Cultural Capital

Reflections on books and the arts from the New Statesman culture desk

Preview: NS interview with Jonathan Franzen

The US author says the Tea Party movement "rejects the notion of a common good".

By Daniel Trilling Published 14 October 2010 16:19

J P O'Malley has interviewed the US author Jonathan Franzen in this week's issue of the New Statesman. Here's what Franzen has to say on why he chose Freedom as the title of his new novel:

There is a vulgar notion of American freedom, according to which people wish to be left alone and they almost say: "Keep out." There's this deeply anti-communitarian streak among my fellow countrymen. You see this now with the Tea Party movement, which rejects the notion of a common good.

I was interested in the shocking rage I saw in the past ten years, on both the left and the right in America, the so-called freest and richest country on earth. It was interesting to explore that in the book and to discover reservoirs of misanthropy on both left and right.

Franzen is asked if he felt obliged to write a political novel, given America's current climate::

I don't feel any particular duty as a writer to address political concerns, but it's hard not to be affected by all the things that have happened in my country; hard not to imagine that a character akin to myself, living at the same time, would not also be affected by these things. So what was happening politically, socially, technologically, culturally, did lend itself to the construction of interesting characters.

Elsewhere, the author has praise for Oprah Winfrey and her television book club. In 2001 Franzen expressed unease at the selection of his previous novel, The Corrections, by Oprah. Here, however, his attitude appears to have changed:

Something Oprah Winfrey has been doing, and I hope will continue to do when her show goes off the air, is to inject writers like Toni Morrison, Jane Hamilton and Cormac McCarthy into the larger consciousness. I think that as long as we can keep alive the idea of the American novelist, the experience of getting lost in a novel will become increasingly attractive and become an alternative amid all the electronic noise.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Tea Party Books

More from Daniel Trilling

View the discussion thread.

11 comments

Tue, 2010-10-19 15:31 — firsttimer

Writeon,

"Much of the blame for the rise of the populist, nationalist, right; is Obama's fault. Instead of following through on the promise of his victory, he abandoned his base to the ravages of the marketplace, and instead he reached out to the defeated Republicans, almost as if he didn't realize that he'd won!"

Except that reaching out is exactly what he did promise - that was his election platform.

It is the fear of being made to reciprocate that has driven the Tea Party movement and its backers.

They have not stepped into a void at the centre - the centre is where Obama has been all along - they have just made sure that the centre is drowned out by hysteria.

Fri, 2010-10-15 20:59 — PhilDuval

Better to spend those billions on communities than on bailing out a financial system which preached 'survival of the fittest' to the masses then came cap in hand to the state it despises.

Sadly it is their values which have been incubated in society through constant repetition in the mass media.

Sat, 2010-10-16 03:12 — RK (not verified)

Bankers and governments do the same things. Use other peoples money, play gamble, create ponzi schemes. No difference between them

Tue, 2010-10-19 20:01 — writeon1

I think Obama's a conman in the style of Tony Blair, and it's tragic and frustrating that the idealism of those who voted for him has been wasted on yet another establishment candidate.

I don't think there's any hope for the American political system. It isn't capable of reforming a system which is structurally un-reformable, and was created to be un-reformable, as system that secures a two-party 'dictatorship.'

The US deparately needs substantive, structural, reforms; not mere tweeking, that is simply is not possible under the current system, and arguably never was.

What comes after the wasted promise of Obama? More rightwing, Republican rule for a decade or more, resulting in further social and economic decline, more imperialist wars, and then a battle between the 'left' and 'right' similiar to the Weimar Germany.

Tue, 2010-10-19 22:29 — Luddite (not verified)

It's important to realize that whenever you give power to politicians or bureaucrats, it will be used for what they want, not for what you want. Many in the United States feel very disenfranchised with the political process. The Tea party is a reflection of this.

Fri, 2010-10-15 10:39 — swatantra

Its a good point, about a divided society, about the haves and have nots. But its also about the 'deserving' and the 'non-deserving' debate and the conundrum that billions are spent on supporting those on the edges of society trying to get them out of the cycle of deprivation and poverty that could lead them into crime and violent activity and social services involvement. Billions spent on providing opportunities to make them into better caring citizens. Many will not respond but remain in that culture. Most it has to be said though in poverty respond and have moral values and stick to them and are decent citizens.
We have to all be communitarians and try and reach out and spend those billions to improve lives by providing those opportunities. Its in society's best interests to do so.

Mon, 2010-10-18 22:52 — writeon1

The average member or supporter of the Tea Party movement is right to be angry and wish to bring the entire, rotting, edifice, of elite, controlled, 'democracy' crashing down; only it won't be replaced by something better, but by something far worse... something resembling; fundamentalist, religious, fascism.
Under this system, they will end up even less 'free' than they are now, and with even less control over their lives.

