I bought it as soon as it came out, because I adored his two previous novels and I wanted to read this one in English (I read the other two in Spanish). I see your point, this is ordinary literary fiction, but I liked it a lot. Every chapter has its own tone, almost like independent novellas. I know that the literary devices of the plot are not very ingenious, but I thought that was deliberated. For me, it seemed like Franzen was trying to write adapting the style of a XIX novel, with its forms and typical surprises. And yeah, it reads like if Franzen had decided that he was going to be his own influence jajaja His commentary on pop culture is always funny!! I don’t think he’s right (most of the times) though. I missed the Franzen who deals with the fundamental issues of the contemporary society on literary devices full of heart, wit and humor via well developed characters. Purity is more like a well told story with philosophical/sociological comments annexed to it. Anyway, I didn’t love the book as I loved The corrections, but I enjoyed it a lot and I would definitely read it again! :)
That's a very interesting opinion, thanks for the comment! It is indeed true that Franzen plays a lot with the conventions of classic novels, at least since The Corrections. Here in Italy he is one of the most read among American authors, and he is equally loved and hated, with several people criticizing him precisely because of the way he employs the structure and devices of 19th C literature. (That's never been a problem to me though honestly).
Maybe I liked more how the sections all fit together and waiting for them to do so than I enjoyed the actual book, but I liked it while reading. You are right, not as good as Freedom or The Corrections (have not read his first two).
Can someone please help me to explain what is it all about ghe Purity because my teacher assigned me and I will present it next meeting and I don’t understand the novel🥲
here's a request: make a video about literary form!? it's the one thing I really lack a conscious understanding of and I feel like the communication about it is nonexistent. So I wonder what makes you say that Franzen is obviously talented and that his talent shows even in a book you hate. So like make a video on how one sentence is totally great and another totally shit? Or something like that. I studied a bit of narratology for the first time this year and got incredibly excited as some writerly consciousness fought its way into my head, and then when I read I consciously saw the whys of some writerly decisions...felt great. Yet it's not really my cup of tea atm and I still don't understand like 99% of it. So if you feel like talking about that a bit that would be awesome!
I see what you mean and I have been thinking for a while about making a video about the basics of narratology; still, I believe the video you suggest would be difficult to film because, for me, great writing is not a universal, but it's different from writer to writer! Like, I'd say Franzen writes awesomely because of the way he can implement his black humor into his stuff without compromising its seriousness or vibe, or because of the games he play when he shows you a scene from one character's perspective, and later does the same from another. I have been trying to become more and more of a close reader in these last few years, but keep in mind that I don't come from the Anglo-Saxon academic system (where you sometimes spend a whole hour on a single sentence(!!)) and I approach writing a bit differently. But yeah, I understand your bafflement, it's the same for me when I hear people say "this is clearly a good poem/this is clearly not a great poem." How can you say that?!
I don't like Munro! I feel that for all of her writing talents she writes the same story all over again, the same kind of plotless moment-of-truth epiphanic literary short story; and to me, that is as exciting as reading any other genre piece that follows 100% the canons of its own genre. Mind, I've only read one of her collections and a few stories outside of that, and one or two of those stories I liked very much, but in general she's the opposite of the stuff I like to read!
Lauracio There's a certain school of thought that holds that so called "literary" fiction is a genre as much as "crime" or "high fantasy" or "romance" or "science fiction" are genres. Some bookshops even have separate sections for "fiction" and "literature" (although that may be a separate issue). It's not a school I subscribe to because if literary fiction is anything it is simply fiction with more care about the 'how,' and not just the 'what.'
I love this review because it's speaks directly to how I felt about Purity. Everything you say; from the comment about it reading like a parody of Franzen, to the fact that the sections set in socialist Germany being the best parts (after these, I was tempted to actually stop reading it). It also bordered on being preachy, and that bothered me because I have not felt that was about Purity.
This is good news: I'm planning to read a lot of debut novels next year, and maybe choose one to begin a project to read all of an author's work in chronological order. Franzen is a good candidate and i haven't read his earlier stuff.
Sorry for multiple comments 😊 I works also describe myself as a Franzen fan (actually have described myself as a Franzen apologist on occasion!) and The Corrections & Freedom are great, not perfect, but the Franzen hate is out of control. Purity was weird. Uneven. I liked the Germany stuff best. i would have read a whole novel set there.
Twenty-Seventh City is definitely worth it; as for Chabon, I know lots of people love The Mysteries of Pittsburgh, but it's the one I like the least among his novels. Not because it's bad, but because it's the "most normal" and least exciting among his books. Again though, there's lots to love in there too.
The_Bookchemist Franzen does great characters and T27th City has too many so none get the rich treatment exhibited in his more mature work. It's an interesting but lesser book.
have you ever thought about writing your own novel? so many people say that reading is the best tool for a writer, so I reckon you would be pretty darn good!
I have! I've been writing since forever and a few years ago I finished a novel I think is worth something; I've been editing it and working on it for a few years now and at the moment I am looking for an agent, and working on promotional stuff for the whole thing.
