Jonathon Franzen has had a lot of hype lately ....

Front cover of Time, Picked by Oprah then declined by Franzen, and his new novel 'Freedom' being out this month. I have listened to a CD of his essays written for the New Yorker plus, this week, I listened to a very long CD of Corrections which won a National Book Award and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. I have to admit I don't care much for contemporary writers or post modernists if that's what you want to call them. Without the CD to listen to, I wouldn't have approached the novel. It is an easy listen while you are doing another chore. But has anyone else listened to or read Franzen? The modernists or writers of fifty years or so ago, I can get involved with: Sinclair Lewis, Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald etc. When I hear of a new American novelist, I want to give him a try, but Franzen's book is overly long and not very interesting to begin with. I'm beginning to think that fiction is dead as far as American novelists go. What do you think?

Apologies for this post not being an answer to your question, but what all contemporary authors have you read and found unsatisfactory?

There are some good contemporary American authors, although probably not as many as there used to be. Ralph Ellison and Don Delillo come to mind, in the non-fictional realm. In fiction, Raymond E. Feist and - say what you will about him - Christopher Paolini are decent. You just have to know where to look, I guess.

asking about opinions on Franzen because he seems to be the darling of the critics who perhaps are of his age and can relate to him better than I. Also, I wanted to keep the discusson to American writers. I have enjoyed Cormack McCarthy, although I don't know how he won the Pulitzer with The Road and its repetition. Don DeLilo is another one suffering from not enough editing: when you get past the first chapter of Underworld where BobbyThompson hit "the shot heard round the world", the book becomes uninteresting and I couldn't finish it. Philip Roth the same way. I have never been able to finish a book by Roth.

I have read Franzen's collection of essays, How to be Alone, prior to reading The Corrections (I am too ADD to stick with listening to audio books; I end up doing 5 other things!). My impression of Franzen is completely biased because he mirrors so many of the frustrations I have been harboring over the last few years as a reader and a writer. For that, Franzen made me feel a part of a larger community instead of an "outsider" trying to hold a literary mirror up to the impatience and consumerism technology is exacerbating in the world!

Neither his essays nor his novel, The Corrections, feel like the disjointed, fragmentary pastiche of the usual vein of postmodernism--for this I am thankful. I quite enjoyed The Corrections, and I appreciate Franzen's honesty as a truculent lover of the literary lifestyle and his exhaustive search to find his place in a world seemingly unconcerned with serious reading and writing. What is all comes back to is that the serious reader and writer should welcome himself back into the world instead of fighting against it and holding him- or herself above the world.

So, again, I am biased in that Franzen helped me unclench my fists, take a breath, calm down. I think he is a gifted writer, both nonfiction and fiction, who is able to articulate common concerns if not offer a medium through which to sublimate the concerns.

I agree with you. I picked this up at the Barnes & Noble, just glancing at the summary, and yawn. Oprah's endorsement means nothing to me. Most modern "literature" is self-indulgent and narcissistic, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuggageFan

Most modern "literature" is self-indulgent and narcissistic, IMO.

---

Care to elaborate?

I was captivated by the first 175 pages of Freedom. It's started to wear a little thin since. I've actually started reading War and Peace because of a bit where Freedom references it and I think I might actually finish that, all 560,000 words of it, before I finish Freedom. Why do people like Franzen? Probably because he does something that most 20th century authors failed to do: he integrates some of the strengths of the 19th century novel WITH modern elements. Freedom is extremely readable, extremely well written, it has the omniscientish narration that was the hallmark of the 19th century novel and some of nearly authorial commentary that came along with it- something I've missed in 20th century novels- without feeling especially traditional. That's rare today: something that is genuinely literary without being intensely experimental. And it's bound to play well with major art critics who are, let's face it, not literary theorists and who probably secretly appreciate novels that tell themselves. I can't say if I'll love Freedom in the end- it depends on whether Franzen can make me care about his characters again- but I like him better than most modern writers.

