Skip to main content

Bag O' Books: Jonathan Franzen's "Freedom"

Three thoughts about Jonathan Franzen's "Freedom":

* I tried something different with this novel, listening to it on audiobook. There are probably better choices for an audiobook than the longest prominent novel of the last year. It took me two months to listen to the whole thing. Forever. I discovered that audiobooks rob you of time to read a passage, then stare out the window and think: The audio moves forward whether or not your attention does. On the other hand: scenes involving phone sex and a character's feces had extra potency in an audio format -- almost vomit-inducing, in fact. The narrator's attempt at accents? Cringeworthy. On balance, I wish I'd read the book instead of listened to it.

* The book, while well-written, is made a bit wearying by Franzen's apparent need to have Something Important To Say about the Bush Era we've all just recently lived through. It makes for distracting fiction, and it makes you wish that Franzen -- an accomplished essayist -- would've just written a collection of magazine columns, instead of placing his fictional adulterous housewives and angry rock stars among real events. Instead of bringing us closer to his characters, it distanced me -- a reminder that everything I was reading (hearing) wasn't real. The suspension of disbelief is still important in fiction, especially when (like Franzen) one is aspiring to old-school traditional storytelling instead of formal innovation.

* The other distraction: Two men in the book believe that the novel's central female character, Patty, is a remarkable woman. But there's precious little evidence that she is remarkable. She played basketball well in the 1980s. She finally got around to reading serious books a few years ago. She writes as well as Jonathan Franzen does, but we're the only ones who know that. Other than that, though, she seems thoroughly unexceptional. It's impossible to imagine the hold she has on the two main male characters in the book, and that makes much of the resulting action less believable and less weighty.

* BONUS THOUGHT: In the end, everybody gets a happy ending. But it doesn't seem earned. In fact, the happy endings that the characters get -- one gets rich selling shade-grown coffee -- seems at odds with Franzen's carefully detailed satire at the beginning of the book, in which one long paragraph lays bare the shallowness and banality of every yuppie goal ever. "Freedom" ends with its characters actually achieving bourgeois goals like the ones it lampooned, only without the irony, making it feel like Franzen is selling out to the very forces he seemingly understood so well. All in all, a very frustrating novel.


Andrew said…
Hah, I remember you describing the audio of the phone sex before I got to it in the book, and I had a sympathetic cringe for you when I got there. Two things:

1. I don't think we're meant to think that Patty writes as well as Franzen does. I thought one of the novel's strengths was his ability to write in the voice of a less accomplished but still very confident writer. I thought it was mean, but it an entertaining way (which is true of the whole book, I think!)
2. Look, Patty may or may not be an especially remarkable woman. But these two dudes are in a serious long term pissing contest. It could be over a patch of dirt and they'd both think it was remarkable. I don't think it's the hold she has on them that's central to the novel, it's the hold the two men have on each other *through* her. And that's left her a little...empty.

Also, I wasn't as distracted as you were by the recent historical backdrop. I had a little shudder reading a NYer piece about Bush V. Gore. I can't believe it's history, man!
leslie said…
Patty was a dedicated mother, house renovator, and gutsy defender of her neighborhood. She licked her own wounds after being raped, no thanks to her parents, and still managed to forgive her father and find peace with him in his final days. I found her quite remarkable, and by far my favorite character.

I agree, also, with Andrew's assessment of the men's relationship with Patty: It was more about them than her.

Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…