Capisco bene i tuoi commenti, è anche una questione di gusti, a me Purity è piaciuto davvero molto. Hai letto quello che diceva Franzen sul postmodernismo nel 1995? Questo articolo mi ha aiutato a capire un po’ meglio la sua visione letteraria e i suoi obiettivi: www.nytimes.com/2001/09/02/magazine/jonathan-franzen-s-big-book.html
The first 150-200 pages of the book are very slow. Purity as a whole is a very raw book. It's comparatively weaker than his other works for sure. His ideas about the internet I don't agree with completely. Plus his prose in Purity is less toned down than it is in Freedom, which was a notch down from The Corrections. The book was kinda frustrating, but I liked is on the whole. The The [le1o9n8a0rd] secton about Tom and Anabel is my favorite and I think it is one of his best pieces. I don't find his characters to be unlikable and do think that characters are his greatest strength. But yeah, all in all, the book was a little disappointing. P.S. His notion of secrets and their importance concurs a lot with DeLillo's in Libra, no? ;)
I did read this book and Jonathan Franzen puts emphasis on these so-call plots. The description tells Pip Tyler doesn't know who she is, she does too, the mother starts out as a waitress on go-fast having to raise a dysfunctional daughter. The mother gets a job at a nuclear plant and haves an affair. The result, purity becomes the apple of eyeball-to-eyeball.
From what I can tell, Purity suffers from two major flaws. 1. It doesn't seem as polished as Franze's previous novels. Franzen is one of those writers who tries to perfect his writing over multiple drafts, and considering it took less time for Purity to come out than his two previous novels, I'm under the impression he didn't spend as much time mulling over it for some reason. 2. Franzen is definitely better at writing characters than stories, and even then he needs time to round out these characters to make them not seem *too* unlikable. You could say this second point is an extension of the first, because Purity suffers from both a messy story and weak characters by Franzen's standards. A lot of this is speculation on my part, mind you. I'm still kinda new to his body of work.
I actually really enjoyed reading "Purity". I thought it was an interesting assortment of characters- and Pip's struggles felt very relatable.
I bought it as soon as it came out, because I adored his two previous novels and I wanted to read this one in English (I read the other two in Spanish). I see your point, this is ordinary literary fiction, but I liked it a lot. Every chapter has its own tone, almost like independent novellas. I know that the literary devices of the plot are not very ingenious, but I thought that was deliberated. For me, it seemed like Franzen was trying to write adapting the style of a XIX novel, with its forms and typical surprises. And yeah, it reads like if Franzen had decided that he was going to be his own influence jajaja His commentary on pop culture is always funny!! I don’t think he’s right (most of the times) though. I missed the Franzen who deals with the fundamental issues of the contemporary society on literary devices full of heart, wit and humor via well developed characters. Purity is more like a well told story with philosophical/sociological comments annexed to it. Anyway, I didn’t love the book as I loved The corrections, but I enjoyed it a lot and I would definitely read it again! :)
That's a very interesting opinion, thanks for the comment! It is indeed true that Franzen plays a lot with the conventions of classic novels, at least since The Corrections. Here in Italy he is one of the most read among American authors, and he is equally loved and hated, with several people criticizing him precisely because of the way he employs the structure and devices of 19th C literature. (That's never been a problem to me though honestly).
Maybe I liked more how the sections all fit together and waiting for them to do so than I enjoyed the actual book, but I liked it while reading. You are right, not as good as Freedom or The Corrections (have not read his first two).
I love your sarcasm!
Can someone please help me to explain what is it all about ghe Purity because my teacher assigned me and I will present it next meeting and I don’t understand the novel🥲
here's a request: make a video about literary form!? it's the one thing I really lack a conscious understanding of and I feel like the communication about it is nonexistent. So I wonder what makes you say that Franzen is obviously talented and that his talent shows even in a book you hate.
So like make a video on how one sentence is totally great and another totally shit? Or something like that.
I studied a bit of narratology for the first time this year and got incredibly excited as some writerly consciousness fought its way into my head, and then when I read I consciously saw the whys of some writerly decisions...felt great.
Yet it's not really my cup of tea atm and I still don't understand like 99% of it. So if you feel like talking about that a bit that would be awesome!
I see what you mean and I have been thinking for a while about making a video about the basics of narratology; still, I believe the video you suggest would be difficult to film because, for me, great writing is not a universal, but it's different from writer to writer! Like, I'd say Franzen writes awesomely because of the way he can implement his black humor into his stuff without compromising its seriousness or vibe, or because of the games he play when he shows you a scene from one character's perspective, and later does the same from another. I have been trying to become more and more of a close reader in these last few years, but keep in mind that I don't come from the Anglo-Saxon academic system (where you sometimes spend a whole hour on a single sentence(!!)) and I approach writing a bit differently.
But yeah, I understand your bafflement, it's the same for me when I hear people say "this is clearly a good poem/this is clearly not a great poem." How can you say that?!
