NWR: Side argument - Jonathan Franzen, great or shit?

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
I vaguely remembered his name from when I was in college (we were a few years apart at a smallish school) so I read 27th City when I found it on a remainder table and thought it was interesting if flawed. The whole cultish thing about him later on kept me from the subsequent books.
Click to expand...

Hilarious, I went to Jay McInerney's school (though wider apart), and read "Bright Lights, Big City" for that reason. But I don't know that public acclaim should shy one away from reading something.

I mean, sure, if it's the acclaim of train station books, but if you'd been in, say, David Foster Wallace or Jeffrey Eugenides' cohort, would you shun them for having actually penetrated popular awareness?
Click to expand...

Not to go off On a tangent but I've been avoiding The Goldfinch due to its popularity despite uniformly favorable reviews. Am I wrong to do so?
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:


Not to go off On a tangent but I've been avoiding The Goldfinch due to its popularity despite uniformly favorable reviews. Am I wrong to do so?
Click to expand...

Have you read Secret History? I found Goldfinch much better but like SH the last bit dragged on and on. Though the last bit of SH seemed like half the book.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
I vaguely remembered his name from when I was in college (we were a few years apart at a smallish school) so I read 27th City when I found it on a remainder table and thought it was interesting if flawed. The whole cultish thing about him later on kept me from the subsequent books.
Click to expand...

Hilarious, I went to Jay McInerney's school (though wider apart), and read "Bright Lights, Big City" for that reason. But I don't know that public acclaim should shy one away from reading something.

I mean, sure, if it's the acclaim of train station books, but if you'd been in, say, David Foster Wallace or Jeffrey Eugenides' cohort, would you shun them for having actually penetrated popular awareness?
Click to expand...

Of course you are right and I probably should. I've got a lot of Zola to go through first (though I must admit that Une page d'amour is not exactly keeping me spellbound but La Ventre de Paris is next and should be more fun).
 
Gah, my condolences. I find Zola basically unreadable. The only thing I can really do is Thérèse Raquin, and that's because it's a little weepy. But he is such a slog.

Why Zola, if I may ask?
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
Not to go off On a tangent but I've been avoiding The Goldfinch due to its popularity despite uniformly favorable reviews. Am I wrong to do so?
Click to expand...

Hm, I feel like Tartt goes for the cheap shots; I remember when The Secret History got acclaim; it read like Sweet Valley High meets kid-with-Thus-Spoke-Zarathustra-in-his-back-pocket. Ick, ick.
 
Tartt is compulsively readable and for anyone who likes Victorian Sensation fiction, probably irresistible (that means you, Cole). I liked the Goldfinch as a page turner. I also agreed with the naysayers about its excesses. And for a book ostensibly about a ravishing artwork, the book really gives you no feel for what the painting really looks like. But it is fun to read.

Ventre de Paris is better than Une Page d'Amour. But not much. Claude Lantier does make a short appearance in it as a rather cheerful young artist, which will be an odd memory when you get to L'Oeuvre. La Terre is up next for me, but probably not for a couple of months. I've been finishing Portrait of a Lady, which is much better than I remembered it from 40 years ago.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Gah, my condolences. I find Zola basically unreadable. The only thing I can really do is Thérèse Raquin, and that's because it's a little weepy. But he is such a slog.

Why Zola, if I may ask?
Click to expand...

I stumbled into the Zola RM novels through the two about financial speculation, La Curée and L'Argent (the former real estate speculation and the latter stock market manipulation). Zola's schemers (and their schemes) would not have been out of place in markets today. When I realized the main characters were related I went back to the beginning (La Fortune des Rougon) and I was hooked. But as Jonathan notes, some are far better than others.

If I had to recommend a third (of those I have read so far) it would be Au Bonheur des Dames, a book that should be taught in Business schools. The description of how the Amazon of its day (a thinly veiled Le Bon Marché) worked, from the stock room to the sales floor, and its impact on workers and competitors, is amazing. But the love story is indeed a slog.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Tartt is compulsively readable and for anyone who likes Victorian Sensation fiction, probably irresistible (that means you, Cole). I liked the Goldfinch as a page turner. I also agreed with the naysayers about its excesses. And for a book ostensibly about a ravishing artwork, the book really gives you no feel for what the painting really looks like. But it is fun to read.

