This interview is just awesome, the way that Jacqueline susann destroys the smartass lady interviewer is brilliant.Jackie was totally in control of the situation and future interviewees can learn a lesson from her.And also Jacqueline susann was a very intelligent person who got zero respect from the media at the time. She deserves a reevaluation as a writer and a cultural influence, she was a very sharp person.
Wow! The level of disrespect Susann had to endure in her lifetime was ridiculous! If the interviewer disliked "The Love Machine" so much, why did she finish it? SMH
This was a very telling interview about certain dynamics among women. The Author, Susann held her own magnificently. You will have different views. Strive to respect one another as women.
Jackie is AWESOME!!! She is so smart and you can see her cleverness and wit here. I would love to have seen Jackie after the camera stopped. She had quiet the colorful vocabulary and she had to have been swearing up a storm afterward. This interviewer in an attempt to insult and discredit Jackie, comes off instead looking like an uptight moron. Jackie deserved praise and recognition as woman using her intellect, power, and smarts to achieve.
The audacity of this interviewer confuses me. I'd never ever talk to another person like that, what the hell?? Edit: Just read that she was pretty misogynistic, that explains her cattiness.
The interviewer is Barbara Frum a very famous Canadian journalist....the dynamics between these two women is amazing like a movie it could be from one of her novels
If she was venal and just wanted money, she should have just said so. She sees sales numbers as equivalent to quality. She needed extensive editing after doing about four drafts. She and Irving were ruthless promoters and exploiters of base public taste. Books as pulp and commodity. Ok, the themes where some actresses took a few pills and some gal had daddy fixation (January Wayne in 1973's Once Is Not Enough). Does that warrant 400 pages?
I like Jackie's chutzpah. She was ballsy, she was vain, glamorous. However, she was an egregious writer! She failed to grasp what literary merit was, because she equated sales and money as the only measure! Her books- especially 'Valley' needed endless re-writes. She was formulaic. She envied Harold Robbins, who really could write, but chose to dumb down and do sex scenes to make a lot of cash! It is akin to a non-artist producing a work on canvas and saying it's comparable to a Picasso. Literary works have subtlety, are artful, have creative use of language (Dolores, 1974, is basically just point form notes for a book! Terrible),are exemplary in their form and usage, can be interpreted in numerous ways, stand the test of time (Jane Austen),are improving, innovative (eg Portnoy's Complaint- now that's a literary work that deals with sex!) and doesn't rely on sensation to thrill a reader. Fine writing is enduring. Susann did not write a good sex scene, she wrote horrible heterosexual 'love' scenes. She harboured a lesbian attraction according to her biographer, she had an autistic son who was put away- Guy. Her husband Irving was a marketer and expert promoter, money was their principal pursuit beside hobnobbing with celebrities. Susann's nemesis, Truman Capote also relished fame and glamour BUT was a literary author. His work IN COLD BLOOD was the true hit of 1966, not Valley! Why? Because it was original, a magisterial work of fictionalized reportage written with a readability that astonishes today. Susann's book was mere pulp, although today 57 years later retains some minor interest as a cultural reflection of 1945-66. Judge the author's work not the author. A bad novel says more about the author than a good novel. If you want art, try reading Alice Munro. She wrote about ordinary situations and people, not about billionaires with a hard-ons trying to conquer the world like Harold Robbins or Jackie Collins- another forgotten purveyor of trash. Jackie Susann just needed to say "I want money, I can't really write'. Don't pretend you're in the literary category if you're not! "Miss" Susann lied about her age, she played it as cool as a cucumber but behind her style their sat no substance. She was an actress not a writer. Playing the role of writer was her finest, if only successful, part. Like Robbins, Susann wrote with an eye on the movie rights. She and Irving always had dollar signs in their eyes! The literati wasted their time debating Susann in any discourse or discussion over literary quality and merit. As Jaqueline Susann said in another interview: she didn't care what readers thought, as long as they paid their $5.95 (for the hardcover of 'Valley')
Dude you're outrageous. You made me laugh but hey, leave this woman be ! You sound like a jilted crazy person who once loved Jackie but then hates her and wants to destroy her reputation like a hyper trolling borderline fan XD
This interview is just awesome, the way that Jacqueline susann destroys the smartass lady interviewer is brilliant.Jackie was totally in control of the situation and future interviewees can learn a lesson from her.And also Jacqueline susann was a very intelligent person who got zero respect from the media at the time. She deserves a reevaluation as a writer and a cultural influence, she was a very sharp person.
The interviewer is almost a parody of the classic snotty intellectual snob. Susann had to continually fend off these types.
Could the volume be any lower ????????
