annoys me or even that it was published, although I am starting to wonder about the publishing industry and popular taste. I've seen a lot of poorly edited and written books in my life time. Unfortunately most of them are genre - hence the reason no one takes genre very seriously - and considers it pulp. It's because it is pulp. If you've ever read a Barbara Cartland novel you know whereof I speak. I read ten of them when I was 10 years of age. Georgette Heyer is a lot better by the way. And Cartland is actually a lot better than Meyer. Even the breakout hits are pulp. Few are remembered. Harry Potter was amongst the exceptions to the rule, a breakout hit, yet at the same time a cult phenomena that passed into the mainstream and is memorable. It did something completely different and crossed gender, age, ethnic, and cultural barriers in a way that I seriously doubt the Twilight series can. Not to mention the fact that it was written by a woman that people could identify with - a welfare mom, who needed a break. The under-dog. Meyer, needless to say, is not any of those things. Also as far as I can figure Twilight appeals to a specific and narrow demographic. A poll I did on my own lj in a way proved my point. Interesting results - 100% of the responders stated they hated or had no interest in Twilight, most of them were admittedly above the age of 30, and female. There were three men. While 95% stated they loved Harry Potter and read all the books. Granted it did not have more than 20 responders. But I think it did show the problem Twilight has in capturing Rowlings success.
Yet, the media, being the media, insists that 1.8 million sold means Meyer has inherited Rowlings throne. What they fail to see is the differences between the two authors and books, why one book will become a children's classic and read over and over and over again, and the other will end up in the trash, lucky to still be in print in ten-fifteen years. It's not like SE Hinton's Outsiders, or Judy Bloom's Forever. It doesn't even have the unique voice of Keatly Snyder's Witches of Worm and The Velvet Room, or Shirley Jackson's We've Always Lived in the Castle. And as far as gothic and fantasy romance goes, Meyer is no Phyllis A Whitney, Mary Stewart, Ann Rice or Ann McCaffrey. Yes, I've read them all.
Unlike those authors, her books stick to the fairy tale trappings of romance, but do not from the summaries I've seen understand the complexities. Unlike Buffy the Vampire Slayer which was targeted to the same demographic - a teenage girl audience, Meyer does not comment on the abusive nature of the bad boy relationship or show it's reality and complexity. Her metaphors are not as intricate as say a Robin McKinley who wrote the far superior Sunshine. Granted, she is correct when she states not all women need to know kung-fu and be able to fight like a boy to be strong and have a strong feminist voice. I agree, I certainly don't know kung-fu. Most of us, don't. But she misses the point of Buffy, it was not about the fight scenes. Buffy's strength lay in her ability to choose her own path and not allow herself to be taken over by another. While she is seduced by Angel and Spike, she can live without them, she doesn't feel the need to sacrifice herself for them - instead they end up sacrificing themselves for her, changing for her, yet and this important, the writers deftly and subtley demonstrate that it is impossible and not what she wants. They don't change, not completely. Both are still bad boys, they just feel really guilty about it. Whedon focuses on the strength of friendship and realistically depicts "romantic love" as a fire that burns through you but does not last. It's an amazing high, but not something that you can maintain day after day after day. A relationship requires a bit more than that.
Harry Potter like Buffy has more to it than the Twilight series. It demonstrates that magic, immortality, and seeking your value in others are empty things. Love is what gets us through and living life, the hard way, without taking short-cuts. The hero's journey may sound silly, but there is a reason that it has universal appeal - it is at the heart of our religious myths, from Osiris to Jesus. Even Innana and Isis. Twilight - a series for young girls is admittedly meant to be nothing more or less than a fun read - much like watching Cinderella or Snow White or say Disney's Enchanted - except these were far better structured and had more depth thus more longevity and cultural resonance.
