"...an important obligation of being an engaged citizen is to talk about the issues that move you, to contribute to a public dialogue. I don't buy into this argument that politics is something we don't talk about in polite society, or we hide behind a curtain as too upsetting, or whatever."

So because Franzen chooses not to participate in public political debates, he's not doing his job as an "engaged citizen"? Forgive me, but who are YOU to decide that?

Brenda Coulter,

You write,

"So because Franzen chooses not to participate in public political debates, he's not doing his job as an "engaged citizen"? Forgive me, but who are YOU to decide that?"

It seems to me that Maud Newton has every right to make a claim about what constitutes being an "engaged citizen." If the claim offends you, then present an argument as to why she shouldn't make such a claim. I have a feeling you might have a hard time formulating such an argument. Of course, it seems more reasonable to begin a discussion about what it means to be an engaged citizen, non?

Though, actually, Ms. Coulter is quoting me, not Maud--and since I'm the great and powerful Oz, I get to decide who's living up to their civic responsibility and who's getting coal in their political stocking and if you don't like it, you can move to Ruritania, where they don't have any freedom.

More seriously, the issue is not whether Jonathan Franzen chooses to engage in public political debates (which he may do in his spare time, without the glare of the media spotlight, for all I know), but whether he dissuades others from doing so, either by explicit warning or implicit defeatism.

It's preposterous -- the very fact that he's commenting IS political engagement. Besides the rich kid thing, I kind of like him, but I suspect he's flying by the seat of his pants in these things. I know I barely remember a word I've said ten minutes later when I mouth off, but the difference is, people are taking note of what HE says. I bet he may quite often be found over his morning paper, head hung and shaking sadly.

I'll go further than Maud: I really dug The Corrections. I thought it was incisive and potent. Yeah, it was not without problems, but I thought it more than succeeded on its own terms. Dude wrote a manifesto about what he thought the novel should be and then went out and wrote it--mad props to you, J Franz. Which is why, when it comes to public discourse, his tin ear is that much more baffling--the Oprah thing, the whiny essays and now the public shushing. I think the Rake better get the Franz boys on the horn and find out what the deal is with the disconnect.

Thoughtful post, Ron, as always. Just for the record, I wanted to clarify that, unlike you, I'm not taking the position that a writer who declines to participate in a political debate is failing to do his or her job as an "engaged citizen."

In my view, a writer who does not wish to discuss politics should feel free to remain silent.

But it's narcissistic and idiotic for that writer to suggest that all writerly political speech is valueless, and especially to (as in the case of Neal Pollack) tell other writers to shut up about politics. This kind of sermonizing particularly rankles where the writer himself has made public statements about politics -- something both Pollack and Franzen have felt quite comfortable doing.

Thanks, Maud -- it occurred to me late last night that the Franzen post was thematically related to the really great coverage you'd given Neal Pollack's boneheaded approach to this subject after the election.

And, yeah, I wouldn't necessarily call for every writer to become a vocal pundit, but at the very least they should refrain from being Eeyores about other writers wanting to do so. If they want to attack the content of an author's punditry, that's one thing, but attacking the act of political expression is just plain wrong.

Precisely!

I'm reading Alan Furst's novel "Night Soldiers" about the systematic purging of the Russian officer class and espionage service pre-WW2. (It's a great thriller not a polemic by the way). Alan Furst evokes a time and place where no one discussed politics because it truly was life and death. The one thing I'm grateful to Pollack, Franzen et al for: the reminder this isn't Madrid 1937. Vaya con divas, muchacha.

Night Soldiers is a remarkable book, one of Furst's best. I recommend it without reservation, whether you like thrillers or not.