The Curse of Freedom

          I would like to address what I believe to be one of the most shocking (and perhaps one of the most thematically honest) quotes in Franzen’s Freedom.  It occurs during Katz’s meeting with Walter, Lalitha, and Jessica , when they are discussing ideas for an anti-overpopulation movement.  Walter says:

“People came to this country for either money or freedom.  If you don’t have money, you cling to your freedom 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.” (383)

This is quite a statement.  It is not the kind that would have necessarily been believable from Walter before now.  However, for all of its bitterness, it is reflective of many of the novel’s characters – Patty is miserable with her amount of free time; Joey, once liberated from his family, makes a long series of poor life choices until he returns and admits to his father that he needs help; Katz, though unbound by familial or romantic ties, lives an aimless and less than satisfactory life.  According to Walter, and exhibited by the aforementioned people, freedom is a curse, and people have a tendency, when they have freedom, to misuse it.

            While I know that this class is not intended to have a specific theme or idea that runs through it, I have come to hesitate to refer to the novels we have read simply as “21^st century American literature.”  That title, to me, seems too arbitrary to cover the threads that bind these books together.  I’ve thought about the moniker, “post-9/11 literature,” yet, while all of our novels have, in many ways, been shaped by the idea of the unthinkable, this too seems to put too much weight on an event that is not included in every single novel.  (“Adults-behaving-like-children literature” was also an option I discarded early on.)  While I have not yet formulated a category in which to put all of these disparate yet similar novels, Freedom seems to be at the center of some web of ideas that connects each of them, seems to bring to just below the surface some declaration about what it means to be an American in a century where the unthinkable happened and continues to happen each day.  Yes, Franzen and other authors’ novels are populated with people who use their freedom to “fuck up” their lives, or to simply do nothing with them, but that has yet to explain away the fact that most of them continue to survive, or that what they meant to others continues to endure.  Where does “freedom” fall on the balance between realism and idealism?  Where does it fall on the spectrum between repulsion and redemption?  What does freedom truly mean in Franzen’s 21^st century America?

How External Perceptions of Stupidity Determine One's Own Stupidity

   In Jonathan Franzen's Freedom, many characters call one another stupid.  Yet this may be less telling of those being judged than it is about those doing the judging.  Connie explains how "people complain about stupidity because of their own stupidity" and that "smart people don't call others stupid" (247).  Throughout the novel, many characters seem to comment on the stupidity of Patty, even Patty herself, which makes the opposing claim that Patty in fact is not stupid.  After Patty is raped, her mother, Joyce, tells Patty that it is her personal decision if she wants to prosecute her rapist, yet Patty knows what her mother actually means is that, "don't blame me and Daddy when you ruin your life with your stupid decisions" (50).  Her parents actively engage in victim blaming in order to avoid the discomfort of acknowledging that they are putting their own careers ahead of their daughter's wellbeing.
  In the final section of the book, Walter is staying at the house on the Nameless Lake when Patty arrives at his doorstep to make amends.  Walter refuses to let her in, and Patty waits on the porch in the freezing weather.  Walter instead goes out back to look out at the lake until he can no longer take the cold and returns to the house to find Patty practically frozen.  As he takes her inside, Walter continually calls Patty stupid for being outside so long in the cold, even though he was outside as long as she had been.  Walter would rather call an emotionally-distraught Patty stupid for waiting outside for him than admit he was stupid for not allowing her to come into the warm house.
  When other characters insist that they are not stupid, it seems to hold the opposite effect.  Once Walter and Patty begin to date, Walter confronts Patty about her trip to Chicago with Richard, claiming that "[He's] not stupid.  [He] has eyes and ears, [he's] not stupid" (136).  However, for the rest of the novel, it is clear that Walter is stupid about Patty and Richard.  For years, he is completely unaware of their affair until Patty admits it to him.