From the summaries of the Twilight series - I think the writer was attempting to convey the rigors of young romance and childbirth. The pain and confusion of it. But she does it badly. I can see the appeal of such books but I think the hype over them is grossly misplaced and based solely upon revenues. And I take issue with the media for doing it. There are so many other writers and books out there, much better ones, that deserve your attention and promotion. Books we never see. I was discussing the role of film critics recently with a friend, in light of the massive lay-offs in NY publishing, and said that they were necessary over us mere bloggers because they see more films and are able to champion those small little known films we'd never see otherwise - such as Tell No One, Little Miss Sunshine, and The Waitress. Book reviewers have a similar role. Blockbusters or cotton candy reads don't require much promotion. You don't need to review them. It is a waste of time. They aren't marketed to people who care about such things. Harry Potter, I could understand, it was actually well written and had something to say on a universial and political level that I'm not sure Stephanie Meyer and her ilk have the education or intellectual capacity to appreciate from what I've seen of her writing and interviews. Why waste our time with this? Because it is all about money of course, and image. The desire to appear hip.
It's sad that not more novels are written for little girls that have the depth and quality of the Harry Potter or Philip K. Pullman's Dark Materials or Frank L. Baum's Wizard of OZ series. Judy Bloom and Nancy Drew to an extent covered that for the pre-junior high set, but not for the high school and young adults. Is it any wonder so many of us go back to the classic writers such as Laura Ingels Wilder, Frances Hodgson, Jane Austen, Lousia May Alcott, and Frank L. Baum. Even Ronald Dahl with his sly and at times misanthropic wit. JK Rowlings at times feels like Dahl sans the misanthropy.
The media is a weird beast. Focusing on revenues, the amount of sales raked in over a limited period of time. The Dark Knight - broke records. Titantic broke records and got an Oscar as a result, even if more worthy films sat unnoticed and unreviewed alongside it. And well now we have Twilight. But it is all temporary. Few people re-watch Titantic now. Or care. And in time it will fade from our consciousness. As will the Dark Knight, and Twilight. Much as Jacqueline Susan's Valley of the Dolls, and John Grisham's The Firm have. Or the romantic novels of Jane Austen and Lousia May Alcott's times. Shakespeare was not necessarily the most popular or famous playwrite of his time, Chris Marlow gave him a run for his money. But Shakespeare is the one we remember.
Why. Have we ever asked ourselves why? Why did JK Rowlings book cross so many lines, gender, age, ethnicity? Why did Star Wars? Or Wizard of OZ? Or Buffy? What did they have in common? The heros journey? No, I think it is more than that - they had characters that were in some ways like us, but others role models for what we would like to be. Characters who struggled against unspeakable odds, yet with ingenuity, caring, love and help from the friends pulled through. Who fought against their selfish impulses and did not change or sacrifice themselves purely for romantic love or to have a monster child regardless of the cost to society. They cared about something outside of themselves and their friends and family. They were heroes. And it is in a way, what we all aspire to, to contribute, to help, to grow, learn, evolve. The happy ending, if there is one, is often the ability to be surrounded by those we love, not necessarily those we want to fuck, screw or make love to, but those we know will stand by us when we are old, wrinkled and infirm.
These are the tales that last. The Brontes wrote about this as well, in their gothic romances, the painful Wuthering Heights, and the more positive Jane Eyre. And this is why, in twenty years, Stephanie Meyer will barely be in print, forgotten on a shelf, while JK Rowling's work will endure and handed down to future generations.
embers_log who was upset when I deleted my last post on this topic.]Ran into a fellow novelist (actually a published one) on my way to the wine store this afternoon. He used to own a genre book store and ran a genre book club I'd joined in the late nineties until it disbanded like all book clubs eventually do. This one made it almost eight years before going the way of the Dodo.
