According to a series of Tweets posted by Graeme Neill of The Bookseller, someone ran into the Franzen event held today in London, stole his glasses right off his face, and left a ransom note behind, asking for $100,000 for their safe return. In a later Tweet, posted in response to the Twittersphere’s disbelief, Neill wrote, “honestly. I saw the note.”
To ward off any accusations, noted Franzen-Frenzy-opponent Jennifer Weiner Tweeted, “I am in London, but had nothing to do with FranzenGlassesGate. I’m much more interested in swiping Galassi’s monocle (he has one, right?)” Watch out Galassi!
Franzen’s Twitter doppelganger, @EmperorFranzen has a practical Tweet for the thief: “TO THE THIEF WHO STOLE MY GLASSES: I need them back to read your friggin’ ransom note. Idiot.”
Such, it would seem, is the price of literary super-stardom.
I would also add that after it was revealed that it was a prank and not a real ransom attempt by a pair of hardened criminals, the story became decidedly less humorous simply because it lost a lot of its oddity.
@Janice – Secretly videotaping someone having sex and broadcasting it in public and stealing a pair of glasses off of a public figure’s face are not on the same “continuum,” other than they’re both illegal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by the law–although Franzen has not decided to press charges in this case. Otherwise, I don’t see any connection between the two incidents.
Also, simply because the incident occurred “at a time of increased terror alerts” doesn’t make the #glassesgate story any less bizarre. When was the last time someone was arrested at a book launch party? The story is “funny” to the extent that it is odd and unexpected, and finding humor in such an absurd story doesn’t mean that one supports the thieves’ actions.
Thanks, Craig. What’s also troubling about #glassesgate: People were rightly outraged recently when a suicide resulted at Rutgers from what some people called a “prank” gone tragically awry.
The equations seem to be: Lawbreaking “prank” (invasion of privacy) at Rutgers = tragedy. Lawbreaking “prank” (theft) at launch = funny. But aren’t these two incidents widely separated points on a continuum?
Claire, I appreciate your comments. I hope they will help to inspire a more thoughtful discussion on Twitter and elsewhere about double standards that seem to exist for public “pranks.”
Pingback: October Is Mystery Month « My Library Card Wore Out
I am someone who wears glasses and am literally blind without them. I’d feel more than violated if someone stole my glasses off my face, I’d actually be terrified. At first, I thought it was a funny in an odd way story, and maybe Franzen was in on it, but the fact that someone could get so close to a celebrity author who’s aroused controversy in the past isn’t so funny. Ms. Harayda has a good point: this is a diversion for the British police when they should be focused on the increased terrorism alert in Europe.
Pingback: ‘Glassesgate’: U.K. pranksters steal glasses from Jonathan Franzen | Afterword | National Post
Jan, that’s a good point–I was focusing on how funny the story is, but there are much more serious implications given the heightened terror alert there. Franzen can just buy new glasses…
Craig –
I admire your work greatly and especially appreciate all you have done for NBCC. But it’s troubling that no one, including PW, has noted the obvious: This episode has occurred at the time of an increased terror threat.
News reports say the British police are investigating #glassesgate, so this incident has diverted police from what is, if we are to believe the alert, a greater threat. And someone — namely, British taxpayers — will have to pay for that investigation. Is it fair to ask them to absorb the costs of this?
Jan
More on #glassesgate: http://bit.ly/arYHJi
Pingback: Jonathan Franzen’s Glasses Stolen; Ransom Note Left Behind - GalleyCat