I have a hard time separating the work from the man. I've heard Franzen's a misogynist and an all-around lousy guy (the extent to which this is true, I'll admit, I don't know) and so I sort of hate some of these essays. However, when Franzen's on he's on. "My Father's Brain" is incredibly moving and worth three stars in itself. ( )

I really enjoy Franzen's screeds against everything. I feel like I shouldn't, but I do. These are particularly humorous in hindsight. The early aughts were a simpler time. ( )

«Per un attimo, anche se sono a letto da solo, non mi sento solo. Per un attimo sento di appartenere a un gruppo non abbastanza numeroso da rappresentare un campione statistico significativo, ma neppure tanto ristretto quanto il proprio io indifeso. è un gruppo formato da due individui, lo scrittore leale e il lettore fiducioso. Siamo diversi eppure uguali».
Se vi riconoscete, è un buon libro da leggere. Ci sono delle deviazioni poco rilevanti, ma la maggior parte di queste pagine racconta di cosa voglia dire oggi leggere e scrivere. ( )

Frankly I am tired of giving passable ratings to competent essays like these, which read well enough but don't taste like anything, and which don't really communicate much at all. I recall being frustrated at some point in the "TED talk craze" at the popularity of talks and videos that were not particularly informative, the details of which were nearly impossible to recall afterward. "Latecomer to the party" so-to-speak, I eventually realized the objective of these talks wasn't to inform so much as to entertain, or, vulgarly, "infotain". That these essays are, ironically, a kind of television documentary on paper, I hope isn't lost on the reader.

My Father's Brain, the first and most powerful essay in the collection doesn't stand up to other work on the weighty subject (Alzheimer's disease) and further botches the endeavor with a facile (and scientifically inaccurate [despite what his reference to the literature would lead you to believe]) extended metaphor: "Alzheimer's disease is like becoming an infant again" - loss of higher functions then loss of basic functions, true, but not every change toward incontinence is a reversion, and there doesn't appear to be much benefit in convincing oneself that it is.

The investigational journalism pieces, while well-researched, are strange. They produce an unsympathetic impression which lies antiparallel to the narrative. The boredom of Letters, ostensibly the scandalous story of USPS incompetence that will make mail interesting - one prays it will end on the back of this page. The contentment and cleanliness also of the jailcells in Control Units allow one to think, against one's better judgment, "That doesn't sound so bad at all."

I will leave off the less fatal gaffes including the theme or subtheme of nearly every essay consisting of, "the Reader is disappearing, Television is bad, also the Digital Age is upon us" - likely true, but still. The repeated reference to "Derrida's lateral slide" of associations - uninteresting writing of philosophy as metaphor. Also the glaring, ironic use of "straight white male" as a dig at those college activists everyone seems to know - as if the ultimate in praxis is being a dude who has read a bit of theory and occasionally makes vague references to "capital 'c' Capitalism" in his writing. ( )

The essays are a bit hit or miss. Some I devoured, others had me constantly putting the book down to see what was happening on the Internet. My advice, don't buy the book but if someone has a copy borrow it for a few nights and randomly pick a couple of essays to see if it's worth the investment ( )