At any rate, he told me he had an adventure tale, a la Indiana Jones coming out, as well as a novella entitled Chasing the Dragon. Then we chatted about the Stephanie Meyer phenomena otherwise known as Twilight for a bit, which he compared to The Da Vinci Code. Except of course for one teeny little detail, Da Vinci is better written. I was actually able to make it through the Da Vinic Code and enjoyed aspects of it (the movie's better by the way), not so much regarding Twilight. Hmm, if the film version of Da Vinci Code was better than the book - maybe the film version of Twilight will be better? Amazing as it might sound but there are some novels that actually translate better to the screen - The Godfather, The Exorcist, and Rosemary's Baby are examples. [Not to imply that The Godfather, the Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby weren't well written, they were, and in no other way shape or form compare to Twilight, well except for Rosemary's having a monster child...but outside of that...not so much.]
**For those who don't know what Twilight series is - it a series of poorly written young adult gothic romance novels. The story focuses on a naive and "pure" young girl who crushes madly on a handsome boy who happens to be a vampire in a northwestern small town. After many misunderstandings and entanglements, they get married and have a baby. (I clearly could care less if I spoil anyone on this factoid.) The girl is pretty but dumb. The boy is pretty and dangerous, filled with all sorts of disasterous cravings. The book defies logic and contains a lot of adverbs and syrupy description. It is similar from a romantic perspective not a plot perspective to the Buffy/Angel and Moonlight romances, except the female character is not very strong intellectually or physically, and swoons a lot. In short she's a damsel.
It's not the book Twilight that annoys me or even that it was published, although I am starting to wonder about the publishing industry and popular taste. I've seen a lot of poorly edited and written books in my life time. Unfortunately most of them are genre - hence the reason no one takes genre very seriously - and considers it pulp. It's because it is pulp. If you've ever read a Barbara Cartland novel you know whereof I speak. I read ten of them when I was 10 years of age. Georgette Heyer is a lot better by the way. And Cartland is actually a lot better than Meyer. Even the breakout hits are pulp. Few are remembered. Harry Potter was amongst the exceptions to the rule, a breakout hit, yet at the same time a cult phenomena that passed into the mainstream and is memorable. It did something completely different and crossed gender, age, ethnic, and cultural barriers in a way that I seriously doubt the Twilight series can. Not to mention the fact that it was written by a woman that people could identify with - a welfare mom, who needed a break. The under-dog. Meyer, needless to say, is not any of those things. Also as far as I can figure Twilight appeals to a specific and narrow demographic. A poll I did on my own lj in a way proved my point. Interesting results - 100% of the responders stated they hated or had no interest in Twilight, most of them were admittedly above the age of 30, and female. There were three men. While 95% stated they loved Harry Potter and read all the books. Granted it did not have more than 20 responders. But I think it did show the problem Twilight has in capturing Rowlings success.
Yet, the media, being the media, insists that 1.8 million sold means Meyer has inherited Rowlings throne. What they fail to see is the differences between the two authors and books, why one book will become a children's classic and read over and over and over again, and the other will end up in the trash, lucky to still be in print in ten-fifteen years. It's not like SE Hinton's Outsiders, or Judy Bloom's Forever. It doesn't even have the unique voice of Keatly Snyder's Witches of Worm and The Velvet Room, or Shirley Jackson's We've Always Lived in the Castle. And as far as gothic and fantasy romance goes, Meyer is no Phyllis A Whitney, Mary Stewart, Ann Rice or Ann McCaffrey. Yes, I've read them all.
Unlike those authors, her books stick to the fairy tale trappings of romance, but do not from the summaries I've seen understand the complexities. Unlike Buffy the Vampire Slayer which was targeted to the same demographic - a teenage girl audience, Meyer does not comment on the abusive nature of the bad boy relationship or show it's reality and complexity. Her metaphors are not as intricate as say a Robin McKinley who wrote the far superior Sunshine. Granted, she is correct when she states not all women need to know kung-fu and be able to fight like a boy to be strong and have a strong feminist voice. I agree, I certainly don't know kung-fu. Most of us, don't. But she misses the point of Buffy, it was not about the fight scenes. Buffy's strength lay in her ability to choose her own path and not allow herself to be taken over by another. While she is seduced by Angel and Spike, she can live without them, she doesn't feel the need to sacrifice herself for them - instead they end up sacrificing themselves for her, changing for her, yet and this important, the writers deftly and subtley demonstrate that it is impossible and not what she wants. They don't change, not completely. Both are still bad boys, they just feel really guilty about it. Whedon focuses on the strength of friendship and realistically depicts "romantic love" as a fire that burns through you but does not last. It's an amazing high, but not something that you can maintain day after day after day. A relationship requires a bit more than that.