Your opinion gels with mine. I was able to finish (listening to a cd 19 discs long) Corrections,which is more than I can say for many contemporary writers which I have abandoned after a few chapters. I'll try Freedom if I can get it in a cd. I reserve my reading time for the classics. Franzen needs to cut down on length. If he ever gets to the level of a Maugham and has more interesting characters, his novels might prove more interesting. What is happening to editing? Connections is no Of Human Bondage and needed 200 plus pages omitted.

War and Peace held my interest from beginning to end. So did Anna Kerenina and Ressurection. The first time through these novels, I read each one. I listened to Anna K. recently since I had read it before, but found it to be as absorbing as the first time through. Tolstoy's characters are so much more interesting than contemporary writer's characters.

I must respond to a few things on this thread:

I have read Franzen's three previous novels. Haven't gotten to Freedom yet. Like laymonite, I think he is a gifted novelist. I see no reason to associate him with modern or postmodern schools. All of his novels are quite traditional. dfloyd compares his characters unfavorably with Tolsoy's, saying that those in Anna Karenina are more interesting. I can't agree. Half of Tolstoy;s characters are well drawn—the evil and troubled half. But the virtuous ones, Levin and Kitty Shcherbatsky, for example, are boring abstractions. This is a major problem, since, structurally, the novel juxtaposes sections addressing their affairs with those of Anna, Vronksky, and Karenin. Franzen's characterizations are spot on from what I have read and he has a great ear for dialogue.

As for Cormac McCarthy, here I will agree with dfloyd: The Road is not his best work. For me this novel, and No Country for Old Men, read like movie treatments. He is milking Hollywood now for all it is worth, and I don't blame him. His early Appalachian novels (Suttree, The Orchard Keeper, Outer Dark) are amazing. This is where he honed that flawless technique and shocking clarity and poetic precision of language. He could have gotten an award for any of these early novels. Perhaps the Pullitzer is an acknowledgment that he didn't get the recognition he deserved earlier?

Don DeLillo needed an editor for Underworld? Once again must disagree with dfloyd. This novel is a masterpiece. The main character, Nick Shay, is the quintessential portrait of a life undermined by an unshared secret.

So in answer to the main question: Is American fiction dead? Even after the demise of one of its greatest, William Gaddis, I'd answer a resounding no.

I found your post interesting so I hope we can agree to disagree. Our conflicting opinions are probably brought about by age differences. I am about the same age as Al, the father, in Connections. While Franzen's writing was lucid, it was overbearingly long. And, especially at my age, I am not interested in long dissertations about older men who must wear diapers. I didn't say that Tolstoy was above criticism. I could have picked any author of long classic novels to make my point.

I saw "Freedom" on the store bookshelves today, and it is another long novel, and having already sampled Franzen's work, I will decline to read this one (or listen to a cd as I usually do with easily absorbed fiction). It is a growing trend with publishers to produce longer novels, but some readers, such as myself, will drop by the wayside with a long novel which doesn't hold the reader's attention.

As for DeLilo, I read the long first chapter of Underworld with interest. I saw Bobby Thompson hit the home run as described in the book. The three spectators, Frank Sinatra, Toots Shure (sp?), and Jackie Gleason with their bantering dialogue provided an excellent background for the "Shot heard round the world". But to call the novel a 'masterpiece' is a bit much. After another hundred pages, I lost interest in DeLilo and had to give up. Young readers probably never heard of Toots or, possibly, Jackie Gleason. Soon, people will be saying, "Frank who?"

Franzen himself says the art of fiction is dying in America. He is helping it along with these overly long novels. but he is not the only one: Thomas Pynchon is publishing works weightier than the Manhatten phone directory. And he is a novelist I used to adore.

I've read a lot about Franzen and his latest novel, how amazing he is, and how overrated he is; how Freedom is America's greatest novel of the millennium, and how it's overhyped crap.

But I haven't yet read anyone explaining what the novel is about, describing any of its plot or even giving the impression that they're reasonably acquainted with its contents.

If someone has read this novel, till the end, what is it about anyway?

I started listening to 'Connections' on cd. This book was perfect for first time thru listening on cd. This is the one for which he won the National Book Award and was in the running for the Pulitzer. Highly acclaimed by the critics, but you can never trust them. 'Connections is the story of a dysfunctional family of mother, father, 2 sons, and daughter where the mother is attempting to get them all together at the family home for one last Christmas. If this doesn't sound very exciting it's because it isn't.

