BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections

 
 
matthew.
02:40 / 16.04.05
I have read The Corrections once a yeay since it came out and I am fairly certain that it is the best book of the past decade. It is a "social novel" (like George Eliot's Middlemarch) about the dissolution of the American family and by proxy, the American Dream.

Franzen manages to touch upon virtually every social problem that exists in the United States and do so with wit and warmth. The characters are remarkably 3 dimensional and the plot moves swiftly.

The framing device of the novel is that each section highlights one of three Lambert Children. Each section is devoted to the child (now grown up) trying to assimilate corrections into their shitty lives. For example, the youngest, Chip, is a failed college professor whose whole life now hinges upon a shitty screenplay. If he can only make some corrections to the screenplay, his life might not be in vain.

I open the floor to discussion on whether or not people agree with me that The Corrections is, by far, one of the best books of the previous ten years (and maybe of the past fifty years). Will this novel ascend to the Canon (as Harold Bloom might put it), or will its mediocity make it plummet into oblivion?

By the way, Franzen's two previous novels were awful.
 
 
alterity
17:48 / 16.04.05
Tremendously difficult to know whether or not any text is one of the best of the last decade (whatever the decade). We don't have the historical distance yet to know. Moreover, there are undoubtedly hidden gems out there that will take time to emerge, given the nature of publishing. After all, Franzen had the advantage of Oprah and writers like Paul LaFarge and William Vollman have not.

Moreover, I find Franzen to be of a breed of New Conservative writers who, rather than taking up the attempts of modernist and postmodernist writers (Joyce, Pynchon, Woolf, Acker) to throw off the influence of the past and experiment with new forms and styles, embraces what I find to be outdated notions of character and straightforwardness. His characterization of William Gaddis, whose novel JR is without a doubt one of the most important American novels of the last fifty years, as "Mr. Difficult" in order to dismiss him is unconscionable. Difficult does not equal good, but it should not be denigrated as being inimical to the point of writing, a point which becomes prescription for a writer like Franzen. Certain themes and issues are best explored (perhaps) in certain genres or with a certain style. Franzen's exploration of the family in contemporary America works very well in the form/style/genre he has chosen for it: s fairly straightforward melodrama. The exploration of economy, music, artistic production, etc. that is JR works very well in the form of a nearly 800 pp novel without any chapter breaks composed almost exclusively of dialogue without the benefit of phrases like "s/he said." So while I applaud Franzen's efforts (I do, in fact, like the novel quite a bit), I am not yet ready to call it the best novel of the past decade because I don't think we are ready yet to make that call (if I were to make that call I would give the nod to Don DeLillo's Underworld, with the Corrections somewhere between #s 5 and 15). Moreover, I don't think that it does rank near the top of fiction of the last fifty years, even if we were to limit ourselves to just American lit. After all, we have the major work of Pynchon, DeLillo, Acker, Auster, Barth, McElroy, Mailer, Heller, McCarthy, Vonnegut, Morrison, Walker, Hawkes, Mathews, Gaddis, Gass, Roth, Cooper, and Burroughs to remember (and those are the one's I can think of off of the top of my head). This list does not reflect the burgeoning recognition of the importance of contemporary science fiction either, with writers like Delany, Le Guin, Gibson, Tiptree, Leyner, Disch, Cadigan, Stephenson, Dick, etc. producing of having produced novels that rank right up there with the best mainstream fiction around. Throw in writers from other countries--Murakami, Calvino, Sebold, Coetzee, Ondaajte, Naipaul, Achebe, N'gugi, and a slew of others--and I just don't see the case for Franzen or his novel.

All that said, The Corrections is very good.
 
 
matthew.
20:32 / 16.04.05
You're absolutely right on the distance required to effectively judge. Unfortunately (or not), our North American (mine) culture demands we rate something instantly, putting a price or attributing worth to something as soon as we are confronted with it.

In my personal opinion, some of the authors you have mentioned, I find to be over rated. Especially Roth and Delillo and Mailer. (Vonnegut, too, but I'm frightened of incuring the wrath of every college kid)

I notice you didn't mention Tom Wolfe. Is that because you didn't think of him, or because you might agree with me that literature-as-journalism is an empty lazy style of writing?

