Sign Up

Get the latest ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

All , Coverage

All Pop Culture Coverage

Interview by

Think you know all there is to know about Chanel No. 5? Think again. The perfume that famously was the only thing Marilyn Monroe wore to bed has a fascinating history revealed by English professor Tilar J. Mazzeo in The Secret of Chanel No. 5. Read on for more.

Before The Secret of Chanel No. 5 you published The Widow Clicquot, a book about the woman behind Veuve Cliquot. How did one luxury item lead to another?
It was my interest in wine and scent that led me to perfume. If you think about it, there are very close connections there. Essentially, both are aromatic volatiles suspended in alcohol—just in wine it’s alcohol we can drink. I got the idea for the book one day at the kitchen counter of a good friend who is a perfume collector of sorts, when I had just come back from three months(!) of wine-tasting research for my book on The Back Lane Wineries of Napa. My nose was very acute after all that tasting, and I realized that perfume was a fascinating subject that I wanted to know more about.

"The idea that it’s an older woman’s perfume always makes me laugh a bit though. That’s like saying diamonds are for little old ladies just because your grandmother had the good sense to wear them."

When it came to writing The Secret of Chanel No. 5, were you initially motivated by the perfume, or were you more interested in the woman behind the bottle?
It was definitely the perfume. I wanted to know what made a great perfume. I mean, if we know how to talk about great wines, why not think about great perfumes? And of course that led me to Chanel No. 5 immediately, because it’s not just the world’s most famous perfume but also a scent that the experts still praise as one of the most beautiful scents from the golden age of the 1920s and 1930s.

So much has already been written about Coco Chanel—how did you manage to take someone who has spawned countless books and films and keep her fresh?
Yes, Coco Chanel certainly is experiencing a revival at the moment. She’s emblematic of style and savvy for a lot of women especially. What I wanted to understand was how Chanel No. 5 had its own unique destiny apart from her—because by the mid-1920s she wasn’t the entrepreneurial genius behind it already. At the same time, it’s really interesting: looking at Coco Chanel’s intimate relationship with her most famous “creation” reveals whole new aspects of her personality and art. There are sides of Coco Chanel we’ve never seen.

Can you tell us a little bit about what goes into researching something as iconic as Chanel No. 5?
This was some of the most fun research I’ve ever done—and for someone whose last book was on one of the great figures of French champagne, that’s saying something. Of course there was the library research. There was a lot of it. And that was fascinating if not fun exactly. But my writing is always personal too, so I visited with perfumers around the world, everywhere from Paris and Berlin to New York, the south of France, and Bermuda. I was lucky enough to work for a bit with the perfume professor at International Flavors and Fragrances in New York City and to learn some of the technical aspects of perfume appreciation there. I met with the odor artist Sissel Tolaas in Berlin, visited the rose harvest in Grasse, and talked with dozens and dozens of interesting people who have made perfume their passion. If I had life to do over again, I would be a perfumer. No question.

In your mind, is there a quintessential woman who wears Chanel No. 5?
Well, it’s an adaptable scent, but it’s a very distinctive perfume too. I think a woman has to have confidence to wear it. For me that’s the key thing about Chanel No. 5. It’s not your retiring wallflower fragrance, and I think of it as a scent for women in their 20s and 30s and 40s and not as a teenager’s first perfume. The idea that it’s an older woman’s perfume always makes me laugh a bit though. That’s like saying diamonds are for little old ladies just because your grandmother had the good sense to wear them.

So much about fashion and style is ephemeral—what is it about Chanel No. 5 that has made it timeless?
That’s really the question isn’t it? That was what I wanted to figure out in researching this cultural icon. Technically, it’s a wonderful fragrance, but of course there are other wonderful fragrances out there that haven’t become legends. And in the beginning, it wasn’t just Coco Chanel or marketing either that made it famous. So it was something of a riddle. But in the end, what makes it timeless is that way that it became a larger symbol of luxury during the Second World War, when it was one of the few beautiful things to cut across international borders. It captures so much of the complexity of the last century—and that’s what makes it so essentially relevant to the modern woman’s identity.