'Freedom' just hit the stores last week so most will not have read it as yet. Based upon my experience with 'Connections', I should bypass it. Some will probably like it, as some liked 'Connections'. In 'Connections', the subject matter appeared to be autobiogrphical, and the writing was clear, an easy read, but overly long and somewhat boring. Definitely not the Great American novel.

I will reiterate that a read through of Franzen's essays collected in How to be Alone will help tremendously with the approach to his fiction. Otherwise, yes, it is all a boring tale of dysfunctional families (re: The Corrections) that cannot live up to the over hype, mostly due to his rejection of Oprah's brand being stamped on his work.

I just looked for some information about Freedom and noticed that Amazon readers rate it three stars. While that isn't definitive, it makes me wonder. I also noticed that the page count is 562, which is a bit much.

There was no epiphany contained in them. I guess that my opinion of Franzen, after purveying his essays and the novel, 'Corrections', is that he is a capable writer. But he doesn't begin to compare with the giants of yesteryear; eg, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Sinclair Lewis, etc. Perhaps he should have written a much smaller novel at first, rather than a 600 pager. Now I'm reluctant to read 'Freedom'. Only a writer with the ability of a Somerset Maugham can entice me into reading a 600 page book.

For those wanting to know what Freedom is about, there have been numerous extensive reviews in the press. A recent issue of New York Times Review of Books, for example. Harpers? The Atlantic? Anyway, there are lots of them. It even got a review on the op-ed pages of the NY Times, I forget by which columnist. No one could live up to the hype he is getting now, poor bastard! I enjoyed each of his three previous novels, all of which are rather hefty.

His first, Twenty-Seventh City, is full of political intrigue and scheming out of all proportion to what is at stake. The ending is so utterly right and yet at the same time so deflating that it comes off as the punchline to an elaborate joke. The book is sort of damned by its own unerring logic.

I enjoyed Strong Motion, whose motive force is a sinister crime against the environment and its unraveling. The Corrections is disturbing family drama. It was particularly heartbreaking to see the senile patriarch's well-oiled methods of deflecting attention from his infirmities. He had me fooled for quite a while.

Anyway, all of these novels have vivid characters and Franzen's ear for language and dialogue is formidable. All are well-structured and plotted. He may not be one of my favorite novelists, but I will continue to read—and expect to enjoy—all of his work.

To dFloyd: I am always happy to agree to disagree.

If we get into the comparison game, then, yes, I rank giants like Hemingway much higher. But we are talking about Franzen and writing in a different time. His subject matter, his interests are different than those of his last-century modernist predecessors. I, for one, am just glad Franzen is approaching social commentary on modernity without the mish-mash form 60s-70s postmodernism.

But, again, if we are the play the comparison game with the stipulation that we stay within the same literary vein, I would highly recommend David Foster Wallace (R.I.P.) over Jonathan Franzen any day! Wallace approaches all of the subjects as Franzen--and more--but with a finesse and intellectual brilliance that is unsurpassed in my experience of American writers. Wallace invites you to have a casual discussion on a profound plane; an unpretentious bel esprit who tackles topics that breed pretension.

Laymonite, I'm caught up in some limerence with DFW myself, but, being about 3/4 of the way through Freedom, and being very impressed, I was going to come into this thread and say that Franzen is similar to DFW albeit without the pretentiousness.

In my experience, people find DFW to be extremely pretentious, though I've defended him on that front myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baaaaadgoatjoke

Laymonite, I'm caught up in some limerence with DFW myself, but, being about 3/4 of the way through Freedom, and being very impressed, I was going to come into this thread and say that Franzen is similar to DFW albeit without the pretentiousness.

In my experience, people find DFW to be extremely pretentious, though I've defended him on that front myself.

---

Interesting! Before experiencing DFW for myself, I had heard inklings of the title 'elitist,' so perhaps my expectations were set for haughty pretension. Instead I found an intellectual who felt like a friend with adequate social skills.