Ventre de Paris is better than Une Page d'Amour. But not much. Claude Lantier does make a short appearance in it as a rather cheerful young artist, which will be an odd memory when you get to L'Oeuvre. La Terre is up next for me, but probably not for a couple of months. I've been finishing Portrait of a Lady, which is much better than I remembered it from 40 years ago.
Click to expand...

James always seems better the second time. For me his writing gets better as my reading of Edel's bio recedes over the horizon.

My favorite living American novelist: Pete Dexter.

For Sharon: why is Zola unreadable? I have never read any of his work, but have titles on my list. How does he compare with, say, Flaubert?
 
With Zola, I would start with L'Assomoir and then go on to the children of Gervaise series: Nana, Germinal and L'Oeuvre (with La Bete Humaine, I guess, though he was sort of an add-on child). I doubt Sharon would like any of these. They are all full-force naturalist melodramas. But if you do like them, you can go on to the rest of the series. I've only gotten to 14 out of 20, but only a couple of them have been real duds so far.
 
originally posted by Tristan Welles:
James always seems better the second time. For me his writing gets better as my reading of Edel's bio recedes over the horizon.

My favorite living American novelist: Pete Dexter.

For Sharon: why is Zola unreadable? I have never read any of his work, but have titles on my list. How does he compare with, say, Flaubert?
Click to expand...

James is so, so re-readable.

As for Zola, I just find his writing and subject material tedious and dreary. I hate to say it, but I have a fairly similar reaction to Flaubert, though I do recognize his craftsmanship. For realism/naturalism I enjoy Maupassant so much more. Humor, crassness, etc.
 
I can understand disliking both Zola and Flaubert, but I can't really see them as similar. My students generally used to prefer Zola. So did Auerbach, though for different reasons. I think Sentimental Education to be up there with Anna Karenin and Middlemarch as among the great novels of C19. I might, on this rereading, add Portrait of a Lady to the list. And, in the boys in boats category, Moby Dick.
 
Yo peeps:

I just bought my copy of Purity! At Powell's. Yay for me!

And hey - here are some quotations about Freedom:

"...masterpiece of American fiction..." NYT
"...novel of the year, the century..." Guardian
"Immense and unforgettable." Chicago Trib

All listed on the back cover of Purity!

So y'all's wrong with your assessments'n stuff!
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
For realism/naturalism I enjoy Maupassant so much more. Humor, crassness, etc.
Click to expand...

A Normandy Joke

"The table was laid in the great kitchen, that would hold a hundred persons; they sat down to dinner at two o’clock and at eight o’clock they were still eating, and the men, in their shirt sleeves, with their waistcoats unbuttoned, and with red faces, were swallowing the food and drink down, as if they had been whirlpools. The cider sparkled merrily, clear and golden in the large glasses, by the side of the dark, blood-colored wine, and between every dish they made the hole, the Normandy hole, with a glass of brandy which inflamed the body, and put foolish notions into the head.

From time to time, one of the guests, being as full as a barrel, would go out for a few moments to get a mouthful of fresh air, as they said, and then return with redoubled appetite. The farmers’ wives, with scarlet faces and their stays nearly bursting, did not like to follow their example, until one of them, feeling more uncomfortable than the others, went out, when all the rest followed her example, and they came back quite ready for any fun, and the rough jokes began afresh. Broad-sides of obscenities were exchanged across the table, and all about the wedding-night, until the whole arsenal of peasant wit was exhausted. For the last hundred years, the same broad jokes had served for similar occasions, and although every one knew them, they still hit the mark, and made both rows of guests roar with laughter."
 
Also, it has to be said that "Le Horla" is both fantastically funny, scary and narratively innovative.

And "La Petite Roque" is one of the saddest, most chilling stories, for very different reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top