Tell the truth: do you wear Chanel No. 5?
Yes, I do wear Chanel No. 5 sometimes. I have a bottle on my bureau at home always. But it’s not my daily perfume. I actually prefer Chanel’sEau Première, which is a lighter and I think ultra-modern version of Chanel No. 5. It’s basically the same notes but more angular, and that’s my regular scent. I am also a huge fan of iris scents, but those can get fabulously expensive.

If someone were going to give you a gift, which would you prefer: a bottle of Veuve Clicquot, or a bottle of Chanel No. 5?
Unfair question! I hope the Widow will forgive me—because goodness knows there are few things in this world I love more than a bottle of Veuve—but I think I’d have to take the bottle of Chanel No. 5 just because a bottle of champagne lasts a night and a bottle of perfume lasts a year. That’s part of the reason during the Second World War perfume became the ultimate luxury. It was an indulgence that, in hard economic times, you could enjoy a little bit every day.

We don't want you to spill all your secrets, but what's one surprising thing readers will discover in The Secret of Chanel No. 5?
For me, one of the most surprising things was that Coco Chanel wasn’t the force behind Chanel No. 5. By the time she came to “invent” Chanel No. 5, this was already a scent with a fascinating history. And part of why she both loved and, at moments, hated her creation was because, quite early in its history, Chanel No. 5 slipped free of the woman whose name it carried. It was a perfume with a life of its own.

Think you know all there is to know about Chanel No. 5? Think again. The perfume that famously was the only thing Marilyn Monroe wore to bed has a fascinating history revealed by English professor Tilar J. Mazzeo in The Secret of Chanel No. 5. Read…

Interview by

Michael Barson has been a comics collector for decades, in addition to his day job as co-director of publicity for Putnam/Riverhead Publishing. He’s collected some of the finest examples of 1940s and 1950s love comics in the new anthology Agonizing Love.

In the panels of the brightly colored comics that once filled newsstands, young women of the era picked up pointers on finding and keeping love. These tear-jerking pop culture delights feature such stories as “The Man I Couldn’t Love,” “My Heart Cried Out” and “I Loved a Weakling.” Cheesy as the comics might seem to the modern reader, Barson thinks these vintage “morality plays” might still offer all of us some important lessons on love.

We asked Barson to tell us more about his obsession with collectibles, the appeal of romance comics and the agonizing nature of love through the ages.

How and why did you begin to collect romance comic books?
I started pretty late in life in terms of collecting the classic Romance comics. I had been collecting all sorts of other genres since the mid-60s—Superhero, War, Sci-Fi, Horror, even Funny Animal—but it wasn’t until I bumped into a big collection of vintage Love comics that was being offered for sale in the early ‘80s at NY’s Forbidden Planet store, in their collectible comics section, that it suddenly clicked—How cool are these? It was a group that contained most of the early Simon & Kirby Young Romance issues, and those proved my entry point into collecting this category for the first time. Later I bemoaned the fact that I probably had passed over several hundred (if not several thousand) tasty Romance issues over the previous 10 or 12 years while collecting in all those other genres; love comics just didn’t register for me at that time.

Why did you decide to share your collection with readers?
What’s the fun in collecting something for almost 30 years if you can’t share it with others? Let’s face it, 99 percent of the world out there would never have a chance to read any of these little gems if someone—in this case, me—didn’t take the time and effort to rescue them from obscurity. I feel I am performing a service, however modest, for humanity.

For those who aren’t familiar with the genre, can you give us a capsule description of what a “romance comic” is?
To oversimplify terribly, most of the stories that appeared in Love comics during their golden period—to me, 1947 to 1960 or so—are little morality plays that have been given a seven- or eight- page stage on which to play out. Sometimes the resolution is a happy ending, but not always. But I think it’s fair to say that in 98 percent of the cases, a lesson is learned by one of the characters in the story—a lesson that will change their attitudes and philosophy going forward.

These comics look hilariously cheesy today. Do you think readers took them seriously back then?

