Jonathan Franzen: A Defense
Franzen's Fear of Taint by Association
From: Jodi Kantor
To: Eliza Truitt, Chris Lehmann, and Josh Daniel Posted Friday, Nov. 2, 2001, at 11:55 AM ETWho are these people?
Sure, Eliza, The Corrections is a veritable opera of aspiration and snobbery—I tried to say that in my first post—and yes, Enid plays the anti-sophisticate of the bunch. But I disagree with you that Franzen is cruel to her. In fact, I'd say Franzen is in love with the geeky charm of her bad taste—her salads made with marshmallows and mayonnaise, for instance. (Or is it Russian dressing? I'd check this, but you've got my copy of the book in Seattle.) Franzen aims more scorn at the kids' indulgences: Denise's celeb-happy restaurant, Gary's son's expensive spy kit. And some of the book's most admirable tricks involve the parallels between the parents' and the kids' respective forms of striving—Enid's elegance-envy is in every way the parent of her daughter's fashion-conscious cuisine. As our reviewers point out here, it's also where some of the best writing in the book comes: Our sympathy for Enid is too powerful to be anything but the result of Franzen's planning.
And no, Chris, I wouldn't usually suggest asking writers to live up to the moral standards of their work. But it's hard not to flinch—to feel disappointed—when you see Franzen violating them during the course of promoting the self-same book, especially when you took the book to heart as much as I did. Meanwhile: Franzen, a bad interview? The man who confides that he writes blindfolded, as Josh incredulously points out? This is a guy who commits what almost everyone has called a major blunder and then, instead of hiding in his room, keeps giving contemplative interviews about it. I'll Q his A anytime.
Related in Slate
Related on the Web
Also, just to be clear, I don't have a problem with Franzen's lukewarm-ish pans of other Oprah picks. (After she dismissed him, many people hoped that Franzen would act like the literary brat he's accused of being and let loose with a splashing, crashing rant about Oprah and all she surveys.) What I can't understand is his fear that his book might be tainted by association—that all of his talent, hard work, masterful execution, and rave reviews might be mysteriously overpowered by some maudlin smell lingering from Oprah's last pick. If that's the case, why not also refuse Wal-Mart (one of the nation's largest booksellers) or People magazine, for fear that the book will be contaminated by or confused with the inferior work sold or reviewed on the next shelf or page? (This is what Dave Eggers has done: created a private literary universe where he gets to set all the rules, pick all his fellow authors, approve every cover, and even try to pre-empt his press coverage. And if he can make it work—well, good for him, at least he's putting his money where his mouth is.) And yeah, Josh, I would be delighted to sport Oprah's seal of approval. (Some goofster should make up a lapel pin with the OBC seal. It could be the mischievous fashion accessory of the season.)
Chris, I loved your riff on the condescension of thinking of Oprah as the Mother Librarian of Us All. (Her book club reminds me, not in a bad way, of those elementary school posters that say, "Reading is FUN-damental!") Her dismissal of Franzen was so canny and disingenuous it's worth repeating: "It is never my intention to make anyone uncomfortable or cause anyone conflict." Oprah, who's made ka-jillions of dollars by publicly exploring emotional trauma!
Got to go disco. Hope your weekends are as much fun as this has been.
Jodi
Franzen's Fear of Taint by Association
From: Jodi Kantor
To: Eliza Truitt, Chris Lehmann, and Josh Daniel Posted Friday, Nov. 2, 2001, at 11:55 AM ETEliza asks: "What publishing person in his right mind would get on the wrong side of Oprah, when she has the power to make your career with a single phone call?" As someone who's worked in publishing for 20 years, I think she's missing a much more basic source of the fury launched against Franzen by publishing types. When an editor finds a manuscript she loves, she'll often devote years to making it into a successful book. She not only has to work carefully and closely with the author to make the manuscript as sharp as it can be. She's also got to do constant battle within her own company to make sure the book gets attention from the marketing and sales staff. And in the end, what happens 99 percent of the time? The book comes out, sells a lousy 3,000 copies, and is completely forgotten in a month. What offends publishing people about Franzen's Oprah dis is that he blithely blew his grab at the gold ring--to actually have his book, his baby, read by a whole lot of people. It's an opportunity few authors ever get, so it's just plain ugly to see it squandered.
--Neely O’Hara
(To find or edit this post, click here.)
Who can blame [Franzen]? There have been any number of Oprah picks that aren't at all shallow. Andre Dubus, Tawni O'Dell (and who would have thought that someone named Tawni could write a serious book), and, of course, Toni Morrison (and who would have thought that someone named Toni...never mind). Still, who came blame any serious writer for being a little ambivalent about the whole selection. This is Oprah we're talking about, a reasonably intelligent and articulate person, no denying, but she's also someone who called Gary Zukav's nonsensical Seat of the Soul the most important book she's ever read!
