The Corrections

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I meant to post something about this before the winterlude, but forgot, only being reminded by, of all people, Chris Roberts in this month's Uncut. He praises the book for its marriage of the ambition of DeLillo with the intimacy of Ford, which is nice, but I think wrong. I enjoyed the book in many ways - it was certainly very readable - but instead of ambition and intimacy I thought it smacked of the sentimentality of 'Meet Me in St Louis' and the pretention of one of the wackier Updike books. It's a novel almost paranoid about closure - precisely the sort of closure that is supposedly missing from Pynchon etc - and draws together the narrative threads in a way that is practically fairy tale (the most disturbed character magically gets married, settles down and has kids in the space of about 3 paragraphs). It seems to me there's a desire in the culture for The Corrections to succeed, as popular, serious literature, but I think it's misguided. 'The Sopranos' (or even 'thirtysomething', for pity's sake) was more acute in its examination of the crypto-emotional family soul of modern America. And as a prose writer, Franzen is often merely an assemblage of nervous tics acquired from Amis, Bellow, DeLillo etc.

But what do you think?

Edna Welthorpe, Mrs, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

...also: has anyone read Franzen's earlier novels? Is The Corrections a radical shift of tone, and are they worth checking out?

Edna Welthorpe, Mrs, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

How disappointing - I've seen this in shop windows, and thought it must be a conceptual gag, i.e. a tome containing all the revisions publishers suggested Franzen made to his submitted manuscript, just run together like a big white-water ride through errata.

This may seem like a cheap gag (and, in a very real sense, it is), but I *really* did think that.

Michael Jones, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Ambitious, definitely--it wants very badly to be a Great American Novel, but when you make that many sweeping gestures you tend to knock things over. Intimate I don't know about. The problem is that Franzen's sense of smug superiority comes out CONSTANTLY--he has no real compassion for any of his major characters. Prose = pretty good, not spectacular; the whole thing's very readable.

Douglas, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

i fear i cannot take him seriously since his anti-oprah spasm

mark s, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I couldn't take him seriously after he wrote that self-serving article in the Atlantic Monthly. No, wait. Let me split a few hairs here. Norman Mailer was self-serving. Jonathan Franzen is self- serving, but also whiny and self-absorbed, a lethal combo for any modern writer.

And then when I heard about his bizarro writing methods (typing blindfolded and earplugg'd in the dark to keep focused)...forget it. Needing a blindfold and earplugs and a Harlem studio in order to maintain your writerly focus is overkill on the order needing Playtex gloves to wipe your ass. Dude. If you have to go through that kind of ritual in order to write, maybe it just wasn't meant to be, you know?

I like Meet Me in St. Louis!

Michael Daddino, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Me too! I just think his attempts to graft "regular midwest folks" sentiment onto a post-DeLillo novel was kind of... mawkish.

Edna Welthorpe, Mrs, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I like the film too. At least we can all agree on that.

>>> "This may seem like a cheap gag (and, in a very real sense, it is)"

It's true - that new BT deal is really working for you.

I think that The Sopranos is very average and overrated. I imagine that The Corrections is better (if novel and TV are thus comparable), but could be wrong as I lack Edna's impressive powers of readin' brand new books.

the pinefox, Saturday, 5 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

one year passes...
not only self-serving, but also whiny and self-absorbed, a lethal combination for any modern writer.

I don't know. I find that being whiny and self-absorbed has served me well.

Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Sunday, 5 January 2003 23:23 (twenty-two years ago) link

but you're not modern frank, you were born in the 50s!!

mark s (mark s), Sunday, 5 January 2003 23:27 (twenty-two years ago) link

TS: last few pages of 'Corrections' vs l.f.p. of 'Flowers for Algernon'

dave q, Monday, 6 January 2003 09:52 (twenty-two years ago) link

Nothing wrong with being born in the '50s, Mark. I'm glad I'm not the only such ILXer.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 6 January 2003 18:29 (twenty-two years ago) link

Franzen was born in the '50s!

Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 03:08 (twenty-two years ago) link

The earlier novels are better.

Paul Eater (eater), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 04:04 (twenty-two years ago) link

four months pass...
I read The Corrections over the past couple of days, and thoroughly enjoyed it. It's so full of interesting detail, without derailing the storyline(s). I didn't find his ego coming through, but maybe that's because I've got quite an ego of my own. I can only really say good things about this book.

Andrew (enneff), Sunday, 18 May 2003 13:31 (twenty-one years ago) link

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed The Corrections after having read many conflicting reviews about the story. But I was rather entranced with the story - the familial conversations were painfully real, to me - and maybe that is why I felt so mcuh empathy for the mother. I didn't really care for any of the characters - they were almost *too* human in their imperfections, but I could well see where they were coming from and why.

