On Behind the Franzenfreude
I'm sorry, but you've created a straw man. No one, at least in the reviews I've read, has called Franzen "The Greatest Thing in American Writing Today." They've praised him for writing a great book, in the Times' words a masterpiece. You've misread that assertion as a claim that Franzen is superior to all other American writers, an assertion you feel insults women, blacks, asians - everyone other than white men (though why it doesn't insult other white males isn't clear).
With respect, something about the praise Franzen has received has made you stumble. So, even after its pointed out to you that Franzen has not been called our greatest writer, you persist in reading the reviews that way, and in extracting an insult to women and others that simply isn't there.
0
On Behind the Franzenfreude
As far as I can make out, Ms. Dean is angry because a novel by a white male writer has been highly praised. Somehow, although she has not herself read the book, she is certain that the praise can't be justified. To her mind, whatever the quality of Franzen's book, it is wrong to "elevate a fiction-writing white man as the Greatest Thing In American Writing Today". Any suggestion otherwise should make us "blush".
This is simple bigotry. Franzen's book may or may not be a masterpiece, but to decide that question it is necessary to read the book. If it is actually terrific, then the Times was right to praise it. It is Michelle Dean's argument to the contrary, an argument that rests on her complete ignorance of "Freedom", that should make us blush.
0
On Behind the Franzenfreude
Well, are you willing to accept the testimony of both Norman Mailer and Philip Roth that Michiko Kakutani of the Times has a profound bias against white male authors? The simple truth is that many women authors believe the Times has a bias against women, while some distinguished male authors are convinced it has a bias against men. This is hardly surprising, but it makes your suggestion that we accept the testimony of the affected pretty useless as a device for determining the truth. We must consider this testimony, but in the end we have to formulate our own judgment as to whether its persuasive.