So How Does a Book Work?

"Freedom" by Jonathan Franzen is a well-written, interesting story; unfortunately, I didn't like it and it came clear to me the other day why.  My daughter had printed a list of books that a well-read person should have read over the course of their life-time.  One of the books on the list was Carson McCullough's "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter."  I picked it up, read it, and it is a brilliant book.  "Freedom" is no way near as good and to consider the two books reveals why so many writers fail to grasp what is happening to literature; why so many writers fail to understand what is wanted by the reading public.

Francine Prose wrote a brilliant book "Reading Like a Writer: A Guide for People Who Love Books and for Those Who Want to Write Them".  In the introduction, Ms Prose talks about trying to teach a class of graduates in a Master of Fine Arts class about writing and coming to the realization few of her students were good readers.  It was clearly a disappointing moment for Ms Prose.  I hunted down and read most of the books Ms Prose criticized in her work; some I understood, some I had great difficulties with, all were challenging.  But I am a good reader; I struggle to understand a story; I, in fact, like to work a little bit, think, even, when I read a book.  Not everyone does, of course; some people like to skim more than read which is okay; but, a lot of people, especially good readers, like to be drawn into a story, want to be attracted to a work like a bee to honey.

This is my point about Franzen's book; it is unattractive in this sense.  As much as the plot may have a gem of a good idea within it, a good idea needs the work of language to somehow make it attractive.   Franzen's grammar is polished; there are few, if any, editorial mistakes; the characters are scripted, constant, and realistic.  But, as I told my daughter, it is a cold work; it almost looks the right way but has none of the warmth or character of a genuine piece of literary fiction.  The only way I can explain my realization of these deficiencies is to compare the work to Carson McCullough's.  Some might say it is an unfair comparison but Franzen is considered a genius in contemporary fiction and McCullough is a recognized genius.  I don't think the comparison is between apples and oranges, but the results most certainly are.

McCullough's story is about the loneliness of various people in the Thirties of the American South and evolves around a silent character; he is a deaf mute who attracts various people for their individual reasons and somehow enables them to find comfort within themselves.  It is the story of the struggle of every individual; it is an universal quest, an universal desire.  That universal commonness of the story is appealing and timeless.  The thoughts and needs of people are explored and, as much as the setting is important to the story, it is not requisite to advance the plot.  The whole structure could be moved to a township in South Africa or to a village in Ireland.  Tensions between father and child evolve whether they are Black, White, Moslem, or Hindu.  Every person in the world, every individual, wants to be understood and to not be alone. McCullough's concern is with this very human sense of isolation.

Franzen's work is definitely set in the United States; one of its main characters is obsessively concerned with bird habitats and their destruction.  The whole story is rooted in the geography of the United States; characters travel between States; the story evolves in a particular neighbourhood.  The sense of place, rather than expanding the story, limits and defines the structure.  It also makes the story very American.  One could argue Franzen tries to identify America with the struggle of the various characters; it is as though the very freedom of which the characters seek is the soul of the American dream.  Unlike McCullough, however, the American dream is not universal; if anything, it has become a trite parody of itself because it has become so unrealistic.  Franzen may be trying to illustrate this but his characters evolve through individual wants and satisfactions; their consumptive nature defines how they are illustrated.  The whole plot is predicated on an exploration of the American psyche; to be honest, the characterization of America is not appealing but, more importantly, it leads the reader nowhere.  Franzen offers no hope and no explanation for this dream; there is, therefore, no universal salvation.  It is not as though the threads of Franzen's story could happen anywhere; they are mired in their American-ness, that unique sense of entitlement so common in American advertising, and there is no escape offered.

This failure of Franzen to explore beyond the boundaries of American geography reveals his ignorance of cultures beyond his nation; McCullough's work explores ideas constant throughout the world, Franzen's views are limited.  I think the reason for this is an ignorance of literature; Ms Prose suggests people no longer do a close reading of difficult works, that they are, in fact, intimidated by the thought processes involved.  It is so much easier to have a strong opinion rather than an acute awareness of word structure, imagery, and metaphor usage.  Franzen is almost characteristically American in the stereotypical sense; one would never compare his writing to American greats such as Hemingway, Fitzgerald or Mark Twain; one could never imagine his plots arising from the inspiration of Homer, Chekov or Kleist; the story in "Freedom" is typical America and does not illustrate any great universal truth.  It doesn't even attempt to portray an American truth as somehow relevant to those outside its borders.  Consumption is viewed, perhaps, as an American ideal but the idea is hardly universal, novel, or criticized.

Ignorance of the Classics is demonstrated in the uniqueness of Franzen's story; it is about one culture, at one time, and it has one point.  Though, to be honest, I am not sure I get it; I am not an American.  In order for stories to be attractive, they must draw like to like; they must develop similarities between people or decry differences. Ultimately, readers want a good story with an universal truth to be revealed--be it the sameness at the heart of all human beings or an exploration of human difference.  Sadly, Franzen is a better example of what is happening to literature; it has become demonstrative of consumption, a book is read quickly but not thoroughly; and literature has become illustrative of the vast domination of opinion rather than consideration.  What is truly sad, though, is the reality so many writers fail to read but expect their stories to be read.