Competitiveness and American Capitalism

            One of the most interesting contradictions I have seen thus far in Franzen’s Freedom is that almost all of the characters, aside from the college-aged Joey, consider themselves liberal-minded. While perhaps this is true for their political views (although I am not yet convinced), it is certainly not an accurate description of the way they behave. On the contrary, the characters are so viciously competitive that they create the perfect portrayal of cut-throat American capitalism.

            On Monday we discussed the competitive relationships that had emerged so far: Patty versus virtually everyone and Walter versus Richard. Now, as the book progresses, practically the only relationships that have developed are, indeed, more competitive ones. Lalitha must constantly compete with Patty, as well as Jessica, for Walter’s affection. Walter transitions from competing with Katz to competing with his own wife, Patty, for control in their relationship. Joey, the only character who is actually meant to represent capitalism, constantly and cruelly fosters competition in Connie who must fight to keep him interested in her.

            One passage in which this atmosphere of cut-throat competition is blatantly clear is when four of the characters – Walter, Katz, Jessica, and Lalitha – sit down to discuss business and not one of them can get through a sentence without directly provoking someone else. When Walter defends Jessica’s argument instead of Lalitha’s, Franzen writes that Lalitha “turned on him,” and later Jessica “rolled her eyes impatiently” (382). The language throughout this scene evokes an intense sense of competitiveness, and demonstrates that truly almost none of the characters can get along.

            In addition, Walter and Patty’s entire relationship falls apart during this section of the book, and what is one of the primary catalysts of this disaster? Competition between them, of course. When Patty is too apathetic to compete whole-heartedly with Lalitha for Walter’s love – knowing that that fight would be a hopeless one – she instead directs her competitiveness in another direction. Patty and Walter begin to compete insanely for control in their relationship, especially in regard to their children. Patty’s secret financial assistance to Joey triggers immense anger in Walter, and Walter and Patty have one of their worst brawls at this point. As they argue over whose parenting method is better, Patty declares “You’re just as competitive as I am, you just won’t tell the truth about it” (350). Indeed, almost every character is just as competitive as Patty is, which is why the novel turns into such a high-wired, depressing configuration of arguments and hatred.

            I do not think Franzen made these “liberal” characters so competitive without a purpose, however. I believe the reason he throws in so much discussion about capitalism throughout the novel is to prove that everyone in American society has turned competitive, even the ones who claim not to be so. Not even the liberal-minded are safe today, because every American is trained to be relentless and vicious in the path to getting what they want. Competitiveness in the novel represents the way of the modern world.

Immature Jews

I noticed in Jonathan Franzen’s novel, Freedom, that many of characters had some form of Jewish ancestry.  Richard, Jonathan, and Patty (along with her children) all had Jewish roots.  To me this seemed to be a disproportionally large amount of Jews, especially because Richard, Patty, and Jonathan were not related and did not connect through their shared Judaism.  After some reflection, I noticed that the Jews in the novel shared the common trait of lacking maturity.

Walter noticed Richard’s Jewfro their first night of college, his most obvious identifier of being Jewish, and later that night Richard says misogynistic comments about girls (140).  His misogyny, which had came from the relative absence of his Jewish father, defines him throughout the novel.  This causes him to never be able to develop a strong, long-term relationship with another woman, so he never is able to marry and move on to his next stage in life.  Patty’s mom is also mentioned to have been Jewish, thus making Patty half-Jewish.  Patty also never had a close relationship with her mom, a slight rejection of her Judaism.  Patty’s immaturity is seen through how she never is capable of getting over Richard throughout the course of Freedom.  Both of their perpetual childish attitudes prevent them from moving on with their lives.