Waaaaaaait.... what did you say about Alice Munro? This needs a longer explanation...! If you want to... 🤔
I don't like Munro! I feel that for all of her writing talents she writes the same story all over again, the same kind of plotless moment-of-truth epiphanic literary short story; and to me, that is as exciting as reading any other genre piece that follows 100% the canons of its own genre. Mind, I've only read one of her collections and a few stories outside of that, and one or two of those stories I liked very much, but in general she's the opposite of the stuff I like to read!
Lauracio There's a certain school of thought that holds that so called "literary" fiction is a genre as much as "crime" or "high fantasy" or "romance" or "science fiction" are genres. Some bookshops even have separate sections for "fiction" and "literature" (although that may be a separate issue). It's not a school I subscribe to because if literary fiction is anything it is simply fiction with more care about the 'how,' and not just the 'what.'
I love this review because it's speaks directly to how I felt about Purity. Everything you say; from the comment about it reading like a parody of Franzen, to the fact that the sections set in socialist Germany being the best parts (after these, I was tempted to actually stop reading it). It also bordered on being preachy, and that bothered me because I have not felt that was about Purity.
Pip's parents - honestly, WTF?!
This is good news: I'm planning to read a lot of debut novels next year, and maybe choose one to begin a project to read all of an author's work in chronological order. Franzen is a good candidate and i haven't read his earlier stuff.
Chabon is a good candidate too!
Sorry for multiple comments 😊 I works also describe myself as a Franzen fan (actually have described myself as a Franzen apologist on occasion!) and The Corrections & Freedom are great, not perfect, but the Franzen hate is out of control. Purity was weird. Uneven. I liked the Germany stuff best. i would have read a whole novel set there.
Twenty-Seventh City is definitely worth it; as for Chabon, I know lots of people love The Mysteries of Pittsburgh, but it's the one I like the least among his novels. Not because it's bad, but because it's the "most normal" and least exciting among his books. Again though, there's lots to love in there too.
The_Bookchemist Franzen does great characters and T27th City has too many so none get the rich treatment exhibited in his more mature work. It's an interesting but lesser book.
That's a fair objection actually
have you ever thought about writing your own novel? so many people say that reading is the best tool for a writer, so I reckon you would be pretty darn good!
I have! I've been writing since forever and a few years ago I finished a novel I think is worth something; I've been editing it and working on it for a few years now and at the moment I am looking for an agent, and working on promotional stuff for the whole thing.
The_Bookchemist
that's great news! obviously let us know when the ball starts rolling. I am also an aspiring writer. it is hard but fun.
It's hell and it's heaven at the same time! Best of luck with your efforts, when you get published I'll review you ;)
The_Bookchemist
thank you, dude! all the best with yours :)
Capisco bene i tuoi commenti, è anche una questione di gusti, a me Purity è piaciuto davvero molto. Hai letto quello che diceva Franzen sul postmodernismo nel 1995? Questo articolo mi ha aiutato a capire un po’ meglio la sua visione letteraria e i suoi obiettivi: www.nytimes.com/2001/09/02/magazine/jonathan-franzen-s-big-book.html
The first 150-200 pages of the book are very slow. Purity as a whole is a very raw book. It's comparatively weaker than his other works for sure. His ideas about the internet I don't agree with completely. Plus his prose in Purity is less toned down than it is in Freedom, which was a notch down from The Corrections.
The book was kinda frustrating, but I liked is on the whole. The The [le1o9n8a0rd] secton about Tom and Anabel is my favorite and I think it is one of his best pieces. I don't find his characters to be unlikable and do think that characters are his greatest strength. But yeah, all in all, the book was a little disappointing.
P.S. His notion of secrets and their importance concurs a lot with DeLillo's in Libra, no? ;)
Leonard was good too! And a good break from the general flow of the book
(Leonard as in, the section)
YAY! Now it's time for you to read "A Little Life" by Hanya Yanagihara.
Justin Lance I would say don't do it cos A Little Life is torture (even its fans agree) but I would love to hear Mattia's opinion.
So what if there is alot of suffering in it. I prefer alot of suffering in a novel lol
I did read this book and Jonathan Franzen puts emphasis on these so-call plots. The description tells Pip Tyler doesn't know who she is, she does too, the mother starts out as a waitress on go-fast having to raise a dysfunctional daughter. The mother gets a job at a nuclear plant and haves an affair. The result, purity becomes the apple of eyeball-to-eyeball.
From what I can tell, Purity suffers from two major flaws.
1. It doesn't seem as polished as Franze's previous novels. Franzen is one of those writers who tries to perfect his writing over multiple drafts, and considering it took less time for Purity to come out than his two previous novels, I'm under the impression he didn't spend as much time mulling over it for some reason.
2. Franzen is definitely better at writing characters than stories, and even then he needs time to round out these characters to make them not seem *too* unlikable. You could say this second point is an extension of the first, because Purity suffers from both a messy story and weak characters by Franzen's standards.
A lot of this is speculation on my part, mind you. I'm still kinda new to his body of work.
Both make sense to me, especially your second point!