I had listened to the interview originally and found Bushnell far more engaging and gutsy than I had expected. (In fact, I took some of her books out of the library and read them for the first time. I have never seen Sex and the City. Not my cup of tea. I have no personal or emotional investment in Candace Bushnell.)

When I heard Mr. Ashbrook refer to this interview as “a bit of a train wreck” a day or so ago, I thought, “Hmmm, was it that bad? I wonder what I missed.” So I went back and listened to it a second time. Yes, a second time!

I am surprised by the amount of vitriol that has been heaped on Ms. Bushnell in these comments. She stepped slightly out of line, by not being deferential and charming. Instead, she was not polished; she was sometimes blunt — really, she talked like a writer. Writers are not generally known for their social elan. Most unforgivably of all, she asked Mr. Ashbrook to let her finish what she was saying!

She doesn’t know how to play the interview game, obviously. But the words used to describe her in this thread — shrill? She never raised her voice. Rude, vulgar, inane, self-absorbed — even “a dullard” and “brassy” at one and the same time! How did she manage that?

Her interview in no way deserved the verbal abuse found in these comments. Some deliberate distortion has also taken place — I took her comment about Flaubert to be an attempt to point out that many authors have written in detail about clothes, expensive items, and so on, because those authors understood them to be important. I didn’t hear her comment as an attempt to assert that she was in the same class as Flaubert.

You know what? Tom Ashbrook, who routinely talks over, interrupts, and drowns out, his guests, met his match in Ms. Bushnell. (The only interviewee I have ever heard him interview politely — asking a question and then listening to the response without interruption — was John Updike. The ONLY one.)

Good for you, Ms. Bushnell.

I *love* SATC, but now I’m convinced that the TV show was the creation of its producers, writers, and directors and only loosely based on this vapid woman’s writing. The characters, plot lines, and observations of the show are full of authentic insights about people and culture — it really is not all about the materialism. But it’s clear that Bushnell is completely clueless about this.

Bushnell shares a salient trait with Madonna: She is oblivious to her mediocrity and mistakes her own fortuitous success with some sort of brilliance (in her case “anthropological”). Truth is, she only supplied the kernel for other talented people to create a TV show possessing layers of insight and commentary that I seriously doubt ever existed in her own original “work”.

As the conversation started, I wondered why I didn’t just see SITC as another piece of chick lit. But it truly is different and can be held accountable as such.

Bravo Tom for taking on this topic… and that FASCINATING and easily angered woman… you got stuff out of her that no one else could have!!

Mr.Newman while being a wealthy celebrity was the opposite of Candace Bushnell in the way he lived and by his example. He gave back to society that gave him so much. In countless interviews he would state how he was lucky and that people like him had an obligation to help people less fortunate than himslef.

Ms. Bushnell would be wise to take heed of Mr.Newman’s example.

When I heard Candace Bushnell’s voice on the radio, it all made sense. This is a vulgar woman, with bad manners and ill-thought out opinions. I had read a review of her new book and had decided I was not interested in reading it. What a waste of time and resources to have her on the radio…

That being said, when I watched the show I believed the show was more about friendships between women in a somewhat hostile environment than materialism, especially in the first few seasons. Fashion became more of a character later on. Those damned shoes are Carrie’s fetish and obession, not those of the other characters. Furthermore, she pays the price for her financial indiscretions when she realizes she cannot buy an apartment with her fiance Evan because she has frittered her money away, and she has to go to “Big”, her ex for a loan, so some object lessons were made in the show. Nevertheless, I do see how the easily impressionable can get the wrong message and focus on the stuff rather than the ups and downs of the friendships.

Anyway, that’s all I’ll say. We aren’t curing cancer or the world financial crisis here, and Tom, I’m so sorry. She was awful.

It saddens me to think that she is actually influencing people with her materialistic, twisted views. Please don’t encourage her by giving her a platform to speak publicly on your show again.

Bushnell is a joke, and her defensive attitude the lack of her ability to have a rational discussion was sad.

She’s what in her late 40’s or early 50’s, she sounded like a 16 year old spoiled girl from the burbs.

I beg the producers of On Point to never have this person on again.

The Gene Simmons interview was mentioned, I hate to say it this was worse. At least Simmons had half a brain.

I hope Ms. Bushnell reads the comments of these pages. I hope she NEVER appears on any Public Radio program again. As a supporter of NPR and PRI, I would not continue to support such a disrespectful person as Ms. Bushnell.

Kudos to Tom for handling this person with respect and kindness.

Mark in St. Louis