In any case, I am really looking forward to Freedom! And, I must add, I believe that Franzen's whole 'Oprah thing' was bold and showcased integrity as opposed to the elitism that mass media attached to it. I've heard a lot of aspiring writers slam her book club, saying they would never allow their High Art to become branded with a Low Art stamp, but I've always supposed they'd quake under the mega influence of The O Factor.

O(!) for sure. He wasn't even dissing Oprah, just acknowledging that a lot of people, guys maybe moreso, would look at her seal of approval and form expectations that are congruent with her show.

I don't really want to express an opinion on DFW yet because I have only read The Broom of the System and not his magnum opus. But based on that book, I don't see much similarity to Franzen at all. Franzen doesn't have any of the absurdist elements, for one thing—and he doesn't seem to have Pynchon looking over his shoulder either. But maybe DFW grew out of that? I'll find out when I read Infinite Jest, no doubt.

Stylistically they are more opposite than similar. Content-wise, by which I mean message-wise, they are on the same page. I think anyway.

DFW's vocabulary sends you to the dictionary over and over again. And he can be heavily experimental. Especially in his short stories.

Franzen's prose is direct, never tripping over itself, but I wouldn't call it utilitarian and it's a very straightforward story.

In short, I feel like if you took DFW and stripped all the postmodern tropes away you might come out with Franzen.

But, that's not to say that if you love DFW you'll love Franzen so I don't want to give that impression. He's not DFW 2.0.

dfloyd –dfloyd – dfloyd, have you been reading The Atlantic Monthly again?

Let me expound: In an incoherent rant, the curmudgeon B.R. Myers wrote what passes for a book review these days in October’s Atlantic Monthly. He essentially restated the thesis (if you can call it that) of his book, A Reader’s Manifesto – a fine coffee-table book for literature snobs everywhere.

I guess he couldn’t decide what exactly it was he hated about Jonathan Franzen’s, Freedom or current literary trends, so he lashed out at everything – the characters, the prose, the language, the content, the length of the book, Don DeLillo, and modernity in general, and in doing so, he insulted the book, the author, the editors, and the readers. So let’s hear it for B. R. Myers – P-Tooey.

Here’s an excerpt of B.R. Myers Atlantic article:

Quote:

---

It is the style of all who think highly enough of their own brains to worry about thought “elitist,” not one of the gang. The reassuring vulgarity follows the flight of pseudo-eloquence as the night the day. Like the rest of these people, Franzen should relax. We don’t need to find a naughty word on every page to know that he is one very regular Joe.

---

That comment reminded me of a comment made by Irish novelist George A. Moore about James Joyce’s Ulysses shortly after publication:

Quote:

---

How can one plow through such stuff. I read a little here and there, but oh my god, how bored I got. Probably Joyce thinks that because he prints all the dirty little words he is a great novelist. Joyce, Joyce, why he’s a nobody, from the Dublin docks, no family, no breeding.

---

Here’s the part that matches dfloyd’s hypothisis:

Quote:

---

Many people who eschew great books for the latest novel do so because they want precisely this kind of thing. (Every new book we read in our brief and busy lives means that a classic is left unread.) These readers want a world that is recognizable their own in every trivial particular, right down to Twitter, even if the book says less of real relevance to their lives than one written a century ago.

---

The relevance comment is arguable, but sacrificing a classic for a new book is drivel. A well rounded reader should read both; I don’t care about football, so it frees up a lot of time to read. And I looked at Franzen’s style from a different angle; where Myers seems to be trying to get inside the writer’s head to determine what makes him write in that style, I looked at it from a reader’s standpoint. As I read along, I kept thinking how much of the sub-text I understood because I live in this time and place, and how much background work I need to do when reading an author like Tolstoy. I doubt even a thorough research of the Crimean War or the Decembrist Revolution would give me the nuanced understanding I have of the terrorist attacks of 9-11. I knew people who died when those airplanes hit those buildings.