Anyway, time will prove one of us right about Franzen. By the way, have you read his other books?
 
 
alterity
23:41 / 16.04.05
I did not think of Wolfe, although I have not read him so I wouldn't really know if he's up there. I agree that not every writer I mentioned is necessarily great (or as great as s/he's cracked up to be), but I would put DeLillo in the great category. We can agree to disagree on that one. Someone I should have mentioned is Truman Capote, if only for In Cold Blood. I also should have brought up James Baldwin. I don't bring up all of these names to claim greatness for all them, but rather to show the strength of the second half of 20th century American fiction. If Franzen is not there then it may not be as a result of him not being good, but a function of the field which is very deep (even if you don't like Mailer, which I don't, there is little denying his importance and hence place on the list of notable American novelists).

I have not read the other novels, but I have considered it in light of how much I did like The Corrections. I am disappointed to hear that they are not as good.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
01:36 / 17.04.05
The prose style in The Corrections is a bit 'it's hip to be square' for sure - It seems like an attempt to ( with apologies for overuse of quotes ) 'do a Tolstoy' in terms of a culture that doesn't really think of itself in that particular way, anymore.

When Updike wrote the Rabbit novels ( books that I'm guessing JF is not unselfconsciously echoing, ) there was at least I suppose ( could be wrong, ) a vague idea in US society that the excellent way it was done was in some way a reflection of the inner life of the culture, or something.

It probably wasn't, Harry Angstrom's thoughts ( dig the name ! ) having always been a bit too suspiciously literate for whatever it was he was supposed to be, plus he was arguably more of a bug on a slide than a character, but, but there was a sense of currency re the inner monolgue that IMVHO is absent in The Corrections.

Basically, though I did enjoy the book, as an attempt to nail the inner ideas of such and such a generation, it was a terrible failure, because too much tweed, and not enough coke. There's a creeping pall of academia about the thing, which is fine, or can be, but not in that context - I'm getting angrier the more that I think about it, but for a lot of the time I had a strong impression that JF was kind of like a furtive uncle, the type that Mother wouldn't leave you on your own in a room with.

So; Too detached from his characters, pretentious, over-writes, and has no soul. Is not Saul Bellow, so fuck him, really, is my considered opinion.
 
 
astrojax69
23:38 / 17.04.05
was certainly one of the best couple of books i read last year (and i went through a seven month binge phase)

most surprising, given the cover my copy had - looked like a really bad airport thriller! a really rich, well written story - it had a good story! - that was deeply psychoogically revealing and cleverly constructed. perhaps franzen isn't the next pynchon, or faulkner, or anyone else, but this book goes into my top twenty. [must admit, not yet read anything else - any suggestions?]

i didn't find 'corrections' particularly difficult. i thought the family story as well, if not better, told as tim parks' 'family matters' and the voice of modernity varied with the phases and characters of the story and vital and insightful as needs be. i think distance will do this book great service, already high regard notwithstanding.

so, the former, in answer to your question, mic...
 
 
Loomis
08:23 / 18.04.05
Uh, guys ... there was already a thread on this book. Please search the forum before starting new threads. However, since that thread only contained a couple of one-line remarks and then died after my post (not that I'm taking it personally), I'll cut and paste my comments here:

This book was all the talk when it was published, as far as I remember. I can't quite recall whether there was much dissent in critical ranks, but I remember lots of praise for it, so perhaps it'll be worth discussing in those terms. Why was it so popular?

Beats the fuck out of me.

Although, having said that, I really enjoyed it. It was great soapy fun. But let's be honest, soap is all it is. I wanted to know what happened in the end, and I was busy hating Caroline and criticizing the attitudes of Enid and Alfred, but all in good fun. I wouldn't say that many of the insights into, say, the modern American family were anything out of the ordinary.

The characters, while not perhaps being obvious stereotypes, often perform steretypical actions and often present stereotypical attitudes. And maybe that's part of the problem. The characters aren't stock stereotypes used as counters in an analysis of issues. The book is not a parable; the characters are individuals and when they act without sufficient motivation it jars. I think Franzen is sometimes caught between telling a story and making a point, and a writer of a higher order wouldn't have left these seams showing.

Their motivations are often unbelievable, due to the writing being fairly loose, taking lots of time on some things and then leaping into a new plot point without building sufficient motivation for doing so.

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S

!


