Purity
question
is franzen's depiction of women in this book problematic to anyone else?
Becca
Sep 16, 2015 12:26PM
Is it just me or does Franzen write women disrespectfully in this book? It seems to me like he focuses mainly on looks when it comes to a women's value.
reply
flag
The depiction of men is also disrespectful. He is an equal opportunity hater. This makes it not problematic.
SPOILER, 2D PARAGRAPH
Seriously? [EDIT: I didn't mean that to sound as though I did not take your question seriously, it's just that it hadn't occurred to me!] To my mind, he's describing how people feel about their own looks. Look at the slightly-out-of-focus picture of Pip on the cover; Pip's inability to form an opinion as to her own appearance is central, don't you think? Also, I do believe Franzen is chronicling our times, and appearances are everything these days. Further, it's disingenuous, I think, to believe we've "risen above" all the things we currently believe we should rise above.
Example: Franzen spends a great deal of time, as I mentioned above, discussing Pip's appearance, and her apprehension of her appearance. !!!!SPOILER: Then, when the stunningly beautiful woman in Tom's office, with the glistening long hair, turns out to be Pip, are you not taken aback, and didn't you learn something important about Pip? I'm not preaching, just asking. To me, it was a revelatory moment in my understanding of Pip's mental processes.
I don't think he writes disrespectfully of women, not at all. I think he writes very perceptively of women. I feel him struggling more to write non-stereotypcially of men, to be truthful.
I'm pretty much a separatist feminist, very sensitive to these things. He has not triggered me, he has not even made me uncomfortable. I'm in the middle of the book, and I think he's using tools. Of course, I trust him as a writer, which will color my perceptions, I know.
Still reading, so no spoilers, please? Or please warn me you're posting one?
Seriously? [EDIT: I didn't mean that to sound as though I did not take your question seriously, it's just that it hadn't occurred to me!] To my mind, he's describing how people feel about their own looks. Look at the slightly-out-of-focus picture of Pip on the cover; Pip's inability to form an opinion as to her own appearance is central, don't you think? Also, I do believe Franzen is chronicling our times, and appearances are everything these days. Further, it's disingenuous, I think, to believe we've "risen above" all the things we currently believe we should rise above.
Example: Franzen spends a great deal of time, as I mentioned above, discussing Pip's appearance, and her apprehension of her appearance. !!!!SPOILER: Then, when the stunningly beautiful woman in Tom's office, with the glistening long hair, turns out to be Pip, are you not taken aback, and didn't you learn something important about Pip? I'm not preaching, just asking. To me, it was a revelatory moment in my understanding of Pip's mental processes.
I don't think he writes disrespectfully of women, not at all. I think he writes very perceptively of women. I feel him struggling more to write non-stereotypcially of men, to be truthful.
I'm pretty much a separatist feminist, very sensitive to these things. He has not triggered me, he has not even made me uncomfortable. I'm in the middle of the book, and I think he's using tools. Of course, I trust him as a writer, which will color my perceptions, I know.
Still reading, so no spoilers, please? Or please warn me you're posting one?
I was a bit turned off by it myself, BUT he also had a pretty lowly portrait painted of men, and if you think about it Anabel's Father was the ultimate root of all evil (or more so, his $$) and Andreas' story had much male abuse in it.
Also Andreas was perhaps the most screwed up character of them all! While I was initially turned off by how all the females seemed insane, no one was more insane than Wolf. He also makes the least progress of them all, even Anabel makes some at the end while Andreas clearly never could come to grips with life.
I thought Pip, Annagret and Leila were highly regarded. It was only Anabel who you really dislike, and like I said she was kinda shone as 1: ruined by her Father (who was a real jerk) and 2: noble in her warped way by being so strict about the $$ thing
Basically: I think Franzen is going over the top to make a point, but no, after much thought (and taking his past work into account) I don't see it as problematic. I got the feeling that "We're all screwed up and trying to survive in this crazy world and deal with whatever baggage we were given"
Also Andreas was perhaps the most screwed up character of them all! While I was initially turned off by how all the females seemed insane, no one was more insane than Wolf. He also makes the least progress of them all, even Anabel makes some at the end while Andreas clearly never could come to grips with life.