Here’s an example of what Myers is getting at with his “every trivial particular” comment: This is a randomly selected quote from Freedom. Two college roommates are on a trip to NYC and one sort of has the hots for the other’s older sister:

Quote:

---

Joey wanted to see the city, and he wanted even more not to seem to Jenna like some Eminem-listening Juvie, but the living room was equipped with a huge plasma TV and late-model Xbox that Jonathan insisted he immediately join him in enjoying.

---

A hundred years from now, that sentence will need a footnote. And speaking of footnotes, David Foster Wallace’s name keeps popping up in this thread. Franzen and Wallace had one of the great friendships in modern literary circles, and, inevitably, comparisons have been made. While the two men’s styles couldn’t be more different, they both share, in their writing, a tremendous warmth towards their readers.

I think the fact that Franzen and DFW were very good friends, but the writing styles are different-except for a vein of cynicism.

I've read the Corrections and I think I'd side with the Amazon users and give his writing 3 stars. While certainly the prose is, on the whole, captivating and readable, if a little conventional, I can't say I'm too sympathetic towards the overall sentiment of the novel. I felt that the novel took itself too seriously, placed itself on a sort of pedestal against the rest of the post-modern world. Its characters are all shown in a very negative light, like the narrator can only see flaws and insists that these flaws are inevitable in a 21st-century America that is dominated by corporate greed and consumerism. Of course, this is just the sentiment that I took away from it. Still, I feel like a writer should keep as a highest maxim that saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and should never condemn his characters. Should never pass judgment on them. Franzen, to me, passes too much judgment.

I have read Freedom and it's a bit refreshing to get back to traditional story telling set in and hyper cognisant of the Modern Technological Age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

Only a writer with the ability of a Somerset Maugham can entice me into reading a 600 page book.

---

I have a feeling that you will have to wait a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

Front cover of Time, Picked by Oprah then declined by Franzen, and his new novel 'Freedom' being out this month. I have listened to a CD of his essays written for the New Yorker plus, this week, I listened to a very long CD of Corrections which won a National Book Award and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. I have to admit I don't care much for contemporary writers or post modernists if that's what you want to call them. Without the CD to listen to, I wouldn't have approached the novel. It is an easy listen while you are doing another chore. But has anyone else listened to or read Franzen? The modernists or writers of fifty years or so ago, I can get involved with: Sinclair Lewis, Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald etc. When I hear of a new American novelist, I want to give him a try, but Franzen's book is overly long and not very interesting to begin with. I'm beginning to think that fiction is dead as far as American novelists go. What do you think?

---

I've read The Corrections and Freedom, as well as his essays. Like you, I come to them from a background of not having read widely in contemporary literature, but mainly rather in that of the first half of the 20th century. I am more impressed by Franzen as an essayist than as a novelist. Not that they are not very good, but to me they fail by a healthy margin to live up to their billing as Dostoevsky reborn. One thing I enjoy though in his novels is his focus on family relations, which has been a battlefield unwisely abandoned by serious literature, to a large extent.

I prefer Roth for a contemporary american, but I'd look in other places for really great contemporary literature ( which my relatively recent foray into the field has, somewhat to my surprise, made me discover). Such as Spain, where you have an author who has been compared to Proust and who deserves to be: Javier Marias. His trilogy "Your face tomorrow" is a magnificent piece of literature, and certainly far more impressive than any contemporary american fiction I've read. Or England, where Edward St Aubyn richly deserves comparison with Waugh ( how is that for a compliment?). Or Ireland, where John Banville writes prose that approaches poetry (with Nabokov being the frequent reference in his case). The american novel is hardly dead, but I for one am currently finding much better things elsewhere. At least so far.

I do agree with the comments here, but many views are flavoured with the standard sort of "current popular music/literature is not like it used to be" mentality that many of us share.

I notice it myself with popular music. I still naturally like the stuff I grew up with and do not download alot of current music. And the cross cultural affinity is natural too.

I read everything from Chaucer to Maugham to Gabo to David Foster Wallace(sign of cross) without getting into the Apples to Oranges to Steaks type comparison.

In terms of the best writing I have seen - ever, it would have to be DFW's the cruise ship piece and State Fair Piece. Both are availalbe online on the Harpers website. The pieces are not like his experimental books, but rather linear, humourous, and the most observant writing I have seen.