Jonathan Franzen: A Defense
Dear Chris,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponI agree wholeheartedly that ending the debate was a weak move by Oprah. If she wants to play the literary game, she should engage in the discussion that goes along with it. This point of view has been entirely absent so far in the Franzen dust-up debate.
But more to blame than Oprah is the literary community and the press, who have been merciless toward Franzen. Yes, it was ungracious for him to call Oprah's picks "shmaltzy." But good for him for saying her corporate logo made him uncomfortable. It's fair for him to feel iffy about being grouped with many of her young-girl-recovering-from-bad-childhood picks. If anyone should be exempted from the current universal requirement to profess a deep love for crappy culture, it's fancy-pants literary authors.
When the press chides him as disingenuous for saying he didn't understand the way the media work, they're also being unfair. According to a recent New York Times Magazine profile, he really is a hermit. He wrote The Corrections in "a spartan studio on 125th Street in East Harlem, behind soundproof walls and a window of double-paned glass. The blinds were drawn. The lights were off. And Franzen, hunched over his keyboard in a scavenged swivel chair held together with duct tape, wore earplugs, earmuffs and a blindfold." Before that, "for five years in the 1980's, Franzen and his wife … shared cramped quarters in Somerville, Mass., in which, separated by only 20 feet, they wrote eight hours each day and then, after a dinner break, read for five more." He went out to dinner once a year. He doesn't own a television. If that doesn't qualify him as a genuine media naïf, what would?
When he said, "I feel like I'm solidly in the high-art literary tradition," he probably had no idea that's a sentiment currently considered hopelessly gauche. But really, after reading his various essays in Harper's, did anyone doubt his ambition was for the stratosphere as opposed to a B&N end-cap display?
Franzen is a victim here, mainly of the publishing world's kowtowing to Oprah. Newsweek quoted a literary agent as saying, "Most of the people I hear talking about all this now refer to Franzen along the lines of 'that pompous prick.' " Another agent, quoted in the New York Observer, called him an "ungrateful bastard." 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?
And any writer who defends Franzen in this fight does so at the risk of ruining his own chances of ever scoring that cash cow. Why else would Rick Moody and Harold Bloom tell the New York Times' David Kirkpatrick that it was hypocritical to object to Winfrey's logo? What if Franzen had been asked to sell his book on QVC? He'd have moved plenty of copies. Would that have been acceptable to turn down as too commercial?
But Franzen is also a victim of a lack of self-knowledge. His comments show he's afraid of losing his literary credibility. Though Jonathan Yardley called the Oprah blunder "a move so stupid as to defy comprehension," I'd say it was more an expression of an author in deep denial about his own book. The Corrections, which I absolutely loved, is mainly an Anne Tyler-style family drama sprinkled with Don DeLillo-ish modern cultural trappings. After throwing down the gauntlet to the literary world that there weren't enough serious social novels, what has Franzen done but written a novel in which the "important" social aspects are the parts most readers don't care for? It must be a terrible thing to face.
Best,
Eliza
The Least Fun Thing About Video Games: Friendly Fire
Why Is It Such a Big Deal That We Found Water on the Moon?
My Czech Vacation Made Me Kinda Sad
Help! I Got My Co-Worker's Sister Pregnant!
The Obama Administration Is Giving This Gitmo Detainee a Raw Deal
Another Book From Philip Roth About How Much It Stinks To Get Old
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)