To the extent that even a teenage girl or young woman (probably the target audience for these comics) would take any kind of comic book in a totally serious manner, I would answer with a qualified “yes.” In that pre-Ironic era, the main reason for someone to buy and read Love comics was because they connected to both the medium and the message. They weren’t partaking of these in order to get a quick laugh—there were humor comics such as Archie and Betty and Veronica for that purpose. So while the readers of the day were not treating these romance issues as the second coming of Madame Bovary, I believe they were reading them in a serious frame of mind.

Do you have a favorite romance comic cover or story?

I don’t have a single favorite, but I will admit to being partial to the Mother-in-law subgenre. There’s something about those that just tickles my fancy, even though my own real-life mother-in-law is perfectly benign. But not so in the stories about them that I’ve included here! And I do have friends in real life who are very much embroiled in a problem of this exact nature. 

What's the most important lesson you've learned about love from a romance comic?

If you just got hitched, don’t invite your mother-in-law to move in with you on your wedding night. That goes for both of you!

Is love any different today than it was in a half-century ago?

Love, and its surrounding mysteries and problems, is exactly the same, I am convinced. The only difference is that eHarmony didn’t exist in 1951. Not that it (or any of the other popular dot-com dating sites) seems to have done all that much good.

Is love always agonizing?

In my experience, yes. Because if it isn’t you that’s doing the agonizing, then the other person probably is. The real question is, would we really have it any other way? The empirical evidence of the past 100 years suggests the answer is no.

You’re the father of three sons. If you could give your children one piece of advice about love, what would it be?

Collect stamps instead. Or at least try to avoid the 434 mistakes I was too dumb to avoid.

You’re an avid collector of pop culture memorabilia—everything from postcards and posters to magazines and comics. Where on earth do you keep all this stuff? Does your collecting drive your wife crazy?
Yes, I have in fact driven my wife crazy because of the millions (nahhh, it’s really just thousands) of pieces of moldering antique memorabilia over which she stumbles every morning. And afternoon and evening.

But let me ask you—does that make me a bad person?? Right—I was afraid of that.

 

Michael Barson has been a comics collector for decades, in addition to his day job as co-director of publicity for Putnam/Riverhead Publishing. He’s collected some of the finest examples of 1940s and 1950s love comics in the new anthology Agonizing Love.

In the panels of the…

Stephen Greenblatt, perhaps best known for his Shakespeare biography Will in the World, now takes readers on a journey to the philosophical heart of the Renaissance in his latest book, The Swerve.

At the center of your book is the Roman philosopher and poet Lucretius and his poem De Rerum Natura (“On the Nature of Things”). What led you to focus on this poem?
I’m fascinated by the fact that the great ancient speculations about the nature of the material world—the existence of atoms, the creation of the universe through random collisions, the absence of a providential design, the absurdity of any fear of the gods—were carried by a magnificent poem.

What do you mean by “the swerve”?
Lucretius uses the term (his favorite Latin word for it was clinamen, as in the root of English words like inclination, declination, etc.) to describe a shift in the direction of the atoms. It only takes the tiniest such swerve—as in the famous example of the wings of butterfly—to bring about enormous and unexpected changes. For Lucretius the existence of such swerves is what makes human freedom possible—since otherwise, everything would move in lockstep.

The Swerve takes up in many ways from your groundbreaking earlier book, Renaissance Self-Fashioning. What led you to write this new book now?
You are certainly right that in one way or another I’ve been thinking for many years about the strange events that lead from one cultural epoch to another. How does a whole culture alter its deepest assumptions about the world? What happens to change the way men and women live their lives? Such questions are at once tantalizing and very difficult to answer—so I’ve returned to them again and again.

The other hero of your book is a little-known Florentine notary and papal secretary named Poggio Bracciolini. How did Poggio discover Lucretius’ manuscript, and how did he preserve it?
Poggio was a book-hunter, the greatest of his age, perhaps the greatest who ever lived. He discovered a 9th-century manuscript of the poem in the library of a German monastery. He ordered a scribe to transcribe it and send the transcription to Florence, where it was copied more carefully by a learned friend.

Did you follow in Poggio’s footsteps in your research? What were some of your favorite places for research?
I did spend time in some of the places dear to Poggio: his birthplace Terranuova (now Terranuova Bracciolini), though that is now, thanks to World War II damage, a sad relic of what it once was; nearby Arezzo; his beloved Florence (including Michelangelo’s Laurentian Library); the Vatican. My favorite place for the writing was the elegant library of the American Academy in Rome, on the top of the Janiculum Hill overlooking the whole city.