There were some times when I was conscious of the author's voice coming through the words, and sounding self-satisfied - like "Hey, aren't I brilliant?" but for the most part I was able to lose myself within the story and was not conscious of the writer's ego poking through. I don't think that the writing, itself, was anything miraculous, but I do think it fit well with the story that was being told.

I've two of his other works on my shelves, but haven't yet tackled either - does anyone here have any opinions on Franzen's earlier works?

I'm Passing Open Windows (Ms Laura), Monday, 19 May 2003 00:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

Went to listen to Franzen speak on Friday; he read from How to Be Alone - usual stuff about things and people becoming obsolete and how he finds that oddly comforting. The question I wanted to ask him was "Doesn't taking this comfort mean you're taking an easy way out - a way of avoiding having to deal with the issues you raise?" The actual question I asked was something crap about a trash metaphor.

b.R.A.d. (Brad), Monday, 19 May 2003 02:22 (twenty-one years ago) link

It's been a while since I read this and I was really hoping that I'd like it, but there were huge sections of the book where he just blabbed on and on about really obvious stuff that had little if anything at all to do with the plot, where I was just yelling "fucking get ON with it already!" Maybe I'm confusing books here but I remember reading this really extended section on the anatomical parts of a sneeze or a swallow or something, which seemed to be in there just to show off the fact that Franzen knew the information, not for any particular story-related purpose; even it that wasn't in the book and I'm misremembering it from some other similarly weighty tome, that's what struck me most about the Corrections--much of it was put there just to show off how clever and learned Franzen fancies himself (or wants us to fancy him as).

There was a good 300 page book in there. What that man needs is a very good editor, dammit.

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Monday, 19 May 2003 02:39 (twenty-one years ago) link

The extended descriptions were the only time I detected any deliberate attempt at Great American Novel-ness. They all worked for me, esp. the early stuff on Alfred's condition which hooked me in in the first place.

b.R.A.d. (Brad), Monday, 19 May 2003 02:47 (twenty-one years ago) link

Sean, I don't think there was any extended info on sneezing or swallowing in there - most of it was either about middle-eastern economies, the dementia Alfred suffered from, or Chip's political beliefs, all of which I believe are pertinent to the plot.

Maybe you're confusing it with something else? I've seen what you describe somewhere but I can't put my finger on it. (Neal Stephenson almost suffers from this, but it's just so entertaining when he does it.)

Andrew (enneff), Monday, 19 May 2003 09:45 (twenty-one years ago) link

i thought the corrections was amazingly overrated experience.

what particularly stuck in my craw was the huge passages of research passing itself of relevant information. what is it with modern authors that they think they have to prove the intelligence by boning up on science and cramming into the the novel ad nauseum, [which also as someone else rightly points out bumps up the page count horrendously]? the authors i can think of who do this with any style wit or to any point are pynchon [surprise] and michel houllecbecq.

i also agree the author did not care for his characters and neither did i, quite frankly.

and the sopranos is the most brilliant TV series i can remember.

arthur woodlouse (arthur woodlouse), Monday, 19 May 2003 10:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

Damn, you're right about the sneeze being Stephenson Andrew, but my point about Franzen's diversions still stand, at least for my reading experience; if someone has not much to say I'd prefer they get it over with and move on to other stuff that is more interesting. I'd have to re-read Corrections now to really put my finger on some of the sections that bugged me, but arthur just reiterated it: research passing itself off as literature.

Again I'll stress that there were large sections of the book that I found very very interesting and well-written, and others that i just found exceedingly tedious.

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Monday, 19 May 2003 13:25 (twenty-one years ago) link

eight years pass...

it took me over a year to read this and god it was boring. I'm surprised I stuck with it.

akm, Tuesday, 27 September 2011 17:43 (thirteen years ago) link

should I read freedom now?

akm, Tuesday, 27 September 2011 17:51 (thirteen years ago) link

no, freedom is much much worse

congratulations (n/a), Tuesday, 27 September 2011 18:22 (thirteen years ago) link

three weeks pass...

HBO adap of The Corrections coming from Noah Baumbach:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/chris_cooper_dianne_weist_to_star_in_noah_baumbachs_the_corrections/

incredibly middlebrow (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 20 October 2011 14:27 (thirteen years ago) link

five months pass...

w/greta gerwig, ewan mcgregor & maggie gyllenhaal

john-claude van donne (schlump), Sunday, 15 April 2012 11:15 (twelve years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.