Slate's Bizbox




culturebox: Arts, entertainment, and more.

Jonathan Franzen: A Defense

from: Jodi Kantor
to: Chris Lehmann and Eliza Truitt

Don't Mistake This for a Literary Debate 

Posted Thursday, Nov. 1, 2001, at 5:50 PM ET

Who are these people?

But Chris: Did the Partisan Review crowd quibble over seals and jacket covers? Don't mistake this for a literary debate; for that see the continuing furor over Franzen's 1996 Harper's essay on the decline of the social novel. Covergate is really about Oprah's Book Club; people have been dissing or praising it since its inception, and Franzen's red-faced dithering has made The Corrections into an unwitting referendum on the club. Some variation on the same dust-up would have occurred if Oprah had picked any chic, complex, highly praised novel. So if this is a literary debate, it's the most tiresome kind, the kind that's about everything in the universe but the book itself (which is a shame; as I'll explain in a second, some discussion of the content of the book would add worthy, important fuel to the debate, possibly elevating it to the kind of discussion you ask for). If everyone who's followed this debate had actually read The Corrections, Franzen wouldn't need Oprah's sales help.

And Eliza, I just don't buy the Franzen-is-a-rube line. The guy's a master of nuance, social analysis, expression, word choice. He's published three well-acclaimed novels. He's been interviewed by everyone in the universe. And the maxim he's violated is the most basic, clichéd one in the book, and about a book: He's judged one by its cover. Worse, he's judged his own book. And even worse than that, he's done so in a way that betrays his characters and makes him seem like a different Jonathan Franzen than the one who created this entrancing novel. As Laura Miller alludes to in this wisely argued Salon piece, Franzen wrote a generous, unsnobby book. In fact, his heroine, Enid, is the kind of consumer who would opt to buy the Oprah-endorsed cover over the plain one. Franzen's slow vindication of Enid is utterly moving, convincing, and there's not an ounce of condescension in it either. It's disappointing that he can't muster the same largeness of spirit in life that he does on the page—it's like seeing a priest steal or a judge lie. And a bad publicity move, of course: If Franzen had been clearheaded and sensible enough to tell readers, "Just read the book, forget what's on the outside," maybe they would listen.



from: Jodi Kantor
to: Chris Lehmann and Eliza Truitt

Don't Mistake This for a Literary Debate 

Posted Thursday, Nov. 1, 2001, at 5:50 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

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)





Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby