Jonathen Franzen, Oprah, and the Ivory Tower

[VarlosZ]

For those unfamiliar with the situtaion, there is an article here, a Washington Post opinion piece here, a dissenting Salon.com opinion piece here, and an infograph from The Onion here.

In short, Oprah chose Jonathen Franzen’s novel The Corrections for her Book Club, which normally entails an appearance by the author on Oprah’s show to discuss the book, a “literary dinner” (someone else will have to explain exactly what that is), as well as the book’s cover being adorned with a sticker identifying it as part of Oprah’s reading list. All of this means a huge boost in sales for a chosen book. However, upon hearing of his book’s selection, Franzen was not pleased.

‘The first weekend after I heard I considered turning it down,’ he told one interviewer.

‘I see this book as my creation and I didn’t want that logo of corporate ownership on it.’ In another interview, he suggested his book would be a success regardless of Oprah’s opinion of it. He spoke of the ‘sense of split’ he felt at becoming one of ‘her’ authors, an eclectic list including Toni Morrison and Joyce Carol Oates, as well as a number of less established - some might say less literary - writers.

‘She’s picked some good books,’ said Franzen, ‘but she’s picked enough schmaltzy, one-dimensional ones that I cringe . . . I feel like I’m solidly in the high-art literary tradition, but I like to read entertaining books and this maybe helps bridge the gap, but it also heightens these feelings of being misunderstood.’

In response, Oprah withdrew her invitation to Franzen to appear, cancelled the dinner, and decided not to discuss the book on the air.

A statement issued by her publicist said: ‘Jonathan Franzen will not be on the show because he is seemingly uncomfortable and conflicted about being chosen as a book club selection. It is never my intention to make anyone uncomfortable or cause anyone conflict. We have decided to skip the dinner and we’re moving on to the next book.’

Franzen has since apologized. From the Post column:

He told USA Today that he felt “awful” about what he’d done, and then topped even himself: “To find myself being in the position of giving offense to someone who’s a hero – not a hero of mine per se, but a hero in general – I feel bad in a public-spirited way.”

If that doesn’t make you want to stand up and salute, maybe sing a few choruses of “God Bless America,” then nothing ever will. Me, I’ve got this huge lump in my throat from thinking about this “public-spirited” practitioner of “the high-art literary tradition” slipping into his hair shirt because he did this “awful” thing to this “hero” . . . though, covering his flank on the high-art literary side, “not a hero of mine per se.” Is this or is this not a great country?

This was all touched upon briefly in an Oprah thread in the Pit, and most people there seemed to be upset with Franzen. Personally, I don’t feel that that vitriol is warranted. His statements showed a certain lack of tact, but he was just answering an interviewer’s question honestly. His opinion, furthermore, is understandable (and, I think, justified). He’s proud of his book and doesn’t want it associated with, say, The Bridges of Madison County in either the minds of the public or academia – a likely consequence if every copy of his book had an “Oprah” sticker on it. He wrote the book: he should be able to air concerns about how it is presented to the public without censure (but within reason, of course).

Was Franzen being elitist? If so, is his elitism in this regard justified? Or is he simply letting slip a massive ego by unecessarily slamming Oprah, her Book Club, her fans, and/or the other books on Oprah’s list? Are there any interesting generalities regarding Oprah, Franzen, literature, or academia that are reflected in this incident?

In any event, Franzen’s apology has stolen some of the thunder out of this debate (though not if the Post’s columnist is to be believed). Depsite the size of this post, I find myself only mildly interested in the topic. Idle hands usually find their way to the SDMB.

[tiny_ham]

I shouldn’t even be allowed in here, really.

But as a writer, my opinion is this. A book is an author’s creation, an author’s child. If I don’t want my child to go to a certain school or wear certain clothes, she shouldn’t have to. Franzen didn’t want to be a corporate shill.

Also, as a writer, I would hope that people would buy my book because they found that the subject matter interested them or perhaps they read a review and found something they agreed with, rather than buying the book because it was assigned to them like school work.

THAT said, he came off as elitist with his tone, and I think it could have been handled better.

THAT said, it’s interesting that Oprah decided to drop the book all together. All of the sudden it’s not a good book anymore? Not quality reading?

THAT said, that Onion article was hilarious “Expressed Eagerness to Appear On Oprah’s Show ‘the minute it stops sucking’” HA!

jar

[system]

*Originally posted by jarbabyj *
But as a writer, my opinion is this. A book is an author’s creation, an author’s child. If I don’t want my child to go to a certain school or wear certain clothes, she shouldn’t have to. Franzen didn’t want to be a corporate shill.

Whatever is a corporate shill?

It’s a free market, he needs a publisher. A publisher is going to be a corporation.

Unless of course one believes art is just so bloody precious that it should only circulate as samzidat.

He’s got the corporate mark on his fucking book already, it’s called the publisher. One more does what? Detract from the snob appeal? Lose a few readers so insecure in their intellect (such that it is) that the contemptible mewling of their friends actually does damage to their literary taste creds?

That’s not fucking literary taste, that’s pompous empty posturing for some vacuous “esthetic” which is really nothing but posing.

Also, as a writer, I would hope that people would buy my book because they found that the subject matter interested them or perhaps they read a review and found something they agreed with, rather than buying the book because it was assigned to them like school work.

Hope. Nice thing that.

But whatever, some people need reading lists. Nothing wrong with that.

I’d be more bothered by the snobs who buy books that are “in the high art tradition” just for that very fact, and never actually read them than some housewife who really wants to read a bit more and so she depends on Oprah. What’s the harm?

This pompous fuck is likely largely to be read by three groups, the group who read his stuff because he’s in the * tradition , what a precious little thing, how very special --not much different than a list, eh?– the group that gets assigned his book(s) in a lit class and that small number (without marketing) of folks who accidentally pick up the book in the odd bookstore, although without marketing that’s not to bloody likely, now is it?

(*: See the links in re woman not buying a certain copy of his book 'cause of the sticker)

In the real world, not that many people read, not that many people read novels outside of … well romances and that sort of thing. Oprah at least is bringing a little bit of folks to this. Again, what’s the harm?

THAT said, he came off as elitist with his tone, and I think it could have been handled better.

Walks like a duck, acts like a duck, it is a duck. He was elitist, a snob and a chucklehead.

THAT said, it’s interesting that Oprah decided to drop the book all together. All of the sudden it’s not a good book anymore? Not quality reading?

Pray tell, did you read closely? Oprah didn’t drop the book. She simply let the stupid self-indulgent elitist snob off the hook by cancelling the o-so-horrible meeting of the unwashed masses and herself. Still on this list according to the press.

Don’t let hatred get in the way of facts, eh?

The whole reeks of the same idiotic pseudo-academic ivory-tower self-indulgence that I recall most of the lit types being engaged in back when I was in graduate school oh so many years ago. Contemptible asses then, contemptible asses now.

Bah.

[tiny_ham]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *

But whatever, some people need reading lists. Nothing wrong with that.

Nope, not at all. I’ve learned my lesson in that arena. I’m just trying to bring the writer’s perspective into the picture.

Some people need reading lists.

Some people don’t want to be on reading lists.

nothing wrong with that either.

And when I say Oprah dropped the book, I mean she decided to cancel all pub surrounding it, the dinner the discussion, the PUSHING of the book. If she loved it so much, she’d still want to discuss it.

jar

[Zoff]

I don’t see the big deal. Franzen has every right to decide to opt out of any book club for any reason. Oprah has every right to drop a book from her book club for any reason.

Franzen seemed to articulate the reasons for his discomfort pretty well. He likes some of the books but thinks others suck and worries about the harm the association could have on his reputation (and I don’t know the guy from Adam so I have no idea if his reputation is purely in his own mind or if he’s considered the next Shakespeare). It’s not too different from companies refusing to sell their goods at certain kinds of stores for fear of the effect on their name brand.

And as a contributor to the Pit thread mentioned in the OP, some might find my position strange, but I don’t think I’m being contradictory. My beef in the Pit was the sweeping generalizations and condescending attitudes expressed towards people who read books from the Oprah Book Club. I think Franzen is a lot more precise in his criticisms of the Club – he doesn’t dismiss all the books as trash and all the readers as mindless drone idiots.

[system]

*Originally posted by jarbabyj *

Some people don’t want to be on reading lists.

You only get read because you’re on some list or another. It’s an absurd objection on its face. Perhaps some people don’t want to be an a specific list because of snobbery or perhaps more generously because they want to protect their “image”. Zoff’s interpretation, based on the quotes strikes me as rather generous but grantable.

And when I say Oprah dropped the book, I mean she decided to cancel all pub surrounding it, the dinner the discussion, the PUSHING of the book. If she loved it so much, she’d still want to discuss it.

As I am led to understand, the pushing part is where the author comes on the show and chats up the book. Given it is rather hard to promote a book where the author (a) specifically asked not to have it done (b) didn’t want to come on the show, it strikes me that your objection is utterly illogical. Oprah left it on the list, and appears to be letting the matter slide.

[Stoid]

Bottom line is this: you want to SELL your “literary high art”? Oprah is the way to go. You want to come off like an elitist idiot? Dis Oprah.

I don’t feel one way or another about it. I just think he was stupid.

stoid

[Zoff]

Originally posted by Collonsbury
Zoff’s interpretation, based on the quotes strikes me as rather generous but grantable.

What can I say, I’m a generous guy! I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said. I do think the guy’s pretentious (the comment about being a member of the “high art literary tradition” almost seemed like a parody of a pretentious writer). The reason I think he might have also been trying to protect his brand name is the speed with which he began pathetically groveling to Oprah.

I think he initially thought it was better to be considered a highbrow writer because it would keep his audience and ensure sales. But I think he (or his publisher) soon realized that the Oprah Book Club would be a better move sales-wise.

My interpretation might be overly cynical. But if he was really interested in staying in the “high art literary tradition”, I think he would have stuck to his guns. That would make him a hero with those who scoff at Oprah Book Club books. Instead, he did a quick reverse which hints at a cash run to me.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by jarbabyj *
But as a writer, my opinion is this. A book is an author’s creation, an author’s child. If I don’t want my child to go to a certain school or wear certain clothes, she shouldn’t have to. Franzen didn’t want to be a corporate shill.

Honey, darling, schnookums. He already is a corporate shill. He’s on a book tour. He’s talking to reporters, he’s probably going into Barnes & Noble to sign copies (so that Barnes & Noble can sell more of his book), etc., etc. We’ve already established what he is - we’re now just dickering over the price.

Also, as a writer, I would hope that people would buy my book because they found that the subject matter interested them or perhaps they read a review and found something they agreed with, rather than buying the book because it was assigned to them like school work.

I don’t understand this. When I come across a book that has stamped on the front “winner of the [Pulitzer, Booker, etc.] prize,” or “named Book of the Year” by X or Y, I am much more likely to buy it. And what are the prizes but a committee saying they really liked the book? Here, Franzen just didn’t like the person recommending his book. Well, Oprah apparently liked his book - perhaps Kranzen should have written a better book that would have gone over her head.

Sua

[tiny_ham]

But Sua, isn’t not liking the person who recommends your book an OK position to take in the world? If the NAMBLA said, “this book is GREAT, I heartily recommend it” I’d want that sticker off of it too.

I don’t know if Zoff will ever forgive me for the Oprah thread, but I do agree with some of his points, specifically this:

He likes some of the books but thinks others suck and worries about the harm the association could have on his reputation.

Or actually, for my part, if my book were ever chosen for Oprah’s book club I’d be worried at how it was received because if people were thinking they were getting “I Know This Much Is True” or “The Deep End of The Ocean”, man they’d be in for a shock.
And what I should have said is he didn’t want to be OPRAH’s corporate shill. I don’t like Oprah’s show either, so I don’t promote it. That’s my choice.

I wear Rammstein t-shirts because I LIKE them and I want to promote them. No one can force me to wear an Oprah sweatshirt.

And frankly, it’s nobody’s business who anyone wants to market their book to. If I want to exclusively sell my book in porn shops or museum gift areas, that’s my bag, not yours.

jar

[system]

*Originally posted by jarbabyj *
But Sua, isn’t not liking the person who recommends your book an OK position to take in the world? If the NAMBLA said, “this book is GREAT, I heartily recommend it” I’d want that sticker off of it too.

One hesitates to note the absurdity of comparing NAMBLA, which promotes an illegal and morally bankrupt activity, and Oprah, who simply offends some folks esthetic sensibilities.

If the author wants to advance some idiotic, pretentious and ultimately factually unfounded reason for not wanting to participate in the list, and to publicize the same, well, fair bloody game.

And what I should have said is he didn’t want to be OPRAH’s corporate shill. I don’t like Oprah’s show either, so I don’t promote it. That’s my choice.

Indeed, although participating in her list is rather her promoting you (or him) than vice-vera insofar as its her fame that’s being used to market the thing.

I wear Rammstein t-shirts because I LIKE them and I want to promote them. No one can force me to wear an Oprah sweatshirt.

Certianly, but if open your trap and advance idiotic reasons for not wearing the sweatshirt, then you’re gonna get slammed for it.

And frankly, it’s nobody’s business who anyone wants to market their book to. If I want to exclusively sell my book in porn shops or museum gift areas, that’s my bag, not yours.

As Zoff rather implied, he’s the media whore that made the noise, including his subsequent back-peddling. Cash run, yes indeed, I think that’s what we have. Snobbery, greed and hypocrisy all in one author. I like, I might actually go and read it.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by jarbabyj
I don’t know if Zoff will ever forgive me for the Oprah thread

There is nothing to forgive. I just didn’t agree with your opinion of the Oprah Book Club. I’m not mad at you for holding that opinion, though I must say I’m a little peeved that you’d think I could ever get mad at a person over a debate about Oprah. So maybe you do need to ask forgiveness, but Dr. Phil says I should just let it go.

And what I should have said is he didn’t want to be OPRAH’s corporate shill.

Though he quickly reversed course, as we’ve seen.

I agree with you that an author has a right to be concerned with being on certain lists. But I seem to still detect a belief that being on a list makes a work less “pure”. You say you want people to read your book because of the work’s value rather than the fact that it was “assigned” to them. But, even if we assume Oprah assigns books, that doesn’t lessen the literary value of the book. Your book will be good or bad independent of Oprah’s selection. What Oprah does is basically ensure greater sales, but success does not mean a book is bad as many seem to believe.

Lists are a way of transmitting information to consumers. Say your book won the Pulitzer (and from what I know of your type of writing and Roxanne Pulitzer she might be willing to trumpet your work, so to speak). Would it bother you that many people would read your book because it won the Pulitzer? You might say it doesn’t because the Pulitzer means the book is good, so people buying it based on the Pulitzer are really doing it based on the quality of the book. But Oprah, while not the Pulitzer committee, is also picking books she thinks have merit. And those who buy based on the “O” sticker are also buying because they believe the book will be good. After all, Oprah has a reputation to maintain. If she consistently picked godawful, unreadable books she would lose credibility and that’s all she has as an entertainer.

[tiny_ham]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
One hesitates to note the absurdity of comparing NAMBLA, which promotes an illegal and morally bankrupt activity, and Oprah, who simply offends some folks esthetic sensibilities.

OK, Nambla was first to come to mind but I also wouldn’t want a PETA sticker, the Rebublican Party or the Baptist Church of America promoting my book. One, because I don’t agree with their philosophies, and two, because it essentially carves out a niche for my book.

like it or not, we must admit that there ARE people around who are pretentious literary snobs and just like there are people who only buy oprah books, there are people who WON’T buy Oprah books. Which group Franzen wants to be a part of is none of our business.

jar

[davidw]

One point I think people are missing is that Franzen had a choice. If he didn’t want his book to be selected by the Oprah Book Club, he could have turned her down. She gets an author’s permission before she makes the selection official. So basically, Franzen agreed to be on the book club (probably to increase his sales), and then he dissed her so as not to look bad to his fellow book snobs.

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by jarbabyj *
**like it or not, we must admit that there ARE people around who are pretentious literary snobs and just like there are people who only buy oprah books, there are people who WON’T buy Oprah books. Which group Franzen wants to be a part of is none of our business. **

But see, the problem is, he now gets to have it both ways. He’s still an Oprah pick, but he doesn’t have to, you know, do anything. So it’s all well and good that her pick will help pump up his book sales, but don’t make him be on her show, heaven forbid.

This, apparently, is par for the course with the guy. He recently performed a reading at a coffeehouse, and when he was asked to perform a Q&A, he said it was “so chain bookstore” to do that. Of course, probably 95% of his sales will come from chain bookstores; but if he can both get those sales and offer a gratuituous, snobbish remark, all the better, I guess.

Hey, here’s a great idea, Jonathan–how about if none of is in the hoi polloi buy or read your book, and you can live off of the sales to the 10% of the reading population who give a rat’s ass about the “high-art tradition.”

[tiny_ham]

I wish I could have a jewish smilie in MY url

[Triskadecamus]

My writing is entirely amateur, so take this idle daydream for what it is; an idle daydream.

Suppose I wrote novel, which stood upon a basic subtext the overwhelming love I have for babies. Now I happen to translate this passion for the young well, and also tell a compelling story, in an entertaining way. It gets published, and sales are moderate. But then the NMBLA president lists it in his monthly “great books for pederasts” list on his web site.

I love babies. I despise this man as much as I allow myself to despise any human. My book is not about having sex with babies; it’s about loving babies, and the lives of babies who are loved. My book is so much against what he is, and does, that I am horrified to learn that he even likes my book.

But my book is not a pederast book. And if I have anything to say about the award from his organization it is only that I have no interest in it, or him. I won’t associate myself with him, or associate my book with him. Because he has done this, my book will sell more. (Which fact pisses me off, but which fact is not indicative of any failing of my book, only of our social responses.) I am not sending the money back.

Then I find out the Moral Majority feels that the book is a fine example of Family Values, and What is Right With America. This too is crap. But this too has nothing to do with my book. I am not politically associated with the Moral Majority, nor do I wish to be. But the fact that they like my book only means that they love babies, and stories about babies, and I am happy about that. I don’t have to praise them, or pan them. Turns out that the Socialist Party of America feels that my book is elitist tripe. Now I am not a member, but these guys are far closer to me politically than either NMBLA or the Moral Majority. Doesn’t matter. The book is about babies. I love 'em, they hate my book. I can’t even be sure that they don’t like babies. They might just hate my writing.

It all affects how much money I make from the book. None of it matters to me in relation to what I wrote, or how I feel about babies. Sure, having a lot of people like the book would feel better than selling a whole lot of copies to folks who then use it to base attacks upon me as a Right Wing Pederast Hack. But I get the money either way, and the point of publishing is to get paid. Back when I wrote for free, on bulletin boards on the Internet, those people had the same opinions of me, and I still wasn’t what they though I was, and I was broke, too.

Tris

No babies were harmed in the production of the above post.

[Jodi]

My problem with this is just what DAVIDW said, though I don’t think it’s quite that cut and dried, in that I imagine if an author (especially a not-well-known author) was offered the chance to be an Oprah-pick and turned it down, he or she might be in very hot water with his/her publisher. The author might seriously consider his/her work to be High Art, but the publisher is in the business of selling books. Being touched on the shoulder by the magic wand of Oprah means a hundred-fold jump in a book printing, and no publisher would appreciate an author giving such an opportunity a pass.

That said, everything I’ve read indicates that Franzen agreed to be on Oprah’s list, agreed to have the imprint on his book (in the new, mondo printing), and then went around dithering about how conflicted he was about it because Oprah is just so low-brow. If she’s so damn far beneath you, then you should have said “no” to something that would be for 999 out of 1000 authors a great honor and a great boon. IMO, you can say “yes” and be gracious (if not grateful) about it, or you can say “no” and nobly live and die by your literary scruples. But to say “yes” and then stick your finger in her eye – that’s what is IMO hypocritical, craven, and low.

I think Oprah handled the matter with great class – merely declining to make this guy do something he obviously doesn’t really want to do, but allowing the book to remain on the list because it is (apparently) a good book.

And while I may read this book by checking it out at the library, I will not buy it, as I probably otherwise would have done. Though I don’t always agree with Oprah’s picks, I am far more put off by this type of snobbish, “high-art” posturing, as if certainly people are not “good enough” to read your book. If that’s the case, I’m almost certain I wouldn’t make the cut, and I will not impose upon this poor man by making him take my money.