Much of the blame for the rise of the populist, nationalist, right; is Obama's fault. Instead of following through on the promise of his victory, he abandoned his base to the ravages of the marketplace, and instead he reached out to the defeated Republicans, almost as if he didn't realize that he'd won!

Instead of channeling the anger and using it to push through a real reform agenda, he told people to calm down; the right then stepped into the void at the centre and gathered and controlled the anger for themselves.

Obama's lack of polical sophistication and understanding is astonishing, and shows what weak, mediocre and inexperienced politician he really is. Pissing away the fruits of such an historic victory is close to criminal. And it looks like the American voters are going to punish him for it, which, is what he deserves. The Democrats really need to be taught a stinging lesson, then, perhaps, they will learn something. Only the price for such a lesson is going to be high. High for the people who have the most to lose.

And Obama, the arrogant git, is already blaming his own supporters, for the coming defeat, instead of his own dreadful mismanagement and lack of real, substantive, leadership.

It's because Obama isn't really a leader at all; he's a valued servant of the elite who rule the United States and their interests, which is why they chose him as President in the first place.

Mon, 2010-10-18 02:04 — RobinM (not verified)

I know I shouldn't let the sort of remark that so easily is broadcast through comment sections like this upset me, but those by Swatantra Nandanwar really do provoke me to respond. They are so patronising and self-satisfied (and so quick to assume the validity of that 'culture of poverty' nonsense): the good--i.e., well-to-do--people spending billions, "providing opportunities", all to try to make the bad--i.e., poor--people good. Well, I grew up poor, surrounded by poor people. But we weren't without moral values, etc. And we definitely weren't waiting for anyone to bring these to us. What we had was a very strong sense of our class and our community, a belief that we could make our society a fairer, better place for all, and a commitment to trying to bring that about. I can look at the same place now and at the children and grandchildren of those poor people and I see demoralisation. Why? In my opinion, because a lot of well-to-do people, buying into the culture of greed proceeded to use the political power their resources brought them to destroy such working-class society and community as once existed, to destroy the labour unions as best they might, and to take over and subvert the political instrument--the Labour Party--which, with all its then imperfections (which pale into insignificance beside the imperfections of that party today !), did at least provide some hope that working people might be able to effect meaningful change. Now we're reduced, in the eyes of the pseudo-sympathetic, to needing handouts, to needing to be saved by them? I think not. I think we need to take arms against a sea of troubles . . .

Sat, 2010-10-16 21:37 — Gorseinonboy (not verified)

Very pious and well intentioned comments from Franzen which no doubt could be applied to many modern societies in the Western world. I've read his book Freedom which is meant to be the platform for his current concerns. It is unfortunately not successful in examining these current issues but does much to expose the author as a facile writer more inclined to build a popularist following than to deal with real issues, real people, real community. He talks a good game but doesn't perform on court.............

Wed, 2010-10-20 09:02 — writeon1

I think Obama is a disaster. He has almost singlehandedly castrated the 'left', and the anit-war movement; which was becoming a force after the dreadful Bush years; and as if that wasn't enough he's managed to galvanize the moribund Republican party!

In a nutshell, he's done too little to satisfy those who thought they were voting for 'revolutionary' change, without the necessity of actually having a revolution; but he's perceived as a 'socialist' by the right who regard his polite and moderate 'reform' programme as the thin edge of the socialist wedge.

So we have an inexperienced and weak president who has simultaneously weakened his own base and strengthened the opposition, well done!

I think future historians will look back on the Obama presidency, with something close to incredulity; that so much was wasted, so quickly, by so few people. With diasterous consequences for the United States and the wider world. Because, what comes after Obama?

Fri, 2010-10-15 16:17 — Assia W. (not verified)

"There is a vulgar notion of American freedom, according to which people wish to be left alone and they almost say: "Keep out." There's this deeply anti-communitarian streak among my fellow countrymen. You see this now with the Tea Party movement, which rejects the notion of a common good."

This is sheer Franzen brilliance at it's best. I would advise Britain to take note of that statement, though because it's not simply an American issue at stake here.
In all Western Societies, there is a trend towards a very destructive form of Individualism at the moment, which has always been there but has definitely been at it's worst in the last two decades, at least. Our children are growing up to be more and more selfish, more and more avoidant when it comes to living in a non-facebook, truly connected fashion with others. Empathy, Responsibility and Effort are banned words, mostly, in practice, no matter how, still, promoted in some small ways. We no longer really even have communities and that's a shame. Moreover, even in a much more simplistic scenario, a friend will walk out on a life-long friend these days if the said friend has too many problems, it's that bad.