Harry Potter like Buffy has more to it than the Twilight series. It demonstrates that magic, immortality, and seeking your value in others are empty things. Love is what gets us through and living life, the hard way, without taking short-cuts. The hero's journey may sound silly, but there is a reason that it has universal appeal - it is at the heart of our religious myths, from Osiris to Jesus. Even Innana and Isis. Twilight - a series for young girls is admittedly meant to be nothing more or less than a fun read - much like watching Cinderella or Snow White or say Disney's Enchanted - except these were far better structured and had more depth thus more longevity and cultural resonance.
From the summaries of the Twilight series - I think the writer was attempting to convey the rigors of young romance and childbirth. The pain and confusion of it. But she does it badly. I can see the appeal of such books but I think the hype over them is grossly misplaced and based solely upon revenues. And I take issue with the media for doing it. There are so many other writers and books out there, much better ones, that deserve your attention and promotion. Books we never see. I was discussing the role of film critics recently with a friend, in light of the massive lay-offs in NY publishing, and said that they were necessary over us mere bloggers because they see more films and are able to champion those small little known films we'd never see otherwise - such as Tell No One, Little Miss Sunshine, and The Waitress. Book reviewers have a similar role. Blockbusters or cotton candy reads don't require much promotion. You don't need to review them. It is a waste of time. They aren't marketed to people who care about such things. Harry Potter, I could understand, it was actually well written and had something to say on a universial and political level that I'm not sure Stephanie Meyer and her ilk have the education or intellectual capacity to appreciate from what I've seen of her writing and interviews. Why waste our time with this? Because it is all about money of course, and image. The desire to appear hip.
It's sad that not more novels are written for little girls that have the depth and quality of the Harry Potter or Philip K. Pullman's Dark Materials or Frank L. Baum's Wizard of OZ series. Judy Bloom and Nancy Drew to an extent covered that for the pre-junior high set, but not for the high school and young adults. Is it any wonder so many of us go back to the classic writers such as Laura Ingels Wilder, Frances Hodgson, Jane Austen, Lousia May Alcott, and Frank L. Baum. Even Ronald Dahl with his sly and at times misanthropic wit. JK Rowlings at times feels like Dahl sans the misanthropy.
The media is a weird beast. Focusing on revenues, the amount of sales raked in over a limited period of time. The Dark Knight - broke records. Titantic broke records and got an Oscar as a result, even if more worthy films sat unnoticed and unreviewed alongside it. And well now we have Twilight. But it is all temporary. Few people re-watch Titantic now. Or care. And in time it will fade from our consciousness. As will the Dark Knight, and Twilight. Much as Jacqueline Susan's Valley of the Dolls, and John Grisham's The Firm have. Or the romantic novels of Jane Austen and Lousia May Alcott's times. Shakespeare was not necessarily the most popular or famous playwrite of his time, Chris Marlow gave him a run for his money. But Shakespeare is the one we remember.
Why. Have we ever asked ourselves why? Why did JK Rowlings book cross so many lines, gender, age, ethnicity? Why did Star Wars? Or Wizard of OZ? Or Buffy? What did they have in common? The heros journey? No, I think it is more than that - they had characters that were in some ways like us, but others role models for what we would like to be. Characters who struggled against unspeakable odds, yet with ingenuity, caring, love and help from the friends pulled through. Who fought against their selfish impulses and did not change or sacrifice themselves purely for romantic love or to have a monster child regardless of the cost to society. They cared about something outside of themselves and their friends and family. They were heroes. And it is in a way, what we all aspire to, to contribute, to help, to grow, learn, evolve. The happy ending, if there is one, is often the ability to be surrounded by those we love, not necessarily those we want to fuck, screw or make love to, but those we know will stand by us when we are old, wrinkled and infirm.
