Laura Helmuth has a pretty good essay about why Jonathan Franzen is the most annoying person in Birders: The Central Park Effect.
Hat-tip to Birdchick.
Corey is a New Yorker who lived most of his life in upstate New York but has lived in Queens since 2008. He's only been birding since 2005 but has garnered a respectable life list by birding whenever he wasn't working as a union representative or spending time with his family. He lives in Forest Hills with Daisy and Desmond Shearwater. His bird photographs have appeared on the Today Show, in Birding, Living Bird Magazine, Bird Watcher's Digest, and many other fine publications. He is also the author of the American Birding Association Field Guide to the Birds of New York.
I’m inclined to agree with the article’s premise.
Typical sensationalism from Slate, whose editors must wear our their red pens writing “Not controversial enough!” and “This opinion isn’t shocking enough!” on draft stories.
Besides the confusing point of the story (Franzen is being honest about his experiences, and because of that he’s a jerk?), the essay misses the much more interesting point about the real difficulty birders (myself included) can have being taken seriously by the non-birding world.
I started birding on my own in college, with no peers or mentors and really no one to share my budding passion with. My friends were not birders, and I was frankly teased (gently) by my friends and others who didn’t understand what the hell I was doing. It still happens, from time to time. I’ve gotten better about both not caring about their opinions and standing up for my pasttime, but it doesn’t change the fact that being a birder is considered “weird” by the rest of society, no matter how much Laura Helmuth would like us to trust-fall backward into our passion.
I haven’t seen the film yet, but I’m surprised that Jonathan Franzen hasn’t gotten over his shame yet. It’s sort of amusing. I’m beginning to think he’s carrying the embarrassment bit forward as part of his image. Maybe 10,000 Birds can invite him to respond to Slate here.
“Franzen is being honest about his experiences, and because of that he’s a jerk?” Love this. Good comment, Nick.
@Nick and Luisa: I think the part of the article I like is this:
“And here’s Jonathan Franzen on birding: “I thought it was embarrassing. I still think it’s embarrassing, a little bit. You’re basically defenseless. You’ve got your binoculars up and you’re looking at something nobody else is looking at, and everybody else is looking at you and thinking, what a dweeb.”
Jonathan Franzen, nobody is looking at you. You’re in New York City. A guy in cowboy boots and underpants plays guitar for tips in Times Square, and another guy walks around town with a cat perched on his head. Carrying a pair of binoculars is not exactly letting your freak flag fly.”
From what I understand from those who have seen it, the documentary is great except for the Jonathan Franzen parts. The rest of the birders in the film are comfortable doing their thing and their passion comes across really well.
And, Nick, it is your friends who are gently teasing you just like friends always tease each other. Have you ever had strangers call you a “dweeb” while out birding or take issue with your birding in any way? I haven’t and I regularly bird in seriously public places in New York and used to ride the subway all the time carrying a spotting scope. I just don’t see what Franzen is all uptight about.
I was also disappointed that Franzen claims to be embarrassed to be a birder, but Helmuth’s essay is petty. When I saw Franzen at a lecture in Pittsburgh this past fall, one of the first things he said was that he was donating his entire speaking fee to the American Bird Conservancy, and that one of his primary goals as a public figure was to ensure birds would still be around for future generations to enjoy. He’s one of the good guys for sure.
Coincidentally, I published an essay in Terrain, an environmental journal, a few months ago arguing almost the exact opposite premise.
http://blog.terrain.org/2012/06/03/review-i-say-we-get-his-back-a-rallying-cry-for-jonathan-franzen-2/
I have two issues with the Slate piece. First, yes, I honestly have often felt self-conscious about being a birder. I get skeptical questions and weird looks. I used to be bothered by it a lot more than I am now, but it still exists. Birding is seen by much of our country as kooky and odd (see: The Big Year) and sometimes people like Franzen or myself don’t like being seen as kooky or weird. It’s not a big deal, and it hasn’t stopped me from doing anything, but it’s a real aspect of birding and I don’t see how hammering on Franzen for being honest about his experiences accomplishes anything.
Second, I’m disappointed in the Slate author and other birders for not seeing the irony in this. Franzen said he’s worried about people making fun of him for being honest about himself (i.e. being a birder) – and for this moment of public honesty he gets called “annoying” all over the internet! It’s exactly what he was worried about, isn’t it? I don’t understand why we’d want to dismiss and insult one of the few birders who is apparently willing to speak honestly about the experience of being a birder.
I don’t want to keep clogging up the comments here, but I just wanted to say that I was finally able to watch the HBO documentary, and it was lovely. It’s the first honest portrait of birding and birders I’ve seen.
Also, I was almost driven to anger at the Slate article’s misplaced insulting of Jonathan Franzen. It’s ridiculous. Franzen is one of several people in the documentary who talk about how birding is viewed by the rest of society, and he’s not annoying or insulting or anything other than just a birder like everyone else. Slate is built on sacrificing journalism for sensationalism and pageviews, and they simply exploited Franzen’s name to cause a stir.
Watch the documentary, don’t read Slate.
Nick, can’t believe I missed the irony you pointed out; it’s totally true! Also, loved the phrase “trust-fall” you used in your previous comment. Very apt.
Nick makes a valid argument. Maybe Franzen was just being honest about his own experience as a Famous Writer Who Watches Birds. Maybe we should cut him some slack. Here’s my take: I hadn’t read the Slate piece when I saw the documentary. And I found myself talking rather vigorously (OK, hollering) to the screen in disbelief that Franzen would haul out the old “birder as dweeb” stereotype. Just when birding makes it to a bestselling book and then a major motion picture (The Big Year); just when an otherwise lovely film makes it to HBO for crying out loud, he hauls that moldy old concern to the fore? Why? What’s his point? Why not just admit that you enjoy birding and forget about how you look or what people are saying about you? And what’s so bad about walking around with binoculars? I just don’t get it. I felt that his little clip seriously marred an otherwise laudable film. But I think it says more about self-absorption than about birding, personally. Maybe when contrasted with Starr Saphir’s story, it just looked like a trivial and outdated concern to me. She’s birding to live! I prefer to focus on the other birders profiled who were following their passion without a thought for how they looked doing it. My two cents. I agreed with the Slate piece, though I’ll agree it was pretty vicious and sensationalistic.
Julie-
My – and I think Franzen’s – point is that the “birder as dweeb” stereotype ISN’T dead. It has been part of the experience for me as a birder (though maybe not for everyone), and a documentary about birding that didn’t mention the stereotype would be a less-complete film than it is now. Franzen wsa simply sharing his experience as a birder, and the many reactions that attack him personally for sharing his experience honestly is – I feel – a totally misguided use of frustration.