Jackie looks AMAZING here, and she HELD her own in this interview. I LOVE it
Had very good Korean hair wigs.
Wow! The level of disrespect Susann had to endure in her lifetime was ridiculous! If the interviewer disliked "The Love Machine" so much, why did she finish it? SMH
Seriously?
This was a very telling interview about certain dynamics among women. The Author, Susann held her own magnificently.
You will have different views. Strive to respect one another as women.
Jackie is AWESOME!!! She is so smart and you can see her cleverness and wit here. I would love to have seen Jackie after the camera stopped. She had quiet the colorful vocabulary and she had to have been swearing up a storm afterward. This interviewer in an attempt to insult and discredit Jackie, comes off instead looking like an uptight moron. Jackie deserved praise and recognition as woman using her intellect, power, and smarts to achieve.
Read the Susann biography Lovely Me.
Jacqueline Susann dealt with this very well.
“HOOOOLY CONDESCENSION!” on part of the interviewer. And what tact Ms. Susann had in handling her! 👌❤️
The audacity of this interviewer confuses me. I'd never ever talk to another person like that, what the hell??
Edit: Just read that she was pretty misogynistic, that explains her cattiness.
What a snide woman that interviewer is! Jacqueline on the other hand was class.
The interviewer is so snobby and rude. 😮
41? She was 51 in 1969.
Who’s the interviewer?
The interviewer is Barbara Frum a very famous Canadian journalist....the dynamics between these two women is amazing like a movie it could be from one of her novels
@@nigel65deckI’d watch a movie like this, similar to Nixon/Frost!
If she was venal and just wanted money, she should have just said so. She sees sales numbers as equivalent to quality. She needed extensive editing after doing about four drafts. She and Irving were ruthless promoters and exploiters of base public taste. Books as pulp and commodity. Ok, the themes where some actresses took a few pills and some gal had daddy fixation (January Wayne in 1973's Once Is Not Enough). Does that warrant 400 pages?
I like Jackie's chutzpah. She was ballsy, she was vain, glamorous. However, she was an egregious writer! She failed to grasp what literary merit was, because she equated sales and money as the only measure! Her books- especially 'Valley' needed endless re-writes. She was formulaic. She envied Harold Robbins, who really could write, but chose to dumb down and do sex scenes to make a lot of cash! It is akin to a non-artist producing a work on canvas and saying it's comparable to a Picasso. Literary works have subtlety, are artful, have creative use of language (Dolores, 1974, is basically just point form notes for a book! Terrible),are exemplary in their form and usage, can be interpreted in numerous ways, stand the test of time (Jane Austen),are improving, innovative (eg Portnoy's Complaint- now that's a literary work that deals with sex!) and doesn't rely on sensation to thrill a reader. Fine writing is enduring. Susann did not write a good sex scene, she wrote horrible heterosexual 'love' scenes. She harboured a lesbian attraction according to her biographer, she had an autistic son who was put away- Guy. Her husband Irving was a marketer and expert promoter, money was their principal pursuit beside hobnobbing with celebrities. Susann's nemesis, Truman Capote also relished fame and glamour BUT was a literary author. His work IN COLD BLOOD was the true hit of 1966, not Valley! Why? Because it was original, a magisterial work of fictionalized reportage written with a readability that astonishes today. Susann's book was mere pulp, although today 57 years later retains some minor interest as a cultural reflection of 1945-66. Judge the author's work not the author. A bad novel says more about the author than a good novel. If you want art, try reading Alice Munro. She wrote about ordinary situations and people, not about billionaires with a hard-ons trying to conquer the world like Harold Robbins or Jackie Collins- another forgotten purveyor of trash. Jackie Susann just needed to say "I want money, I can't really write'. Don't pretend you're in the literary category if you're not! "Miss" Susann lied about her age, she played it as cool as a cucumber but behind her style their sat no substance. She was an actress not a writer. Playing the role of writer was her finest, if only successful, part. Like Robbins, Susann wrote with an eye on the movie rights. She and Irving always had dollar signs in their eyes! The literati wasted their time debating Susann in any discourse or discussion over literary quality and merit. As Jaqueline Susann said in another interview: she didn't care what readers thought, as long as they paid their $5.95 (for the hardcover of 'Valley')
qq
Dude you're outrageous. You made me laugh but hey, leave this woman be ! You sound like a jilted crazy person who once loved Jackie but then hates her and wants to destroy her reputation like a hyper trolling borderline fan XD
Lol.
SHE'S AN INCREDIBLE INTERVIEW AND DIDN'T BUDGE FROM THIS HEINOUS WOMAN
Who's heinous? jackie? She can't even defend fellow Jew, Philip Roth. Her claims to high literary art are as fatuous as they are laughable.