Did you learn anything that surprised you while writing The Swerve?
I was constantly surprised: by the way in which ancient books were copied; by the organization of the great classical libraries; by the monastic cult of pain; by the vitriolic loathing of early humanists; by the intellectual daring of a few Renaissance readers of Lucretius who were willing to risk persecution and death.

You first read Lucretius on a summer vacation from college. What led you to pick up the poem after all these years?
I had actually had it in mind to work on Lucretius for many years, but I always held back because I felt I did not know enough. I still don’t, but I knew that I was running out of time!

How has “On the Nature of Things” influenced the thinking of writers and artists beyond the Renaissance?
Probably the most direct influence was on the writers and artists of the Enlightenment, people like Diderot or Voltaire or Locke who were able to encounter the excitement of the poem without so intense a fear of imprisonment and death. But the influence has extended well beyond the 18th century. For example, in the modern era, Lucretius was a powerful influence on the great Portuguese poet Pessoa, the Italian novelist and short story writer Italo Calvino, the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges and the French intellectual Michel Foucault.

What does Lucretius have to say to us today?
I will not try to say in a sentence or two everything that it has taken me a whole book to write. But perhaps at the center of what Lucretius has to say—to me at least—is a calm acceptance of mortality conjoined with the enhanced experience of wonder and pleasure.

What’s next for you?
At the moment I’m writing a short book about Shakespeare and the idea of life—a book influenced more by contemporary evolutionary biology than by the ancient Lucretius.

Stephen Greenblatt, perhaps best known for his Shakespeare biography Will in the World, now takes readers on a journey to the philosophical heart of the Renaissance in his latest book, The Swerve.

At the center of your book is the Roman philosopher and…

Interview by

Zac Bissonnette’s first book, Debt-Free U, was published in 2010 when he was a 20-year-old senior at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Since that very early start as a published author, he has gone on to write two more books (How to Be Richer, Smarter and Better-Looking Than Your Parents and Good Advice from Bad People) and served as a contributing writer for publications ranging from Time to The Wall Street Journal.

Bissonnette’s latest book, The Great Beanie Baby Bubble: Mass Delusion and the Dark Side of Cute, is a powerful cautionary tale about where a speculative craze can lead—and who gets hurt when the bubble pops.

 

Why did you decide to write this book?
I was in middle school when Beanie Babies were at their peak, and it was sort of my first introduction to the weirdness of speculative capitalism. My mother and I went to flea markets a lot and there was this one flea market that, overnight, became dominated by Beanie Baby dealers. I remember them wearing fanny packs and visors, talking excitedly about the rising values for the pieces they were hoarding.

That image stuck with me as I became more interested in business and the sort of behavioral side of things: why we make not-great decisions about money, which was very much at the core of my first two books (Debt-Free U and How to Be Richer. . .). Then, when I was in college, I saw a huge collection of perfectly preserved Beanie Babies sell for almost nothing at a local auction.

I went home and started to research Beanie Babies, and there were so many things about the craze that were immediately fascinating—mostly that it was so much bigger than I would have thought: 10 percent of eBay’s sales in the company’s early days came from Beanie Babies, and the creator of the animals, Ty Warner, became a billionaire and the richest man in the history of toys. Rare Beanie Babies sold for thousands of dollars, and a self-published book that predicted what each animal would be worth in the year 2008 sold more than three million copies. And then, in the early days of the millennium, the whole thing died and nearly all the Beanie Babies were instantly worthless. Ty Warner, meanwhile, celebrated by buying the Four Seasons Hotel in New York City, and by building a $150 million mansion in Montecito, California.

Everything about the story intrigued me and, much to the chagrin of everyone who knows me, Beanie Babies were pretty much the only thing I wanted to talk about for the two years I spent working on it.

 

"It began with a few extremely enthusiastic women in Chicago’s suburbs—smart, upper-middle-class women, including a doctor, a commodities trader and a teacher who, for strange reasons, just went absolutely nuts for Beanie Babies."

