Those of you who picked up Jonathan Franzen's "Freedom" in September to read along with Oprah won't have to wait long to find out what her next book club selection will be.

CHICAGO (AP) — Oprah Winfrey plans another pick for her popular book club.
Harpo Productions said Tuesday that current Oprah’s Book Club author Jonathan Franzen will appear on Monday’s episode of “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” Winfrey chose Franzen’s latest book “Freedom” in September as the first selection for the 25th and final season of her talk show.
On that same episode, Winfrey will announce her next book club pick. The new selection comes about 11 weeks after Winfrey chose “Freedom.” Since 2008, she has averaged one or two selections a year. Winfrey’s book club choices have vaulted to the best-seller list and given authors instant fame.
Winfrey has said she plans to move her book club with her to cable’s Oprah Winfrey Network, which will launch Jan. 1.

What's your prediction for Oprah's next pick? Will you be reading along with her?


-- Cheryl Sadler
CSadler@News-Herald.com

I need to stop writing about Jonathan Franzen, but people keep saying things about him that bear repeating.

Not that they’re really talking about Franzen — no, by now they’re discussing a concept Franzen has come to represent (perhaps, unwillingly.)

He’s the alpha dog. He’s the messiah. He’s the establishment.

He’s an icon, and every icon draws iconoclasts.

It was trendy to love Franzen. Now, it’s equally trendy to hate him.

It’s even a story when people don’t read him.

Jessa Crispin of Bookslut fame has declared Franz-abstinence.

I checked out of Freedom. I just didn’t care. But the build-up of attention, everyone in the literary world pretending that Jonathan Franzen on the cover of Time was as important as James Joyce’s appearance on the same magazine, and the debate about sexism, and the proclamations and the fuss... surely one should just get over it, read the book so that one can make an informed opinion on the matter. But I dug in my heels...

She notes that no classic author is infallible.

Of course there is no such thing as a must-read book. Maybe you should read some Tolstoy, but then again maybe not, if overly long descriptions of fields don’t really do anything for you, or if you have some problems with the whole woman-has-a-desire-and-so-must-die thing. Maybe you should check out some Jane Austen, but then again, Jane Austen is pretty boring and the whole marriage-as-life thing, I mean who really cares?

She concludes that no book is sacrosanct:

There is no such thing as a canon — what you should read or want to read or will read out of obligation is determined as much by your history, your loves, and your daily reality as by the objective merits of certain works. If anything, the homogeneity of the responses to Freedom proves only the homogeneity we have in people discussing books in the U.S.

Meanwhile, Leon Wieseltier writes an essay, defending his publication’s right to criticize Freedom. Wieseltier insists that The New Republic was trying to restore sanity after everyone else had decided to quit worrying and love the Franzen.

A negative review of a book is often not an attack, but a defense against an attack — a retaliation, or, if you will pardon the Begriff, a negation of a negation. The “hatchet job” is sometimes the second hatchet on the scene.

Wieseltier also invokes William Hazlitt’s “On the Pleasure of Hating,” which seems to have been written in response to the Franzen slobber mob.

The popularity of the most successful writers operates to wean us from them, by the cant and fuss that is made about them, by hearing their names everlastingly repeated, and by the number of ignorant and indiscriminate admirers they draw after them.

Franzen’s stature has peaked and, at least, a vocal minority has turned against him — some (like myself) without even reading him. I suspect that people are fickle enough that Franzen will become so disliked it will become fashionable to like him again.

I will say this in Franzen’s defense. It’s more difficult to dislike him when reading his interviews.

Salon asks, “Obama famously was photographed with a copy of Freedom. If he read it, what do you hope he took away?”

Franzen answers, “I hope he was so preoccupied with urgent national affairs that he wasn’t able to take away much more than a general enjoyment of the experience. I didn’t vote for him in expectation of his mooning around pondering literary novels.”

-Jason Lea, JLea@News-Herald.com

1. As you probably know, Oprah Winfrey picked Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom for her book club.

I guess this is a big deal if you’re Franzen or Oprah or a follower of Oprah. Personally, I like The Onion’s take.

And, yes, Jennifer Weiner has noted this on her Twitter page.

“Obvs it would be great if Oprah introduced a great debut lady writer who’s gotten no press. But if that won’t happen...”

Then, in response to another comment, she added, “Oprah hasn’t picked a female author for her book club since Toni Morrison in 2002. Why? No clue.”

Weiner has since proposed her own book club that she will run through Twitter.

Whether I agree with Weiner’s opinions or not, I think an author-run book club is a cool idea. This way, she can help raise the profiles of deserving authors instead of debating media outlets that are unlikely to change.