By having a Jewish mother, Joey is also technically Jewish.  Jonathan even exclaims that Joey “could immigrate to Israel right now, no questions asked” (268).  Jonathan himself is a full-blooded Jew, and it is interesting to compare the maturity of Joey and Jonathan in relation to their Judaism.  Joey discusses his views with Jonathan’s dad, who likes him a lot for his curiosity for his religion.  Jonathan later freaks out on Joey because he was jealous.  Joey, in turn, thinks that Jonathan needed to “fucking grow up already” (289).  Joey is less Jewish than Jonathan is and he happens to be more mature in dealing with bad situations.

I do not believe Franzen intentionally meant for his Jewish characters to be less mature than the other people in the novel.  However, their Judaism seemed to catalyze the exposure of their immaturity.

What does Freedom mean in the novel?

Why is Jonathan Franzen's vast, all-encompassing novel called Freedom? It is a book he began writing in 2001 that was published in 2010; Franzen witnessed significant change in that decade of American society. Few words can sum up the experience of the early 21st century more effectively than freedom. And for a book that captures the national and family landscape of such a time, few words could have served as a more effective title.

The decade from 2000-2009 experienced a seemingly perpetual conversation about freedom. The nation was involved in two wars over the era, both of which involved getting freedom to people in other countries. Since 9/11 the issue of personal privacy versus national security has never been the same, with legislation like the Patriot Act challenging the freedom and privacy Americans thought they would always have. To contrast the loss of civil liberties citizens faced, economic liberties were gained as financial regulations were loosened and loans became easier to get and homes easier to acquire, resulting in an economic crisis that has sent residual effects into the current decade.

While Freedom does not address these civil and economic liberties head on on such a large scale (or at least not yet), the book does examine similar liberties in its own way. Walter's job creating the conservatory calls into question just how free humans should be to destroy the earth for their own sake. It considers modern moneymaking methods, how far people should be allowed to go in making their money before considering the potentially damaging repercussions they create for the future, and the ethics involved with the balance of caring for the future while being prosperous in the present. The complex relationships among Patty, Richard, Walter, and Lalitha highlight the extent of freedom people have within marriage to seek out affection from others, while Walter and Patty's family situation with Joey emphasizes the freedom (or lack thereof) people have to break away from traditional family dynamic and create their own.

Freedom is a book about freedoms of every kind during a decade fixated on freedoms of every kind. As such, the novel is appropriately titled. All the issues of freedom the book addresses boil down to the ultimate question that its parallel decade tried to answer: what does it mean to be free? While America is a nation founded on the principle of liberty, the book suggests that maybe choosing to restrict one's own freedom can be healthier than allowing oneself to indulge in total freedom which, as the novel suggests, can lead to a life and a nation that spiraled out of control.

Right in Society's Eyes

     Throughout The Known World, the word "right" is continuously used in many different forms.  The sense of what is actually right or wrong is very misconstrued in the novel.  Slavery is something that is seen as normal and culturally expected in the setting of the novel.  Today, though we consider slavery very wrong and inhumane.  To the slave owners in the story, slavery is great and of course the right thing to do is own slaves.  Robbins is even able to convince a black slave that owning slaves himself is right and a good idea.
     The actual treatment of the slaves is an issue of being right or wrong, also.  The owners believe everything they do is right and everything they say should be followed.  Robbins uses manipulation and threats to ensure his slaves stay in line.  When he wants Rita to watch Henry he says, "you see things go right" (16).  He did not tell her to make sure he stays, but that he acts "right."  Augustus does the same thing with Henry, too.  He tells him to "try harder to remember, son, to know the right way."  He knows how terrible slavery is and wants Henry to be safe, so he knows the right thing for him to do is just do as Robbins says and be a good slave.  Elias did not do what was right and ran away and suffered by having his ear cut off.  When the slaves do something the owner sees as wrong, they are punished.
     The concept of what is right and wrong in the novel is all based on what society accepts.  That is how the owners and others in the county justify slavery and their treatment of the slaves.  The owners base how good a slave is on how much he or she obeys and does the right thing in their eyes.  When Robbins is telling an overseer about the slave Sam.  He tells him, "once he learned right from wrong, he gave me good work" (93).  Skiffington's judgement is also clouded by society as he is expected to uphold the law, as long as it is in the slave owners' favor. He claims, "I take no side but the right side," but the right side often is against the slaves and for the owners (158).    