 

Can you briefly describe Ty Warner?
Brilliant, creative, meticulous, compulsive, devoted and charismatic, but also secretive and ruthless.

Almost everyone who knew him described him as paranoid and, while most people had tremendous respect for his gifts in terms of product design and marketing, his relationships, both personal and professional, tended to end badly. People who’ve worked there sometimes call him “The Steve Jobs of Plush”—and I think it’s a pretty good comparison. Unraveling the story of his strange life—including a lot of time talking with his sister, who is in her 60s and struggling with medical bills—was really interesting.

In your opinion, what was the secret to Warner’s success?
It really all started with the product. Beanie Babies happened without any advertising or distribution through big box stores. The craze took off through word of mouth—soccer moms seeing them in gift stores, and telling everyone about how incredible they were: thick fabrics and adorable designs at a five dollar price.

Talking to people who knew Warner in the early days, I was really impressed with his fanatical devotion to the product: the endless hours he’d spend poring through fabric samples, and the number of prototypes he’d go through for each animal before he got it to be exactly what he considered perfect. Even now, when he’s 70 years old and spectacularly rich, he’s still involved in the design of the animals—and spends a lot of time at the factories in China overseeing production.

For the first couple years of his company, back in the 1980s, he and his girlfriend personally trimmed and brushed every single animal before it was mailed to the retailer who’d ordered it. He was fanatical about the product; creating perfect stuffed animals was the driving force of his life. Everything that happened followed from that.

Where did the Beanie Baby craze begin?
As the song goes, they came in from the middle west and certainly impressed the population hereabouts.
 It began with a few extremely enthusiastic women in Chicago’s suburbs—smart, upper-middle-class women, including a doctor, a commodities trader and a teacher who, for strange reasons, just went  absolutely nuts for Beanie Babies.

As those first collectors tried to assemble complete collections, they started running up four-digit phone bills calling out-of-state gift shops in search of rare Beanie Babies. In the process, they became the force multipliers for the craze. When that small circle of early collectors had trouble finding the pieces that had been produced in really small quantities, they started to pay a lot of money for them—and the word of rising prices sparked further interest. Its viral spread began almost literally on a single cul-de-sac, but the early days of the Internet drove it into something unlike anything that had ever happened before. Ty was one of the first companies to use a website to really engage its consumers.

Which Beanie was worth the most money at the height of the craze? Why was it so desirable?
That would be Peanut the Royal Blue Elephant. She was desirable because she was so rare. Peanut was originally released in a royal blue color but after a few thousand had shipped, Ty changed the color to what he thought would be a more child-friendly baby blue; by 1998, the original Peanut was selling routinely for at least $4,000, and sometimes more for really mint condition examples.

The company changed the design of Beanie Babies pretty frequently and a lot of reporters and experts trying to understand the craze cited this as an example of Ty’s marketing genius. But, actually, it had nothing to do with that: It had to do with this insatiable quest for perfection. And so a piece would be out there and then he’d decide that he didn’t like the design and so he’d change it to try to make it cuter. That was the driving force of his life: creating the cutest stuffed animals. In a way that was entirely accidental, especially in the beginning, the changing of already released pieces made him the richest man in the history of toys.

 

“Do you think the ass on this one is too big?” Ty Warner asked a worker in his office.
“Ty, I’m an accountant,” the guy replied.

 

How many Beanie Babies do you think the serious collector had on hand in, say, 1997?
That’s the kind of information most large companies would have done extensive market research to find out about. But Ty never used focus groups or marketing consultants; his market research was to ask everyone he knew what they thought of the products—and then he’d assimilate that feedback from random people into his redesigns and new products. Someone who worked there described seeing Ty wandering the halls of the office with artist’s renderings of upcoming stuffed animals—and he once stopped one of his top finance executives and said “Do you think the ass on this one is too big?” “Ty, I’m an accountant,” the guy replied.

But from my own research, I would say that it was not at all uncommon for people to have hundreds of these animals—generally meticulously preserved. If you go on eBay and type in “Lot of Beanie Babies,” you can get a sense for how enormous the collections people built were.

