Jonathan Franzen's "Freedom"

Reviewing the Reviewers

You can hardly fancy yourself a "serious social commentator" -- and what self-respecting blogger doesn't? -- unless you take a crack at reviewing Jonathan Franzen's epic new novel, "Freedom."

Which, of course, first requires that you actually read the almost-600 page thing -- no small undertaking.

Before getting to my review, though, I thought it more interesting to review the reviewers.

I've now read three: The New York Times Book Review; David Brooks, from The New York Times Op-Ed page (detect a theme?); and B.R. Meyers in The Atlantic.

In order, they have pronounced "Freedom": 'a masterpiece of American literature'; 'a flawed masterpiece'; and, simply, "flawed."

Anything that inspires such divergent, Rashomon-esque commentary is, at the very least, curiousity-inspiring, and worthy of deeper examination.

It's also telling that the last two reviewers, Rorschach-like, home in on what they think the book is missing ("ambition"), then proceed to expend not a little energy delving into what they wished it addressed, i.e., remedies for the cultural ennui Freedom brilliantly limns (read the book, and you too, will be taking out your dictionary).

Provocative, perhaps, but not exactly great (or very fair) literary criticism -- sort of like a food critic pronouncing the chocolate souffle "exquisite," but then lamenting it doesn't taste more like cherry pie.

More about the actual book to come.

For now, suffice to say that, fresh off completing it, it's impossible to go to a University of Minnesota football game -- as I did last night -- and not scan the crowd looking for "Patty-lookalikes" (one of the story's main characters, in a book with a major Minnesota connection).

Chinese Drywall in Minnesota -- Update

City Lakes Posts by Popularity

The most popular post (by far) on this blog the last few days?

Realtors April Fool's Jokes (so much for my conceit that my Readers are all erudite, knowledge-seeking policy wonks).

Runner-up?

This post, which originally ran in late December: 'Chinese Drywall in Minnesota? New Bank Disclaimer.'

The impetus clearly was this announcement yesterday:

Homeowners should remove potentially defective Chinese drywall from their homes to prevent health and safety problems linked to noxious emissions, U.S. regulators said Friday.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Department of Housing and Urban Development disclosed new information they said indicated that certain Chinese drywall emitted hydrogen sulfide at rates 100 times that of non-Chinese samples, far more than earlier thought. The announcement could set the stage for Congress to compensate homeowners who face the expense of gutting their homes and replacing the drywall, officials said. One lawmaker said the U.S. should seek compensation from the Chinese government.

Chinese-made drywall, also known as gypsum or wallboard, has been under federal investigation because of complaints that the drywall emits sulfide fumes. Homeowners have complained of rotten-egg smells, corrosion of appliances and health problems such as bloody noses, headaches and respiratory issues.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received more than 3,000 homeowner complaints from 37 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico alleging home damage from chemicals emitted from Chinese drywall.

--"U.S. Calls for Homes With Chinese Drywall to Be Gutted"; The Wall Street Journal (4/3/2010)

To the best of my knowledge -- and I have not researched it -- Minnesota is not one of the 37 states where complaints have been made.

My sympathies to any homeowners affected by this, no matter where they are: it sounds like a nightmare, on many counts (health issues, financial cost, litigation headaches, etc.)