2. Kanye West asks, “What if Mark Twain had a Twitter? His quotes trump Warhol’s.”

This from the same mind that brought us, “You basically can say anything to someone on an email or text as long as you put LOL at the end” and “Man... whatever happened to my antique fish tank?”

But Kanye’s right. Twain’s quotes were Twitter-ready decades before mini-blogging.

Want proof? Here's a feed filled with Twain, and it's awesome. (Somebody needs to start an Oscar Wilde feed.)

3. Speaking of Twitter, Alison Hallett assesses the value of art criticism in a single tweet. (Hallett, by the way, is the Portland Mercury Arts Editor.)

4. And now for something that has nothing to do with Twitter...

Nitsuh Abebe explains why you don’t want to date a writer.

(Example #8: Writers are really passionate. About writing. Not necessarily about you. Are you writing?)

-Jason Lea, JLea@News-Herald.com

One more thing about Franzen, then I promise to leave him alone (at least, until I read Freedom.)

First, back story: Jonathan Franzen wrote Freedom. Critics fawned. They called it a masterpiece, genius and an epic.

Jennifer Wiener, an author of commercial women’s fiction (sometimes called “chick lit”) became sick of the fawning. She and Jodi Picoult claimed that critics unfairly favored certain authors and those authors are usually male.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Wiener said, “I think it’s a very old and deep-seated double standard that holds that when a man writes about family and feelings, it’s literature with a capital L, but when a woman considers the same topics, it’s romance, or a beach book - in short, it’s something unworthy of a serious critic’s attention.”

The writers wanted to clarify that they were not grousing at Franzen. Instead, they were concerned about gender favoritism and the perceived schism between commercial and literary fiction.

Picoult said, “There’s that unwritten schism that literary writers get all the awards and commericals writers get all the success. I don’t begrudge the label of ‘commercial writer’, because I wanted to reach as many readers as I could. I read a lot of commercial fiction and a lot of the same themes and wisdoms I find in commercial fiction are the same themes and wisdoms as what i see lauded in literary fiction.”

Weiner went so far as to create the hashtag #franzenfreude, which she defined as, “Franzenfreude is taking pain in the multiple and copious reviews being showered on Jonathan Franzen.” (I thought franzenfreude was when you wanted to kill Jonathan Franzen and marry your mother. Also, what’s the difference between “multiple” and “copious?”)

As in most good debates, both sides have worthwhile perspectives.

Yes, the reviews for Freedom have verged on obsequious. However, without reading the book, I can’t tell you if it’s the emperor’s new clothes or justified praise. (Bear in mind, I didn’t like The Corrections; so Franzen’s charm is, at least, partly lost on me.)

Next, each artistic circle has its superstars. Music critics love Vampire Weekend and don’t understand why they don’t sell Katy Perry numbers. Millions of fans love Katy Perry and don’t understand why she doesn’t get Vampire Weekend respect.

Readers are no different. The majority of critics love Franzen and find most women’s commercial fiction interchangeable. Those who enjoy “chick lit” (my co-blogger, Tricia, for example) think it is unfairly maligned because of its subject matter and target audience.

These superstars can come from any gender, race or even sexual preference, though it might be easier for certain demographics to climb the mountain. Yes, Franzen gets a lot of love, but so do Margaret Atwood, Alice Walker and David Sedaris.

(It might be worthwhile to look through the New York Times’ book reviews to see what representation different genders and genres receive.)

Now, as per the differences between commercial and literary fiction, I’ve never read any Weiner. I can’t tell you if she’s a hack who sells a lot of books or an auteur whose merits are unfairly ignored.

I have, however, read some Picoult. While I can’t vouch for all 17 of her books, I enjoyed My Sister’s Keeper more than The Corrections.

This reminds me of when Amy Tan told Stephen King that nobody asked her about the language in her stories. (King relates this anecdote in the prologue of On Writing.) It’s great to be successful, she mused, but it would be better if people appreciated the handiwork, also.

Then again, how bad should we feel for these commercially successful writers? Bestselling authors are already a blessed and lucky few. It’s not enough that they have the job and royalty checks that everyone wants. Now, they want your respect.

Well, some deserve it. Dickens and Shakespeare were two of the most commercially successful authors from their respective eras, after all. But let’s make this clear, there is a difference between Katy Perry and Vampire Weekend. Moreover, there’s a difference between Katy Perry and Prince.

One wrote music that was designed to be popular. The other wrote music that became popular because it was so good.

-Jason Lea, JLea@News-Herald.com

1. James Franco has invested heavily into the Jason Lea Bank of Goodwill. He has ties to Freaks and Geeks and the Spider-Man trilogy, both of which count for something ‘round here. But that doesn’t make him a good author.