I didn't believe Chip's collapse (or whatever it was). In fact I didn't believe much about Chip - for my money he was definitely the weakest character. Denise however was more interesting. Gary and Caroline were very entertaining. You could get angry at her treatment of Gary while wondering if it was just his paranoia. The parents were okay, Enid better than Alfred, but I thought most of the implied commentary on American society and the institue of the family was fairly obvious. And the ending was a bit ... I don't know. It's no crime to have a happy ending, and a sad ending wouldn't necessarily have been more believable, but it did seem a little too neat. Too smug maybe.

As I said, I enjoyed it, it's a fun read, but I can't see how it generated such fuss amongst readers. It ain't all that.
 
 
Jack Vincennes
10:38 / 18.04.05
Gary and Caroline were very entertaining. You could get angry at her treatment of Gary while wondering if it was just his paranoia.

If anything made this book worth the fuss for for me, it was this section -I thought the way their relationship in general, and how it was affected by Gary's depression in particular, was very well drawn. Because at the start, it seems quite clear that Caroline is being unsympathetic, and is siding with the boys against Gary, but the more the reader saw of Gary the harder he was to sympathise with, and the clearer Caroline's motivations were. I like the fact that all of this was shown through (as far as I remember -it's been a while since I read it) Gary's thoughts, and that even with the advantage of knowing what he's thinking his motivations are far more obscure than those of the people he can't understand. Certainly, I enjoyed it within the parameters of its being great soapy fun, but I thought that aspect of it was particularly well handled.

Thanks for the tips on the previous books, by the way -I was thinking of looking into them but will probably put that on hold now...
 
 
matthew.
13:03 / 18.04.05
I notice everybody is calling it "soapy fun". Can it not be literature? Was Dickens not soapy melodrama, too? I might be overstepping this, but I thought Tolstoy was a lot of soap. Even Alexandre Dumas verged on soap.

Maybe soap can be literature.
 
 
Loomis
14:47 / 19.04.05
Soap can certainly be literature in my opinion, however there are things to consider.

1. Dickens, Tolstoy, Dumas. What have they done lately? They were writing to different conventions and plot-driven melodrama was a big feature of their novels. But I'd be wary of excusing the fault of a twentieth-century novelists by comparison to books written in a different time.

2. Some critics (F.R. Leavis for example) will tell you that it is just this very factor of soapiness that prevents writers like Dickens from ascending to the top tier of great novelists. I am inclined to agree.

3. Soap can achieve a higher status depending on how smoothly it is executed and to what extent characters depart from type, and generally the ways in which the expectations of the reader are manipulated, frustrated and fulfilled. Franzen exhibits tolerable skill in this aspect but in my opinion fails to reach a sufficient level of originality to enable his book to be ranked in any list of top novels. To give an example off the top of my head (since I only just got around to reading it), White Teeth by Zadie Smith is far superior. It's kind of soapy but her characters are drawn more skillfully, display more nuance and are more believable in their motivations.
 
 
Ariadne
20:33 / 19.04.05
Hmmmm, yes, The Corrections. I'm trying to dredge this up from somewhere round the back of my head, because I read it a while ago.

I enjoyed reading it, even 'couldn't put it down' for a while, but I didn't love it. It was Updike-esque, but a good wide shot clear of being Updike. And generally, wide of being what it wanted to be. It was a nicely told tale, did get some good characterisation, but I just felt it wasn't quite what it wanted to be.
 
 
DaveBCooper
13:51 / 23.05.05
‘Lithers in Blighty can pick this book up for 99p this week if they buy a copy of The Times in branches of WHSmith. Not on commission from any of the named parties, honest.

The same offer includes other books which might be of interest…
Hope this link works
 
 
DrNick
22:05 / 23.05.05
It was definitely a very enjoyable read, and a real page-turner as well. But it hasn't stayed with me; I read it about 18 months ago, and until I read this thread I'd clean forgotten most of it. I certainly wouldn't consider it one of the best books of the last ten years, in comparison to, say Coetzee's Disgrace or David Mitchell's stuff or some of Jeff Noon's.

Just (!) another good book I feel.
 
 
Topper
12:45 / 24.05.05
I mostly agree with alterity on this one, although I did think it was clever how Franzen tied everything together with the pills. And Dr Nick is spot on regarding Disgrace. That book did my head in.
 
  
Add Your Reply