Justifications Through the Word "Right"

One of the major themes in The Known World is that slavery warps peoples’ ideas of good and evil and makes it hard to distinguish between good and bad people. This theme is seen through use of the word “right.” In this sense, the word “right” can be seen as a way to show how characters in the novel create twisted definitions of the word “right” so that they can justify their mistreatment of their slaves.

Robbins uses his definition of the world “right” to justify his owning and abusing slaves. When he is leaving, he says to Rita, “You see things go right,” and the narrator describes, “He meant for her not to let the boy go too many steps beyond his property” (16). To Robbins, “right” means that a slave stays on the property and does what he is told. Later, when a slave does not do what she is told, “[Robbins’] overseer flay[s] the skin on her back with whippings meant to make her do what was right and proper” (27). Robbins taught the overseer that to do right, slaves must do what they are told, and the overseer uses this definition of “right” to justify whipping the slave.

Other masters use their definitions of the word “right” to control the behavior of their slaves. In the passage in which Henry’s coffin is being built, the narrator describes how most free people in Manchester County were buried in coffins made of pine, and sometimes “The slaves sometimes got pine, if they had always done the right thing and their masters thought they deserved it” (72). Masters decide how to treat their slaves based on how well they follow their decisions about what is right.

After her husband’s death, Caldonia reflects on her husband’s treatment of his slaves, and decides that “Henry had been a good master, as good as they come…Yes, he had some slaves beaten, but those were the ones who would not do what was right and proper” (181). To Caldonia, “right” means that a slave does exactly what their master tells them to do, and she uses this definition to justify her deceased husband’s treatment of his slaves.

The characters in the novel have no solid distinction between what is right and what is wrong; those distinctions are left to each character to decide. Masters justify their mistreatment of other human beings by creating their own definitions of the word “right,” twisting the ideas of good and evil to make themselves look like the good people and force the slaves to do what they want.

Right vs Left in the Known World

According to the online Miriam Webster dictionary, the word ‘right’ can be an adjective, a noun, an adverb, or a verb. There are thirteen, nine, nine, and three different definitions for right respective to which part of speech is it functioning as, which adds up to a total of thirty-four different definitions. Such a plethora of definitions means it shouldn’t be a surprise the word right is used in a variety of ways in the novel “The Known World.” This prevalence, however, makes it difficult to come up with a coherent argument about the significance of the word right in the novel. Who is to say the meaning is the same when two characters are discussing one’s right and left (“The right leg of the doll”) as when the novel is using right to mean correctness (“he had not been able to get the knee to bend just right”) (9). When examined that way, the meaning of the word right seems very scattered.

It is perhaps more significant to narrow down one’s focus to a specific kind or right and analyze it that way, treating each definition as a separate instance. For example, when narrowing one’s consideration to the significance of right as a direction, right emerges as an indicator of popular opinion or conventions of the time. Henry, who all we know of at the time is that he’s a black slaveowner, has candles burning on the left side of the candlebra in his room but not the right (6). He defies expectations of both black and whites by owning slaves despite being a freed slave himself. The slave Celeste has a limp because of her right leg, its hampering of her movement a reflection of the way that the institution of slavery restricts her life. Her inability to run also keeps her husband enslaved, since he does not want to run away without her but knows that she would not be able to move fast enough to escape to freedom. Her right leg then operates as an enforcement of the popular institution of slavery. Louis has a lazy left eye, which means that his right eye is the one that focuses on people and obeys societal convention (24). Henry uses his right hand to demonstrate to Caldonia how one should properly ride a horse, and his left to demonstrate how one should not (142). In all of these instances where right is used as a direction, the right side indicates societal conventions or popular opinions of the time