I had concerns after reading Franco’s short story in Esquire. Palo Alto, a series of short stories based in a fictional facsimile of Franco’s hometown, is similarly unremarkable, according to PW.

The reviewer said it “reads like Patrick Bateman from American Psycho fell into a Catcher in the Rye remix.”

I’m not sure what that line is supposed to mean, but it elicits an “oh, snap!”

Let me be clear. I haven’t read Palo Alto. But bad review paired with the underwhelming first impression of “Just Before the Black” have quelled any anticipation I might have had for Franco’s fiction.

2. Online Masters compiled the top 40 comic stories to integrate into college curriculums. I love that Ohio natives Brian K. Vaughan (who is misspelled as “Vaughn”), Jeff Smith and Harvey Pekar wrote six of the 40 suggestions.

All the usual suspects — Watchmen, Maus, Sandman — show up, but it’s a pretty good primer for those who don’t care about superheroes but are intrigued by the potential of the medium. Not that the list completely ignores capes, All-Star Superman makes a deserved appearance.

3. Some clever soul has started an @emperorfranzen Twitter feed in the wake of Jonathan Franzen’s Times cover.

Samples: “I see too many self-pub novelists “pushing” their books too hard. Me? I never do publicity. It does me.”

“I love me some marshmallow Peeps. I imagine each one is a chick lit author as I devour them.”

“Writing Tips From the Franz: “Write what you know. You know nothing. So write nothing, and read my books instead.”

4. Dave Eggers and Valentino Achak Deng update us on their school in Sudan.

Speaking of Sudan...

Still speaking of Sudan...

-Jason Lea, JLea@News-Herald.com

Yes, let’s start with this.

1. I rolled my eyes when I saw Jonathan Franzen’s Time cover — not because his fame founded from a minor tiff with Oprah; not because his reputation is predominantly based upon a single novel that I think is overrated. (No, I didn’t like The Corrections, but I understand why other people do.) It’s not even that there are other authors who I feel deserve the honor more. Everyone has their favorites, and Franzen has both commercial and critical cache.

No, I rolled my eyes because Time felt the need to pair Franzen with the words “great American novelist.” I don’t question that Franzen is a novelist and American, and there are many people who are smarter than me that think he’s great. But the words have a ring of exclusivity.

The title seems, at least, premature. Steinbeck, Melville and Hawthorne are great American novelists. Mailer and Updike are great American novelists. So are Toni Morrison and Philip Roth.

I just don’t feel like Franzen has earned what these names have earned. (Let me be clear. I’m not accusing Franzen of hubris. I have no reason to think he suggested the cover head.) Maybe Freedom will blow me away, and I’ll have to retract my statement. Maybe I will be embarrassed for ever doubting him. But, right now, he is a man with some momentum. Let’s see if he can sustain it before we coronate him.

Franzen’s cover shot is also a big deal because Time has not put a writer on its front since Stephen King 10 years ago. (That fact is a bit misleading. Harry Potter appeared on the cover more recently for a story that was mostly about J.K. Rowling.)

The Millions has written a detailed history of the many writers who have appeared on the cover of Times.

2. Norman Mailer once claimed that God told him to walk out on an all-night diner’s check in 2007.

“It was God’s amusement to say, ‘You little prig. Just walk out of there. Don’t pay for the coffee. They’ll survive, and this’ll be good for you,’” he said.

This and some of the other worst divine-advice excuses are compiled in this Salon slide show.

3. What is most disappointing? That they are making a movie of Jack Kerouac’s On the Road?

That they are filming this crucially American story in Montreal? (I mean stateside America. Obviously, Montreal is in America.)

Or that the cast includes Kristen Stewart?

4. Alice Walker on the segregation of African-American authors:

In my passion to locate more books by writers from other cultures I took a turn around the Kindle and Amazon sites, to discover something that seems truly amazing: books by black authors are segregated by race! This would be hilarious if it were not so troubling. If, after all of our struggle to integrate into this questionable system we may enter a bookstore and stand anywhere, but our books must reside in a corner, the world has not changed nearly as much as I, for one, assumed it had.

There are writers from Iran, Japan, Ireland, England, India, China, Israel, Korea, Tibet etc., all listed and shown to be writers of Literature. But when looking for my own novel (which world wide has sold perhaps fifteen million copies) I found it tucked away with twelve or so books by other African Americans under African American Literature. To make matters worse, no one had bothered to read the book to verify the narrative. A synopsis has the main character raped by her father rather than by her stepfather (her father was lynched when she was an infant) a point that is crucial to comprehending the dynamics of the heroine’s rise from disaster.