John Updike

[DanielBenoit]

I was in the bookstore today and came across Updike's works. Having never read him I decided to introduce myself by reading some of the short stories from Pigeon Feathers, and my God was there some sublime stuff in there. Being a writer of the latter-half of the twentieth century I was suprised to find his works more close to that of modernists like Proust or Nabokov, as oppose to those of the Beat generation.

Anyway, his prose is just so superb and poetic that he may just stand close to the heights of Proust or Nabokov. Anyone read him?

[The Comedian]

I've read Rabbit Run and one other title that I can't remember off hand. I remember liking him, but not thinking he was that remarkable.

[Virgil]

I too have read Rabbit, Run (as a book club read here on lit net) and I posted most of my comments here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27955. I like Updike as a fine prose stylist, but I can't say I have found anything deep in that novel. It was good, but hardly earth shaterring.

[sixsmith]

I’ve read the first Rabbit novel, The Centaur and Bech (one of them). While I enjoyed those books well enough, I agree with the above posters. Nothing approaching Proust or Nabakov in terms of prose. It seems to me that Updike is something of a shadowed author: his career in many respects paralleled (both in a temporal and thematic sense) that of Philip Roth, who in my opinion (and on my limited reading of Updike) is the superior novelist. And it has been suggested to me that Richard Ford’s ‘Bascombe Trilogy’ surpasses Updike’s Rabbit books. I do enjoy Updike’s essays and criticism: I have a 1st of ‘Picked up Pieces’. I’m yet to read any of his poetry but I admire his work ethic. The man was incredibly prolific.

[DanielBenoit]

Maybe I was a bit over-enthusiastic. But I must say, his short story "Archangels" was some of the best latter-20th century stuff I've read in a long time.

[ScottyOhara]

I've read some of his stuff. My favorite work of his is "A&P"

[Delta40]

I read The City and I was amazed at how familiar I felt about this nameless place through Updike's relationship with the hospital. It was like he explored it as a living body. Very good writer.

[billl]

I enjoy the things I find by him on the New Yorker website now and then. I haven't read any of his fiction, just essays, criticism, etc. His prose is really good, and he is intelligent and insightful. However, I've heard enough stuff like sixsmith posted to steer me away from a commitment to any of the novels.

That being said, Updike happens to be the subject of one of the best books by one of my favorite writers: U&I, by Nicholson Baker. So it looks to me like there's respectable and talented people idolizing Updike out there, and maybe I ought to give a novel a shot someday.

[Dinkleberry2010]

billl, the other's interpretation matches your lines pretty well, unfortunately, and so the lines become ugly to me now, without any alternate interpretations. As it stands, it is ugly.

[billl]

how do you think it is ugly? which other interpretation?

[Babbalanja]

his prose is just so superb and poetic that he may just stand close to the heights of Proust or Nabokov.
Heh.

Updike is entertaining, but he's far too middle class to be anything more than a smart, complacent read. His stories in Pigeon Feathers and early Rabbit novels seemed very competent, but there was nothing really fascinating about his fiction.

Regards,

Istvan

[Virgil]

Heh.

Updike is entertaining, but he's far too middle class to be anything more than a smart, complacent read.

I agree with you that Updike is an average novelist, but may I ask what does being in the middle class have anything to do with either being a great novelist or not? I would imagine that most writers are in the middle class. So does one have to be in the lower class or the upper class to be a great writer?

[Dinkleberry2010]

billl, just think about my poem "The Son Of Dionysus." Just think about it, I'm sure you'll remember what you said about it.

[billl]

Jermac, I remembered that, of course. But I don't see anything analogous here.

[Dinkleberry2010]

I do.

[myrna22]

I was in the bookstore today and came across Updike's works. Having never read him I decided to introduce myself by reading some of the short stories from Pigeon Feathers, and my God was there some sublime stuff in there. Being a writer of the latter-half of the twentieth century I was suprised to find his works more close to that of modernists like Proust or Nabokov, as oppose to those of the Beat generation.

Anyway, his prose is just so superb and poetic that he may just stand close to the heights of Proust or Nabokov. Anyone read him?

I have read Run Rabitt Run and something else, about 20 or more years ago. Some short stories. At the A & P is memorable. But on the whole, I do not like is work or find it memorable, and I didn't care for his poetry, which I've seen in the New Yorker. After reading a few of his things, I've learned I have no interest in his work. Definitely not Nabokov quality.

As an aside, I once met someone who had worked for him as a nanny. Apparently he and his wife treated the domestic help very badly. They were living in London and this woman told me they treated her like lower class person, little to no respect shown toward her and skimpy on the pay, etc. I learned this long after I had decided I didn't like his work.

[DisPater]

I have read Run Rabitt Run and something else, about 20 or more years ago. Some short stories. At the A & P is memorable. But on the whole, I do not like is work or find it memorable, and I didn't care for his poetry, which I've seen in the New Yorker. After reading a few of his things, I've learned I have no interest in his work. Definitely not Nabokov quality.