What marked the beginning of the end of the Beanie Baby craze?
Really, it was inevitable: Speculative bubbles always end because they’re inherently irrational and they’re basically structured as pyramid schemes—even though they’re naturally occurring, and not necessarily the result of an evil scheme.

 In the case of Beanie Babies, the problems started when the production of the new pieces had increased by enough to satiate demand. At the end of 1998, Ty announced the retirement of a bunch of Beanie Babies—which was something that had always lend to a rush of buying and soaring values. Except that, for the first time with that December 1998 retirement, it didn’t happen. The Beanie Babies lingered on the shelves, retired but still available for five dollars each. It was the first crack in the notion that Beanie Babies were a good investment, and things got very painful for speculators pretty shortly thereafter.

What happened to most of the people who made it rich on the Beanie bubble?
It generally ended badly for them. Some of the early collectors who cashed in big because they’d hoarded the rarest pieces before they were worth a lot of money made hundreds of thousands of dollars—and then quickly lost the winnings in another big bubble that was happening right around the same time: Internet stocks.

A lot of the former salespeople at Ty—some of whom were making high-six figures per year in commissions after earning less than $30,000 per year two years earlier—remember having blown through the money pretty quickly because it never occurred to them that it wouldn’t last forever. Many of the dealers I talked to who made a ton of money in Beanie Babies ended up losing a lot of it on the inventory they got stuck with after the market fell apart in 1999 and early 2000. The big winner, of course, was Ty Warner.

What lessons do you hope readers will take away from this story?
It’s one of those things I never really thought about while writing the book—I really wanted to tell the story and capture this incredible thing that happened: how it happened and why it happened, and leave it to other people to ascertain what it all means.

To me though, the story of Beanie Babies and of Ty Warner is really about how wrong we can be about what has value.

Over 5,000 different Beanie animals exist today. Which one is your favorite?
It’s kind of like asking me to pick my favorite kid. But after several hours of thought and much prayer, I would say: Among the Beanie Babies, I think Kaleidoscope the Cat is one of the most exquisite and beautiful things I’ve ever seen. But for all of the plush animals Ty ever produced, Sugar, who is a big fluffy white cat, is my favorite. If you look up those two animals on eBay, I can almost guarantee you’ll find yourself buying them.

What was the strangest interview you did for this book and why?

There were so many. This was one of those projects where virtually everything about the reporting was at least tinged with weirdness—almost like the strangeness of the Beanie phenomenon had rubbed off at least a little on everyone involved in it.

But the strangest interview of all, I would have to say, was at a prison in West Virginia, where I spoke with a man who had, in 1999, murdered a coworker over a Beanie Baby debt. His first question to me before we got started: “So them Beanie Babies—are those still hot?”

 

Zac Bissonnette’s latest book, The Great Beanie Baby Bubble: Mass Delusion and the Dark Side of Cute, is a fascinating cautionary tale about where financial hysteria can lead—and who gets hurt when a bubble abruptly pops.
Interview by

Part one of “The Bachelor” season 35 finale is on the books, but tonight, part two airs, concluding Arie’s run as the titular bachelor. This season may not have been the most exciting thing to grace our televisions, but the show is an absolute powerhouse. It’s more than just a TV show—it’s a 15-year tradition that reflects America’s culture and fantasies. In her book, Bachelor Nation, journalist and die-hard Bachelor franchise fan Amy Kaufman interviews producers, contestants and fans who spill the details about what goes on behind the scenes, while also exploring what America’s obsession with this matchmaking show says about romance and femininity in America.

What do you think of the current season of “The Bachelor” so far?
Heading into the season, I was not stoked on Arie as our leading man. Given the Peter flame-out, Arie felt like a really obvious desperation move on the part of producers. So many of my friends swore they wouldn’t even tune into his season. Fortunately, many of those naysayers have still shown up at our weekly viewing parties—but none of us are into Arie. His female contestants are completely carrying the season. If it weren’t for women like Bekah M., Krystal and Tia, this thing would be seriously unwatchable.