These are the tales that last. The Brontes wrote about this as well, in their gothic romances, the painful Wuthering Heights, and the more positive Jane Eyre. And this is why, in twenty years, Stephanie Meyer will barely be in print, forgotten on a shelf, while JK Rowling's work will endure and handed down to future generations.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-11 02:01 am (UTC)It is a funny thing about 'popular' books, I don't always assume I'm going to love them, in fact I expect my taste to differ.... I'll admit that I read DaVinci Code with enjoyment, I felt that the writer presented his bogus 'proofs' and theories in a way I could buy for the length of the book, and he had a nice romance developing (I DIDN'T find the movie to be as good, or at all good, because there was no attempt to make the 'evidence' believable and the romance didn't work at all in spite of settings that should have been romantic). But I didn't like it enough to try any of his other books, like Mitchner and Grisham who I can tolerate if I am stranded with nothing better to read, I don't seek them out!
I have loved romances, when they are by Jane Austen or Georgette Heyer (Stephen Fry recently said that he is addicted to Heyer's Regency Romances so now I'm no longer embarrassed to love them!), but the vast majority that get published now days are unreadable (I did try Cartland but they are the same bad plots with the same insipid characters, I can't understand anyone actually enjoying her). But basically I don't think the genre is really for me, I need the sci-fi, fantasy, and/or mystery hook to really give a damn.
As a child I really loved Louisa May Alcott, and I find that she holds up for a reread... but not that many authors do. Are her books romances? I guess most of them must be, certainly 'An Old Fashioned Girl' is mostly about young people growing up and getting married....
I'm rambling... Anyway, thanks for the review! I will be skipping 'Twilight'!
no subject
Date: 2008-08-11 02:21 am (UTC)Cartlandt is a boring writer. I remember reading her when I visited my Grandparents. What I'd do is go upstairs grab about ten to twenty books sit in a chair with the stack next to me in their living room while they chatted or snoozed or did whatever, and proceed to read one after the other.
I think I went through five Cartlandt novels in the space of a day. One does not read Cartlandt, one scans her and reads the banter. I'm wondering if people did much the same thing with Twilight?
I know it's how I read Da Vinci - part of my problem with it is I figured it out midway through. And the romance did not work for me.
And...I had read several similar and better written books, including the Eight by Katherine Neville, the Secret History by Donna Tart, the Seville Communion, the Club Dumas, the Flanders Panel all by Arturor Perez-Reverte. And... the hype. Everybody kept talking about how great it was. I read it? Grisham is a lot better. This guy uses descriptive short-cuts. (Being a writer makes me very critical of other writers - I've trained myself to unconsciously pull apart their style, word choice, and decide what works and doesn't. It's an odd thing, I know.) That said, he's not a bad writer. The story was clear. The characters left an impression. And it was a fun quick read. Also he didn't use a lot of adverbs.
I can't see you liking Twilight. I think it would really annoy you.
[I probably should have stuck with my original review of Twilight - which was much more succinct and a lot shorter. But oh well...]
no subject
Date: 2008-08-11 02:57 am (UTC)Grisham's world seems so superficial and materialistic to me, I never could really enjoy any of his characters. I genuinely liked spending time w/the professor dude in 'DaVinci Code', and I had thought Tom Hanks would be great in the role, but some how he had left all his personal charm somewhere else... that movie really didn't work for me! Of course there are tons of better books, these are ones I read at the beach when I'd run out of reading material and would pick up anything I could find (like my reading James Mitchner in India where I had trouble finding anything in English). Anyway I know what you mean about reading Gartland at your Grandparent's, there are just some times when you'll read ANYTHING! LOL
no subject
Date: 2008-08-11 10:41 pm (UTC)Meyer doesn't understand how that is anti-feminist. A lot of people don't. And that frightens me. Buffy and Harry Potter in contrast made it clear that we are not defined by our romantic relationships or our children, that there is a lot more to life than that. And we should not allow someone else to take us over completely.