As an aside, I once met someone who had worked for him as a nanny. Apparently he and his wife treated the domestic help very badly. They were living in London and this woman told me they treated her like lower class person, little to no respect shown toward her and skimpy on the pay, etc. I learned this long after I had decided I didn't like his work.

You have read Run Rabbit Run and another book by John Updike; he wrote more than 20 novels (not to mention all the short stories). And you say 'But on the whole, I do not like is work or find it memorable'?! Only after two books? This more superficial that hip-hop lyrics.

[NickAdams]

I have Pigeon Feathers and The Centaur; I haven't read either yet, but I plan on doing so (Updike isn't very high on my to read list). I also have In the Beauty of the Lillies and I've been thinking about giving it away; has anyone read it?

[myrna22]

You have read Run Rabbit Run and another book by John Updike; he wrote more than 20 novels (not to mention all the short stories). And you say 'But on the whole, I do not like is work or find it memorable'?! Only after two books? This more superficial that hip-hop lyrics. I take great offense at being called supeficial because I say I don't like a novelist's work. I don't need to read all 20 books Updike wrote to know I don't like his work. Anyone who knows about writers and literature realizes that each writer has a voice and a style. Reading every book an author writes is not necessary to realize one does not care for the author's work. If anything is superficial it is someone whose mentality is so simplistic as to suggest one needs to read all or most of an author's work to know if they like that author's work.

I read at least two of his novels and several short stories and poems. If you read my post closely you would notice I said I read more than one or two novels. Also, you seem to have misread what I said, which was "But on the whole, I do not like his work or find it memorable." I said I, on the whole, did not like his work. My feelings, on the whole. I did not say I did not like the whole of his work. I did not say anything about the whole of his work but about my feelings regarding his work, which are that I am not interested. In case you don't understand how English sentence structure works, in my sentence, 'on the whole' is a prepositional phrase acting as an adverb and modifying the verb phrase 'I do not like.' When I used the phrase 'on the whole,' I was not referring to Updike's work 'AS a whole.'

[Babbalanja]

I agree with you that Updike is an average novelist, but may I ask what does being in the middle class have anything to do with either being a great novelist or not? I would imagine that most writers are in the middle class. So does one have to be in the lower class or the upper class to be a great writer?
Okay, "middle class" wasn't the best way to describe my opinion. I should have been more specific about what I dislike in Updike.

He just lacks any unique perspective on postwar American society. I realize he was in the same socioeconomic category as people like Bellow, Vonnegut, Vidal, Robert Coover, or even Philip Roth. However, each of these writers had original ideas or a satirical imagination that made his work interesting. Updike is just one of those bland, entertaining writers whose work appeals to readers who don't expect anything artistically or politically daring.

Regards,

Istvan

[neilgee]

Like most of those who have replied I read the Rabbit series [well, the first three, I havn't got round to Rabbit at rest yet] and one book of essays which I did find insightful in parts although I don't agree with Updike's political stance. I havn't read any of the short stories but to be honest he isn't top of my "to read" list. He is a good writer, it's just that I think there are alot of better ones around.

[Virgil]

Okay, "middle class" wasn't the best way to describe my opinion. I should have been more specific about what I dislike in Updike.

He just lacks any unique perspective on postwar American society. I realize he was in the same socioeconomic category as people like Bellow, Vonnegut, Vidal, Robert Coover, or even Philip Roth. However, each of these writers had original ideas or a satirical imagination that made his work interesting. Updike is just one of those bland, entertaining writers whose work appeals to readers who don't expect anything artistically or politically daring.


I'm not sure any major writer is politically daring. Perhaps you mean culturally defying or culturally challenging. You realize he was an artist as well. If anything it strikes me that his work is overly arty. While he probably captures the real life in the moment of the writing, I agree it lacks a certain transcendence. At a minimum though, to be fair to him, I think his prose is as well crafted as any in this century. He knew how to write.

[Babbalanja]

I'm not sure any major writer is politically daring. Perhaps you mean culturally defying or culturally challenging.
Why would those be mutually exclusive? If I had to pick an author who was all three, how about William S. Burroughs?

At a minimum though, to be fair to him, I think his prose is as well crafted as any in this century. He knew how to write.Yes, he was a talented writer, no doubt.

Regards,

Istvan

[Virgil]

Why would those be mutually exclusive? If I had to pick an author who was all three, how about William S. Burroughs?


They don't necessarily have to be mutually inclusive. I've never seen any novels that centered on political parties, or levels of taxation, or who controls the Senate. I guess it's probable some are. Now an author may take on an issue, and perhaps the reader can identify which political party might be associated with that issue. But their assumption may be wrong. Over time, political parties change positions. Those issues the authors take on tend to be culturally driven. I've never read Burroughs.