In the pantheon of Bachelor and Bachelorette villains, where would you rank Krystal?
Honestly? We’ve had way better villains. I mean, Courtney Robertson? I miss the days when the villain was so villainous that she actually got the Bachelor himself to fall under her spell. I think Arie could see through Krystal’s act pretty quickly. I was also a huge fan of Chad Johnson, because you could tell he was actually a softie deep down and he also compared Evan Bass to Gary Oldman in The Fifth Element.

When it comes down to it, whom do you blame more for bad behavior on the show—the contestants or the producers?
This is a tricky one. The contract that the contestants sign to get on the show is really extensive, noting that producers maintain the right to reveal information “which may be embarrassing, unfavorable, shocking, humiliating, disparaging, and/or derogatory” about the cast members. So, yes, they’re signing up for this—but is there really a way for the cast members to know what they’re in for? So many people told me they went on the show thinking “OK, if I don’t drink too much and I don’t say anything controversial, I won’t look bad.” But unfortunately, you just don’t know how you might behave in such extenuating circumstances—or how editing might make it seem like you behaved.

You conducted a lot of interviews with Bachelor alumni and former crew—which one was the most surprising?
One of the most surprising interviews I did was with Michael Carroll, a producer who worked on the franchise during its early years. As part of his job, he’d conduct ITM interviews with cast members—those “in-the-moment” interviews that give viewers insight into how a contestant is feeling on a date, or in a departing limo. I asked Carroll how he’d come up with his line of questioning, and we decided to do a role play scenario where he grilled me as if I was on the show. I was shocked by how nervous he made me feel, and how much I felt like I had to give juicy answers to his questions. To see how it all unfolded, though, you’ll have to read the book.

What are your top three all-time favorite Bachelor franchise moments?
1. I’m sorry, Melissa Rycroft, but my number-one Bach moment is when Jason Mesnick dumped you on the “After the Final Rose” special. When Jason told runner-up Molly Malaney that he was still in love with her mere weeks after he’d proposed to Melissa, my mind was blown. The idea that something this dramatic and emotional could unfold on live television made a lifelong Bach fan.

2. Kaitlyn Bristowe sleeping with Nick Viall pre-Fantasy Suite. Way to break down those Bachelor social mores, girl!

3. Sharleen Joynt leaving Juan Pablo Galavis’ season early because she just wasn’t that into him. It was the first time on the franchise when we saw a cool, smart woman realize that this so-called prize at the center of the show wasn’t really all that valuable.

What do you think is it about the Bachelor franchise that you, and so many others, find so compelling?
So many fans of “The Bachelor” are quick to say they love to watch it because it’s a train wreck, and it’s fun to make fun of the over-the-top characters we see on TV. Live-snarking is definitely a huge part of Bachelor Nation, and I know my friends and I can get pretty judgmental on Monday nights. But I think there’s more to our obsession with the show—namely, that even in a time when we’re moving away from so-called traditional courtship (Tinder, anyone?), many of us still crave an old-school ideal of romance.

Why do you think the Bachelor franchise has lasted as long as it has? How do you think the show will evolve in the coming years?
The producers of “The Bachelor” have to maintain a difficult balance. So much of what fans love about the show are the predictable tropes that we see every season and relish laughing at, like two-on-one dates or Chris Harrison’s invitations to the Fantasy Suites. There are “traditional” elements of the franchise that I don’t think the producers should ever do away with—just look at how Bachelor Nation revolts on Twitter when we don’t get our normally scheduled rose ceremonies! That being said, I think they need to start thinking outside the box when it comes to casting the lead. The most important priority for the franchise, in my opinion, should be to continue to diversify the cast with different races, body types and sexual orientations. But what about picking a Bachelor or Bachelorette who isn’t from an old season? I get that there’s a built-in fan base at the ready when you go that route, but that’s also how we ended up with Arie. How cool would it have been if we had an actor or pro athlete or musician instead of a dude from six years ago who sometimes races cars? Let’s spice it up!

 

Photo credit Colin Douglas Gray

Amy Kaufman talks with us about behind-the-scenes juice from "The Bachelor" and her new book, Bachelor Nation.

Sign Up

Stay on top of new releases: Sign up for our newsletter to receive reading recommendations in your favorite genres.

Recent Reviews

Author Interviews

Recent Features