[Tarmac]

I fail to see the importance in Franzen’s comments. When I read Collounsbury’s posts, I get the sense of some deep anger about the topic that I just can’t muster up. Since when is it such a big deal to be honest about how you felt about something? He accepted Oprah’s selection and when asked about it, he gave an honest answer–yes he was conflicted about it, yes he felt a little chagrined at the idea of her corporate logo added to the others already on his book. Where is the big deal? If you’ve read The Corrections then you’d know that his book is very critical of megacorporations and American consumerism. The book’s most depressed character is the book’s wealthiest and most money-oriented member of the family. Franzen was a little wary of jumping hip-deep into the very thing he was critiquing, along with his honest distaste for several of Oprah’s selections. I really don’t see the big deal. In fact, I appreciate his honesty.

Furthermore, I think it’s impressive that anyone would consider turning down the single, most lucrative award to exist in the writing world. The holy O grants a person instant millionaire status, and he considered turning it down. Yes, he accepted. I’m sure he still feels conflicted about it. Whatever. The book is amazing, emotional, beautifully written, vulgar, and has a talking turd in it (see my post here. Screw what you know about Franzen and check out the book.

[VarlosZ]

Stoid:

Bottom line is this: you want to SELL your “literary high art”? Oprah is the way to go. You want to come off like an elitist idiot? Dis Oprah.

Just to clarify, Franzen did not disrespect Oprah. From the Salon artcle: “‘She’s picked some good books,’ Franzen said in an interview posted on Powells.com, ‘but she’s picked enough schmaltzy, one-dimensional ones that I cringe, myself …’ Although the rest of the quote read ‘even though I think she’s really smart and she’s really fighting the good fight,’ damage was done.”

It seems clear (to me, anyway) that his problem was with the other books on the list and the stigma associated with said, as well as the perceived stigma of being “corporate” or too “mainstream,” not Oprah.

Zoff:

I think he initially thought it was better to be considered a highbrow writer because it would keep his audience and ensure sales. But I think he (or his publisher) soon realized that the Oprah Book Club would be a better move sales-wise.

I can’t imagine that this is the case. Anyone even vaguely associated with publishing (and most of us who aren’t) ought to know immediately that being on Oprah’s book list means a huge sales boost. I don’t have the text of the interviews in front of me, but it seems most likely that he was asked about his book’s being picked and, for better or worse, decided to answer honestly.

Collunsbury:

If the author wants to advance some idiotic, pretentious and ultimately factually unfounded reason for not wanting to participate in the list, and to publicize the same, well, fair bloody game.

Emphasis mine. How could his reason for not wanting to be on the show be anything other than a matter of subjective interpretation and opinion? One might as well call Oprah’s decision to add the book to the list “factually unfounded.”

As Zoff rather implied, he’s the media whore that made the noise, including his subsequent back-peddling. Cash run, yes indeed, I think that’s what we have.

But here you’re assuming bad intentions. Specifically, you’re assuming (or implying, certainly) that his apology was not genuine. Why is deceit, in this case, more likely than honesty when both are plausible given the facts available?

Finally, taking part in a few standard interviews that, to Franzen’s surprise, received widespread coverage does not equate with “media whore.” I think “naive” is a far better description here.

pld:

This, apparently, is par for the course with the guy. He recently performed a reading at a coffeehouse, and when he was asked to perform a Q&A, he said it was “so chain bookstore” to do that. Of course, probably 95% of his sales will come from chain bookstores; but if he can both get those sales and offer a gratuituous, snobbish remark, all the better, I guess.

But having his book sold in chain stores is a practical necessity (as is, to a slightly lesser extent, agreeing to be on the list), to say nothing of being a contractual obligation. Isn’t Franzen allowed to regret these and other practical necessities while not forgoing them altogether? A student, for example, can complain about his homework without invoking a responsibility to abstain from it, yes?

Franzen’s misgivings about being on the list are hardly matters of debate, as those misgivings are based on completely subjective judgements and valuations. That Franzen could hold these misgivings and still honorably submit to the practical necessity of being on the list seems similarly cut and dry.

Where things become murky is in his expression of his misgivings, which he could have reasonably expected to cause offense. However, I’m inclined to pardon him for this. In the first place, he’s apologised. In the second, I simply don’t get the impression that he had any malicious intent. I think he gave an honest answer to a question that called for the equivocation (or evasion) of a politician. On a practical level, it was stupid. On a personal level, well, it was stupid and a little callous. Yet making some inappropriate remarks – and quickly apologising for same – doesn’t necessarily make him a bad guy.