What does Jonathan Franzen have against Twitter?

Outspoken author Jonathan Franzen said he thinks would-be writers who should be working on their writing skills are instead spending time on 'constant self-promotion.'

Kathryn Chetkovich/Farrar, Straus & Giroux/AP
Jonathan Franzen's most recent book is 'The Klaus Project.'

If there’s one author who knows how to stir controversy, it’s Jonathan Franzen. The author engaged in an legendary feud with talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey, blasted e-books as “not for serious readers” and damaging to society, and struck out at some of the nation’s most prominent literary critics, most famously calling the New York Times’ Michiko Kakutani “the stupidest person in New York City” for giving his 2006 memoir a poor review.

Now it seems the author is turning his infamous ire on Twitter.

Speaking with BBC Radio 4’s Today program, Franzen complained that the literary world has become obsessed with Twitter to the point of valuing that self-promoting social medium over literary talent.

Not surprisingly, the Twitterverse struck back, with Francesca Main, editorial director at Picador, tweeting, “Most of the authors on Twitter have a book out far more frequently than those who spend loads of time grouching about it."

And Sunday Times columnist and novelist India Knight added, “Lighten up, Franzo.”

As the newspaper pointed out, it’s not the first time the author has bemoaned social media. Just last month he wrote a piece for the Guardian lamenting the tweeting, texting, Internet-surfing, and social media-obsessed ways of the modern world.

And as we wrote earlier, Franzen has been called a Luddite for deploring the Internet, Amazon, and e-books, respectively.

Interestingly, his latest book, “The Kraus Project,” is an examination of the works of satirist Karl Kraus, himself a critic of technology, consumerism, and popular media.

Here’s our theory: In lieu of promoting himself via Twitter and social media, like many of his comrades, Franzen engages in periodic spats with critics, talk show hosts, and the media to stir controversy and draw attention to his latest work.

It’s the kind of publicity even a devoted tweeter could only dream of.

Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.