Spike wanted to take Buffy over, he wanted to possess her. But to do so meant losing the very things he loved most about her, he'd have to hurt her to do it and that drove him nuts. So he went to change himself, thinking, he could obtain what he wanted that way. Angel - was the same way, he wanted Buffy, he wanted her to be his, to control everything, but to do so, would literally destroy her. He could not change to be with her either, because that destroyed him. It's an interesting and very realistic message.
Not necessarily tragic or unhappy though, unless of course you think that the only possible happy ending is to end up with someone. People seem to think being alone and celibate is a tragic fate, it's not.
There are far worse things - the conclusion of Twilight is certainly amongst them, as many a victim of Domestic Violence has discovered.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-11 05:28 pm (UTC)I was just going to reply to your reply, but you seem to have deleted it!
In the email you wrote:
"I think so much of how we perceive books or artwork or tv is based on our
experiences, past and present."
and that is 100% true, we all filter everything we read/see/hear through our own experiences. Personally I was loving all the foreign cities Brown visited in 'DaVinci Code' which gave the book an ambiance of romance, a feeling I carry with me when traveling in Europe.
I've only read a couple of Grisham's books and often when I was bored and desperate for distraction and not finding the material involving enough to do the trick. I don't even remember the titles although one was the one w/the little boy/witness they later made a movie from (but most of his books have been made into films, haven't they?).
no subject
Date: 2008-08-11 10:27 pm (UTC)Here it is: Interesting, I felt that Brown's was more superficial and materialistic.
Although I'd agree both are to an extent. My favorite of the Grisham's
was Time to Kill and the one about the insurance company - both of which
I identified with, since I was in law school at the time and had worked
with public defenders, prisoners, and legal aid. It felt real to me.
Brown's Da Vinici Code was thrust on me at Xmas, I was hacking,
sniffling, and could barely breath. Mom thrust it at me and told me to
read it. I did and was disappointed. I'd studied archeology and
anthropology in school as well as religion and mythology, I found Brown's
take on it sort of silly and romantic - it reminded me a great deal of a
book I'd recently written - which was partly why my mother thrust it on
me. ;-) It was fun, I finished it in about a week, but also incredibly
silly in places.
I think so much of how we perceive books or artwork or tv is based on our
experiences, past and present.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-11 10:54 pm (UTC)Have to admit parts of Da Vinci were fun. I liked the puzzel and I adored the villian. My parents enjoyed the novel more than I did, partly because they'd been to the places he visited in it, and they knew the Catholic doctrine.
I gave up on Grisham a while back. The last Grisham that I read and really enjoyed was The Runaway Jury - the movie is better by the way, partly because it starred John Cusak, and had a marvelous scene with Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman. Actually most of the films are better, with the exception of The Firm - the book had a much more satisfying ending.
For a while I was a huge fan of legal thrillers - mostly because I knew the lingo and knew what they were doing and caught the inside jokes (which you wouldn't get if you haven't been to law school). Then I got burned out on the genre. Can't read them at all now. Of the Grishams...the few that I remember, I liked The Client - great movie, Time to Kill (horrid movie), and the Insurance one that I can't remember the name of but I identified with - because I'd worked in legal aid. Scott Turow - the author of The Paper Chase - is the better writer, but far less prolific, partly because he is still practicing law. Haven't read as many of his. They get a bit redundant after a while. Grisham created the genre more or less, then once he burned through it, started writing novels like Nicholas Sparks (which I also find unreadable.).
Heck most of the books are the bestseller lists don't work for me...even the Oprah ones.