--{ on jonathan franzen }------
So Jonathan Franzen has rejected the Oprah Book Club offer. I have to say, this move, I actually agree with. I've always wanted to see someone reject that, because basically I don't like Oprah Book Club books. Too mushy for me, I say, too much about family and emotions. Not that I'm saying they're bad books, on some scale of literary value, they're just not the type of books I'd want a book of mine to be associated with. Like if I were writing jazz and all of the sudden goths started loving me. Or vice versa. It would weird me out just too much. I would have to back out, too. See, I know my niche (me and people who read what I read), and really, that's all I want to please. I am limited and boring that way.
So what Franzen did, in my mind, is a good thing. BUT I HATE JONATHAN FRANZEN! Or at least I hate what I've seen of him. I've hated him for awhile. He is the worst of pontificating authors. Completely snobby, pompous. Read his 1996 essay on the state of fiction. Read his reviews of other books. Watch him on TV, commenting on the World Trade Center attacks. His tone just puts me off. As if he knows all. Argh.
His snobbiness, I suppose, goes right along with his rejection of Oprah's Book Club offer.
So I am torn. A guy I hate does something I like -- what do I make of this? I can't help but think that a nicer person than Franzen could've pulled the move off better. Or would've apologized, and not in a "I didn't mean to come across as" kind of way, but in a truly "I'm sorry" kind of way. Or a true "unashamed elitist" (his words from his 1996 essay) would've held his ground. Wuss.
Still, what should I do -- reevaluate Franzen? Reevaluate what it means to reject the Oprah Book Club? Reevaluate my own nichiness slash snobbiness?
And then I wonder -- is Franzen at least being genuine (genuinely snobby but conflicted, that is)? And if so, then is that better than being snobby and conflicted but media-savvy and manipulative? Are my instincts as to what Franzen should be doing shaped by my time in DC, and if so, do I need to disinfect myself of this smarmy Washington politicky attitude?
Casey, you of all people would understand this dilemma, I think. Email me about this when you get the chance, or I'll cut and paste this in my next email to you.
I have to note: I haven't read The Corrections (despite the fact that reviewers indicate that it falls within my niche), and was not intending to, because I find Franzen such an obnoxious person that I don't want my money going towards him. Should I reevaluate this as well?
I have to also note: I first became aware of the Franzen hoopla through Diana's blog, even though I do independently stalk the man just to see what's up with him, but only occasionally.
102901
(later)
from the discussion with casey in re: jonathan franzen, with minor edits for clarity
Me to Casey: You've rightfully pointed out a place where I was conflating too much in my blog. What I should have said was "I've always wanted to see someone reject an Oprah nomination on the basis of some stance or another, because so many people seem to *say* they're against the Book Club. Plus it helps that I generally I don't like Oprah Book Club books."
Basically, I do have some respect for people in general who are willing to take a stand for something they believe in (even though that turns out not to be quite what Franzen did, he just moaned about it), regardless of whether I agree with that stand. And if Franzen actually did think he was "above" being in the Book Club, or if for some other reason he thought it was "wrong" for him to be associated with the Book Club, then even actually saying so is a moderately commendable thing. Much better than being two-faced about it, I think. Call it my reaction to Washington, and the two-facedness that comes with that city.
And a correction from Casey: "After typing all this, I went to Salon to check out what actually happened, and it's not Franzen who turned Oprah down, it's Oprah who withdrew the invitation."
Oops, sorry.
Anyway: I might share more snippets (though if I quote substantial parts from you, Casey, I'll be sure to ask permission first) from this exchange after I'd had more time to think about it. Because it really does raise a lot of interesting issues about the role of book clubs and the differences (and overlaps) between taste and value. Casey, by the way, thinks that Franzen's just being a twit.
(110101)
yet more on franzen
So I've been talking to Casey about the whole Franzen debacle, and here's as close as I can to getting the conclusions we've reached out of it all.
Casey sez:
> I think he was two-faced. He just wasn't very
> careful about which face he showed in public. I
> wish I had the text of his comments in front of
> me, though, because this is all kind of based on
> hazily-remembered interviews.
And I sez:
) After all of this discussion, I now agree. I had
) thought it was a flat refusal, at first, which (to me)
) wouldn't have been two-faced. But what he did does
) seem to be.
But in the course of it, we've had some great discussions about hipster writers and what book clubs are for. So Franzen, though twit-like he might be, has provided quite a bit of amusement for all of us.
(even later)
more on franzen
So now Slate's talking about it too, providing a "defense" of Franzen that mostly says that Oprah shouldn't've discontinued the debate (about the validity of being uncomfortable with "Oprah Book Club" on the cover of one's book, etc.) in the way that she did. I'm not sure that's technically a defense (though that's what Slate's calling it) -- it's more like a claim that Franzen's not the only one at fault here.
Anyway, a lot of good points are raised in the Slate discussion, though in the end, I still think Franzen's a bit of a twit, regardless of how honest and unsnobby The Corrections might be. But then, I'd thought that Franzen was obnoxious since waaaay before the whole book club debacle, so my perceptions are colored.
Oh, and though the Slate discussion is characterized as a defense, there's nevertheless an excerpt from the Slate discussion that echoes a bit of what Casey was saying over email (almost word for word, in re judging his own book):
"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."