Brain Pickings, a self-described “cross-disciplinary LEGO treasure chest, full of pieces spanning art, design, science, technology, philosophy, history, politics, psychology, sociology, ecology, anthropology, and more,” published a piece that features clips of Updike talking about his writing habits and offering advice to young writers.

“Try to develop actual work habits,” Updike says, “and, even though you have a busy life, try to reserve an hour, say, or more a day to write. Very good things have been written on an hour a day . . . . So take it seriously, set a quota, try to think of communicating with some ideal reader somewhere . . . .

“Don’t try to get rich . . . . If you want to get rich, you should go into investment banking or be a certain kind of lawyer. On the other hand, I like to think that in a country this large and a language even larger, that there ought to be a living for somebody who cares and wants to entertain and instruct a reader.”

For the full article, click on “John Updike on Making Money, How to Have a Productive Daily Routine, and the Most Important Things for Aspiring Writers to Know.” 

Yesterday PBS Digital Studios posted a five-minute animated short titled “John Updike on Family Affairs,” part of their Blank on Blank series.

It’s animated from a previously unheard spring 2002 interview by John Freeman, in which Updike talks about his decision to live away from New York City and the impact of family on his writing life. Blankonblank.org is a nonprofit digital studio in Brooklyn, founded by David Gerlach, that transforms lost audio interviews with cultural icons into a new animated series for PBS.

Here’s the link, with thanks to David Lull for calling it to our attention.

Former Kansas City Star book review editor John Mark Eberhart interviewed John Updike on or around October 24, 2008 in conjunction with the publication of The Widows of Eastwick. An article based on the interview appeared in the Star, but not until January 4, 2009. That article was reprinted in Pop Matters on January 7, 2009. However, the full Q & A that was the basis for the article has never appeared anywhere. We print it here by permission of Mr. Eberhart, with gratitude.

JME: I was a little surprised you decided to revisit your witches from “The Witches of Eastwick.” But of course you’ve revisited Henry Beck and, most famously, Rabbit Angstrom. Anyway, why these characters, and why now?

JU: For lack of a better idea, basically. The first sequel to “Rabbit, Run” came about because I’d wasted a lot of time doing research on President James Buchanan and I owed the world, I came to feel, a novel. The best thing I could think of was, “I wonder how Harry Angstrom is doing now?” “Rabbit, Run” had been left up in the air. So there was an excuse there, and I discovered it’s fun to write a sequel. It gives you a grip on time as it possesses the characters. Also, there’s a certain layered richness that you rightly or wrongly imagine as you work on a sequel or even a sequel to a sequel!

I never meant to write a sequel to “The Witches of Eastwick,” but the book was more of a commercial success than my books usually are. It sold well enough, and they made a movie of it. The movie, although attractive in its cast and its scenery, basically distorted or ignored the book itself. The main events of the plot as I conceived it was that the witches managed to put enough of a spell on one of the men in the town that he beat his wife to death and committed suicide, creating two orphans, and one of these became a kind of assistant witch, and she also was eliminated by a spell. Anyway, none of that plot got (in the movie).” Continue reading →