--Edita Booke
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
Is it possible to defend Franzen? Probably not, but I'm always up for a logical challenge.
Franzen's assertion, put crudely, is that his book is too deep for the likes of Oprah and co. I don't believe this to be true, but it also isn't inconceivable--for example, some books require special training or background to read (textbooks, for example). Franzen's assertion then could simply mean that high art types have a different background than Oprah's people which allows them understand his book. Is this true? This is difficult to answer because it is only in Franzen's minds that these groups really exist in coherent form--but I can also imagine believing that anyone who values Oprah's opinion on books might be ill-equipped to read Franzen's book. This is clearer if you imagine a Pat Robertson book club--it might sell books, but a lot of people wouldn't like to be on his list, just for reasons of fundamental incompatibility (without implying failings on the part of the readers).
Given that Franzen made this assertion in an insulting fashion, Oprah responded quite reasonably--but she also could have shown him his assertion is incorrect by inviting him to discuss his views. Now, you don't wish to have an idiot on to discuss his views, but if she initially held a positive opinion of his ideas (indicated by the book selection), his expression of disdain for her should not alter that--although she might not personally respect him.
So here's a positive spin on it:
Franzen's Assertions:
1) Oprah's audience comprise a set of individuals with some commonalities of philosophy and style .
2) That philosophy and style are contrary to my own and so I do not wish to promote my book to these people.
Oprah's possible responses:
1) That's it for you!
2) I respect the ideas expressed in your book and believe you to be incorrect in your judgments about my audience. Regardless of your opinion of me, why don't you give it a shot, and we can also discuss your thoughts on "high art."
Oprah largely chose option 1.
--Devil on the shoulder of the ghost of a-z
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(11/5)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Eliza asks: "What publishing person in his right mind would get on the wrong side of Oprah, when she has the power to make your career with a single phone call?" As someone who's worked in publishing for 20 years, I think she's missing a much more basic source of the fury launched against Franzen by publishing types. When an editor finds a manuscript she loves, she'll often devote years to making it into a successful book. She not only has to work carefully and closely with the author to make the manuscript as sharp as it can be. She's also got to do constant battle within her own company to make sure the book gets attention from the marketing and sales staff. And in the end, what happens 99 percent of the time? The book comes out, sells a lousy 3,000 copies, and is completely forgotten in a month. What offends publishing people about Franzen's Oprah dis is that he blithely blew his grab at the gold ring--to actually have his book, his baby, read by a whole lot of people. It's an opportunity few authors ever get, so it's just plain ugly to see it squandered.
--Neely O’Hara
(To find or edit this post, click here.)
Who can blame [Franzen]? There have been any number of Oprah picks that aren't at all shallow. Andre Dubus, Tawni O'Dell (and who would have thought that someone named Tawni could write a serious book), and, of course, Toni Morrison (and who would have thought that someone named Toni...never mind). Still, who came blame any serious writer for being a little ambivalent about the whole selection. This is Oprah we're talking about, a reasonably intelligent and articulate person, no denying, but she's also someone who called Gary Zukav's nonsensical Seat of the Soul the most important book she's ever read!
--Edita Booke
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
Is it possible to defend Franzen? Probably not, but I'm always up for a logical challenge.
Franzen's assertion, put crudely, is that his book is too deep for the likes of Oprah and co. I don't believe this to be true, but it also isn't inconceivable--for example, some books require special training or background to read (textbooks, for example). Franzen's assertion then could simply mean that high art types have a different background than Oprah's people which allows them understand his book. Is this true? This is difficult to answer because it is only in Franzen's minds that these groups really exist in coherent form--but I can also imagine believing that anyone who values Oprah's opinion on books might be ill-equipped to read Franzen's book. This is clearer if you imagine a Pat Robertson book club--it might sell books, but a lot of people wouldn't like to be on his list, just for reasons of fundamental incompatibility (without implying failings on the part of the readers).
Given that Franzen made this assertion in an insulting fashion, Oprah responded quite reasonably--but she also could have shown him his assertion is incorrect by inviting him to discuss his views. Now, you don't wish to have an idiot on to discuss his views, but if she initially held a positive opinion of his ideas (indicated by the book selection), his expression of disdain for her should not alter that--although she might not personally respect him.
So here's a positive spin on it:
Franzen's Assertions:
1) Oprah's audience comprise a set of individuals with some commonalities of philosophy and style .
2) That philosophy and style are contrary to my own and so I do not wish to promote my book to these people.
Oprah's possible responses:
1) That's it for you!
2) I respect the ideas expressed in your book and believe you to be incorrect in your judgments about my audience. Regardless of your opinion of me, why don't you give it a shot, and we can also discuss your thoughts on "high art."
Oprah largely chose option 1.
--Devil on the shoulder of the ghost of a-z
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(11/5)