
I'm not sure I've had two comments on the same post so quickly on this blog ever, but I got two in the first 12 hours or so that my post "
He may show us the way to live but he hasn't shown us the way to write" was up -- part 3 of my Rum Punch Review of Jonathan Franzen's freeom.
So the
real lesson of these comments might be "
If you want readers, make fun of Jonathan Franzen and/or people who write about 9/11."
But I thought both comments were worth highlighting -- even though both are critical of me to a greater or lesser degree.
Commenter Minonda was succinct:
Don't even try to criticize his writing. You're absurd to suggest that there's anything wrong with it. Another frickin anti-Franzen.
Am I an
anti-Franzen? My first thought was
No way! My second thought was
well, I was pretty critical of his writing, both in Freedom
and, in retrospect, in The Corrections.
My third thought was
I should probably not have had two sausage biscuits on the way into the office this morning, but that didn't really relate to the first two.
Unless it did...But maybe I'm in good company; if you google "
anti-Franzen," and, remember,
googling things is the way everyone proves everything these days, even scientists, there's 2,000,000 hits, but the number one result of those searched (at least right now) is an article saying that women writers, especially, are upset by the good reviews
Freedom got-- not because it's Franzen, or
Freedom, necessarily, but because
the book is by a white male.
In truth, the
anti-Franzen debate doesn't seem to be so much about whether or not
Freedom is a good book or not as it is about whether or not the
New York Times book reviews unfairly favor white male (kind of Jewish?) writers. The
anti-Franzens the way Minonda seems to mean it look to be limited to
me, and a guy named
Jacques Day, who commented on
The Awl's short review of the
NYT's review of
Freedom by saying this:
The Volvo 240 allusion shows what I think Franzen does. He tells people in a certain demographic things already know about themselves, in a cheeky, "literary" kind of way that will bore the hell out of readers years hence. Seems to me his books are made up of the dreary exposition of inconsequential events, followed by the author's telling the reader what to think about those events.
Read in a certain light, the NYT review is a pan.
And then there's the prurient appeal of Franzen–it's basically Jerry Springer with a masters degree. It seems literary, so it's OK to want to find out what slutty thing so-and-so did and how late her teenage son stayed out last night . . .
Let's start an anti-Franzen revolution.
Jacques doesn't stop there:
Spoiler alert! The Iraq war was a fraud, liberal idealists are often hypocrites, and suburbia is dysfunctional. Get Franzen's unique take on American life in the new novel.
You know, we could all learn a little something from Jacques... about how to
write sarcasm.
(Franzen's
Freedom, by the way, was
a runner up for a not-as-prestigious award, the Bad Sex Writing prize, -- presumably for the Joey phone sex parts, but I could be wrong -- but he lost, being edged out by
The Shape Of Her, which won by describing one sex scene as being “
like a lepidopterist mounting a tough-skinned insect with a too blunt pin.”)
If there's one thing we all agree on, though, it's that Rogue Mutt's a heckuva writer. Frequent commenter Rogue took me to task for two things: First, saying that
he can use 9/11:
In my book (http://amzn.to/huiFud) I used 9/11 in it because the one main characters works on Wall Street and I realized he was going to be in New York during 9/11 so it would have been stupid for it not to come up. But it turns out not just being a political statement or anything; what happens actually moves the plot forward.
I should add, first, that
his book, Where You Belong, makes a great Christmas present and you should really go buy it right now before you even read what I have to say about his comment, and what I have to say is this:
I suppose that might be all right. Also, Rogue's comment goes on to note that in
The Time Traveler's Wife the characters just
watched 9/11, and that's what happened in
Last Night In Twisted River, too -- people watch on TV and have reactions to what they're seeing, which really makes the stories nothing more complicated than an average
Family Guy episode,
Family Guy simply being a compendium of jokes about TV shows Seth MacFarlane has watched.
Rogue then gets critical of me, implying
I might be
less than accurate with my facts, adding as a parting shot:
BTW, weren't "Family Ties" and "Cheers" both on NBC?
But just because
he's right doesn't mean
I'm wrong. This is America, after all.