I thought Pip, Annagret and Leila were highly regarded. It was only Anabel who you really dislike, and like I said she was kinda shone as 1: ruined by her Father (who was a real jerk) and 2: noble in her warped way by being so strict about the $$ thing
Basically: I think Franzen is going over the top to make a point, but no, after much thought (and taking his past work into account) I don't see it as problematic. I got the feeling that "We're all screwed up and trying to survive in this crazy world and deal with whatever baggage we were given"
Is it Franzen focusing on looks or Tom/Andreas? How can you differentiate?
I haven't read any "professional" reviews of this book. I reviewed it twice, well, I came back and edited after some thought, and my profile's public, so if you want to look, do so.
I believe, from his other books, that Franzen isn't a "hater" at all. He's a chronicler. (Somebody said that.)
In Purity, I believe he's chronicling the collision of two worlds, two parallel universes, our existence in real life and our existence in the cloud. Pure information collides with reality. Chosen avatar photos or cartoons encounter the physical beings who picked them. I believe it is an attempt to portray the schizophrenic life some us live, half corporeally, half representationally on the web. I believe that is the fracture everyone feels in this book. So appearances are a mystery, a shock, as they haven't been since, say, the time marriages were arranged and the couple never laid eyes on each other until it was too late to have an opinion. So they suddenly gain a new importance (but, please, be real, when were any of us last asked to do a cover for Cosmo or Esquire?). But one can exist in a complete universe now without any appearance whatsoever.
I believe that dichotomy is the theme of the book. While the story, the story is secondarily a young woman physically beholding her father and a new lover for the first time. Both of great renown, both completely unknown to her.
Just an opinion. I'm not going to argue it. Simply present it.
I believe, from his other books, that Franzen isn't a "hater" at all. He's a chronicler. (Somebody said that.)
In Purity, I believe he's chronicling the collision of two worlds, two parallel universes, our existence in real life and our existence in the cloud. Pure information collides with reality. Chosen avatar photos or cartoons encounter the physical beings who picked them. I believe it is an attempt to portray the schizophrenic life some us live, half corporeally, half representationally on the web. I believe that is the fracture everyone feels in this book. So appearances are a mystery, a shock, as they haven't been since, say, the time marriages were arranged and the couple never laid eyes on each other until it was too late to have an opinion. So they suddenly gain a new importance (but, please, be real, when were any of us last asked to do a cover for Cosmo or Esquire?). But one can exist in a complete universe now without any appearance whatsoever.
I believe that dichotomy is the theme of the book. While the story, the story is secondarily a young woman physically beholding her father and a new lover for the first time. Both of great renown, both completely unknown to her.
Just an opinion. I'm not going to argue it. Simply present it.
I noticed that the two main male characters, Andreas and Tom, where both obsessed with their partners/wives mostly because of their looks and they clearly admit that. So much so that Andreas overlooked the fact that to him Annagret was boring (maybe not much in common) and Tom ignored the clearly disturbed mind of his wife. It wasn't surprising that both of those relationships failed after about 10 years. Relationships based on physical traits only don't last.
There was definitely something that bothered me about the way women were written. I felt like there was an ongoing theme of older men/younger women, some of it exploitative, which was creepy. To be fair, the characters were pretty unlikable on the whole, except for Leila.
Beccamink wrote: "Is it just me or does Franzen write women disrespectfully in this book? It seems to me like he focuses mainly on looks when it comes to a women's value."
No
No
I could possibly have been convinced that his depiction of women was deliberate social commentary until the part where Leila spends the weekend with Tom in NYC for the first time and it says that they were only apart for the few minutes when she went to pee. A whole weekend, really Franzen? women poop too! but clearly he isn't even grounded in that basic reality. with the grotesque sexual explicitness, you'd think he'd be more in tune with basic bodily functioning.
