'Freedom' By Jonathan Franzen, Reviewed By Ruth Franklin | The New Republic

Ruth Franklin's take-down:

His slick and hollow work is premised on a despair of ever honoring all the aspirations. The commotion surrounding the publication of this pseudo-masterpiece reminds me of Orwell’s mordant observation that “to apply a decent standard to the ordinary run of novels is like weighing a flea on a spring-balance intended for elephants. On such a balance as that a flea would simply fail to register; you would have to start by constructing another balance which revealed the fact that there are big fleas and little fleas.” Freedom is a big flea, perhaps even a giant one. But if Franzen is the best we’ve got, he still isn’t good enough. His literary edifices have the look of greatness, but greatness eludes them. If my children someday ask, “What did you do in the culture wars, Mommy?” I hope I can come up with something better than “I read a novel by Jonathan Franzen.”

One wonders at the impulse to crown a genius, even when our current literary scene doesn't merit one, nor can it produce anything that will out live any of us.

Jonathan Franzen's Freedom is an epic map of our imprisonment. - By Judith Shulevitz - Slate Magazine

I don't know if I'll ever bring myself to actually read one of Franzen's books, but this seems worth some time and thought:

What passes for freedom in America, Franzen seems to be implying, is a refusal to accept limits, to acknowledge and shoulder the burdens of one's inheritance. Certainly everyone in the novel comes to rue freedom, their own and others'. Patty notes that "all her choices and all her freedom" bring her nothing but misery and self-pity. Richard, the punk-rocker who was Walter's college roommate and becomes Patty's lover, belatedly attains the freedom that comes with stardom and nearly commits suicide; later, he achieves YouTube notoriety for a rant in which he taunts a generation that associates freedom with iPods: "We're about choosing what WE want to listen to and ignoring everything else," he tells the video camera. "Me me me, buy buy buy, party party party. Sit in your own little world, rocking, with your eyes closed." Walter, whose core political message is that we need limits to growth, sees the discourse on freedom as little more than the Republican insistence on "personal liberties":

"People came to this country for either money or freedom. If you don't have money, you cling to your freedoms all the more angrily. Even if smoking kills you, even if you can't afford to feed your kids, even if your kids are getting shot down by maniacs with assault rifles. You may be poor, but the one thing nobody can take away from you is the freedom to fuck up your life whatever way you want to."

Stinky Pete as Existential Hero — Crooked Timber

Overthinking philosophers + too much coffee + Pixar children's movie.

Toy Story 2 maps out the major themes of Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go. They both are driven by the same basic idea – of highly intelligent, potentially autonomous creatures who define their happiness entirely in terms of the happiness of others. In Never Let Me Go, this makes the (liberal) reader quite queasy. In Toy Story 2, this is treated as an entirely happy and natural state of affairs. Perhaps it shouldn’t be – and that so many people take the social relations in Toy Story 2 for granted, suggests that NLMG’s clones’ acceptance of (and even joy in) their status is less socially unrealistic than some of its critics think.

Hateful Actions Speak Louder Than Hateful Words

Anyone who's ever complained that the web is for amateurish, sophomoric, thoughtless, self-serving, echo chamber opinionating can have a field day with this little micro controversy.

So first, James Watson makes some rather unfounded assertions about IQ and race, and gets himself in all sorts of hot water. Then, this other guy in The Guardian complains that racist speech like Watson's is a violation of human rights. To which this other other guy objects to on the grounds of free speech.

Then, Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber picks up the discussion by arguing that government can play a role in outlawing hate speech:

Far from liberty being endangered by hate-speech legislation it may—and whether it is depends very much on the specific social and historical circumstances—ensure that many people continue to enjoy effective liberty.

At which point Andrew Sullivan, seizing on both the phrases "hate speech" and "effective liberty," sees some hidden left-wing conspiracy:

But the motivation behind hate-crime laws - a loathing of liberty and group-think victimology - is still out there. To make my own position clear: The elimination of bigotry is not a legitimate role of government.

To which Bertram replies:

The right frame, in my view, is to think of the state as “we, the people” and to ask what conditions need to be in place for the people, and for each citizen, to play their role in effective self-government. Once you look at things like that then various speech restrictions naturally suggest themselves.

So in almost no time at all we go from discredited views on race and IQ, to human rights, to free speech, to hate speech and effective liberty, to group-think victimology, to "we, the people" passing speech restrictions upon ourselves. Brilliant. Well done, one and all.

My problem with the entire discussion is how easily it conflates words with actions and name-calling with law and policy. The original objection to Watson is not what he said, but that his opinions have the potential to affect policy. In his original statement he said that he was:

"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."

In other words he wasn't just saying racist things, he was advocating policy changes that would affect real people in the real world. That's the difference. You can't outlaw name-calling, or hateful words, but you must always be on guard against their implementation and practice.

And that's the real problem, because in reality our politicians are smart enough, most of the time, to avoid hateful speech, while silently carrying on with passing legislation that is harmful toward minorities, women, children, and gays. It's the deeds and not their words you have to watch out for.

The other problem with all of this is that any coward can hide behind hate speech laws. If you criticize a Nazi, you're violating his rights. If you object to female circumcision or honor killings, you're violating someone else's religious freedom. It's all bad, once you tie identity to rights and protections.

The social goal should always be to protect the marginalized and disadvantaged from the predatory indifference of the powerful. The social reality is that those groups are always in flux, and those who are out of power today are always pushing toward the center.

On the other hand, you'll always recognize those who are in a position to abuse their power: they're the ones who have no need of freedom or speech. They take without asking, and attack without words.