U and F

Anything goes these days when it comes to online journalism, partly because so much of what passes for news is opinion posted by untrained non-professionals, but also partly because times have changed.

Just not The Times. Though a recently posted Medium story concerned The New York Times, it’s doubtful that the beacon of the news-gathering profession would run the headline “A Brief History of ‘Fuck’ in The New York Times.” But there it is, casually screaming at you with the subhead “Also fucked, fucking, fucker, motherfucker, and Airbnfuckingbs.”

As Updike fans might imagine, the author who helped push the boundaries of acceptability in literary fiction and poetry factors into the discussion. But he wasn’t the first to slip a naughty word past Times editors.

“As it turns out, a majority of the Times’ fucks over the years have slipped in by means of book excerpts, mostly novels—including what appears to be the first, in 1984, from John Irving’s A Widow for One Year: ‘Yet not even then would he regret having fucked Ruth’s mother.’ According to my archival search, the second fuck didn’t appear for another 13 years, until 1997—a John Updike character recalling that when he was ‘courting’ his wife he’d been ‘attracted to her way of saying “fuck” instead of a softer expression.’ The third appearance, in 1998, is the first figurative use—funny, given that it’s from the special prosecutor’s report on President Clinton’s sex scandal, Monica Lewinsky recorded saying she wished he would ‘acknowledge . . . that he helped fuck up my life.'”

Writer Kurt Andersen did not say what naughty word(s) he intends to search next.

Book explores Updike and others as religious writers

Books published during the COVID quarantine tend not to be on anyone’s radar, but one of them just came to our attention: Listening for God: Malamud, O’Connor, Updike & Morrison, by Peter C. Brown (Mercer University Press, 2020).

Of course, Brown isn’t alone in considering Updike as a religious writer. The very first monograph on Updike, Alice and Kenneth Hamilton’s The Elements of John Updike (1970), heavily weighed the Protestantism that underscored much of Updike’s fiction, and James Yerkes’ John Updike and Religion: The Sense of the Sacred and the Motions of Grace (1999) broached the subject from a variety of perspectives. More recently, another Mercer University Press publication, Cosmic Defiance: Updike’s Kierkegaard and the Maples Stories, by David Crowe, explored the religious-philosophical implications of Updike’s Richard and Joan Maple stories.

If you’re wondering if there’s anything left to say, in literary scholarship the answer is almost always yes. That’s certainly the case with this book by Brown, who taught philosophy and Great books for 40+ years at Mercer University.

As the press release for this volume points out, “Peter Brown offers a highly interdisciplinary examination of these four authors who represent four different faith traditions within Judeo-Christianity: Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and syncretistic (blending Africanist creole beliefs with Catholicism). All subversive writers, they work in extraordinary ways to undermine their own stories and open us, their readers, to something more, something that transcends time and fate.”

The key phrase here is “undermine their own stories,” and Brown is careful to draw a distinction between the protagonists, the narrator, and the author, and to note how these authors interrogate religion with their own brand of dialectical approach. He’s careful to draw a distinction between Updike and his alter ego, Rabbit Angstrom.

The Updike chapter, “Updike’s Secular Pilgrims,” has a title that may seem familiar to readers well-versed in Updike criticism. But Brown finds more to say. He focuses on the Rabbit novels and novella. “What is Rabbit’s problem?” Brown asks in the subtitled section dealing with the first novel. “He is looking within for a vaguely remembered God.” Brown asks, “What are we meant to think of Rabbit? The question is inescapable—Updike insists that we ask it.” While considering the conundrum of God’s judgment, Brown posits, “It’s not the content of the judgment that matters or its casuist application; it’s the vertical dimension it opens in Being: the Sacred. Updike defeats every attempt to bring Rabbit within the ordinary gambit of right and wrong—without abandoning him to the worship of his own worst (or best) instincts.”

By the time of Rabbit Redux, Brown argues, “Rabbit as ‘Christian’ everyman fits the parody. He is burdened with a Biblical sense of sin and been told (in that long ago Sunday school) that salvation/resurrection is promised. Unable to find his own way to the Celestial City of deliverance, instead he follows a ‘shining light’ that only he sees and leaves his wife and children to pursue it.”

With Rabbit Is Rich, Brown suggests that Kruppenbach’s question to Jack Eccles resonates: “How does God see all this? In 1980, America is Updike’s Sodom and Gomorrah—there is no redeeming factor ….” But in Rabbit at Rest, “Updike nudges Rabbit onto a larger stage, not just the evolving tragi-comic setting for his picaresque antics in the first three novels, but a secular world remorselessly molding him from the inside out . . . as he struggles nevertheless to shape a moral realm within his kingdom of self. Whatever it was in Rabbit that sustained Updike’s attention over three decades and four novels rises toward a kind of tragic nobility as he grapples with his mortality and with his son, his only hedge against mortality.”

Such insights resonate even more when read against the conclusions that Brown draws about the fictions of Bernard Malamud, Flannery O’Connor, and Toni Morrison. It’s a welcome addition to Updike studies.

The book, in hardcover, is 255 pages long, priced at $35. Here’s the Amazon link.

Listen to a lecture on the Updike story Separating

The past two years have seen a huge jump in online classes, with an equally large number of asynchronous courses and assignments. You can watch/listen to Dr. John Pistelli‘s interesting lecture on Updike and “Separating” on YouTube. It’s part of his English 1201W: Contemporary American Literature course that was offered spring 2021. “Separating” is the Updike story included in the main textbook for the course, The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Volume E: Literature Since 1945, Ninth Edition. Pistelli says that he doesn’t “care much about” the story—”I don’t think it’s Updike’s best work.”

Pistelli calls Updike a polarizing writer—you either love him or you don’t. “I actually like Updike, so I understand the critiques of him.” Pistelli considers Updike a “lyrical realist” and asserts that there’s “no critique in Updike”—that everything is described more or less without judgment being passed. He also sees in Updike a tendency towards sentimentality and what he terms “a laziness of intellect” that helps to explain the response of critics who see Updike as a stylist without much to say.

Pistelli is a lecturer at the University of Minnesota who specializes in Modern British and American fiction, history/theory of the novel, Modernism, and fiction writing.

In Memoriam: Dennis B. Ledden

We are saddened to learn that Dr. Dennis B. Ledden, a society member who was to have presented his paper on “Hemingway, Masculinity, and John Updike’s ‘Twin Beds in Rome’” at the upcoming 6th biennial conference, died of cancer on April 1, 2021.

Dennis’s main scholarly pursuits were the works of Hemingway and Faulkner, but in recent years he expanded his interests to include Updike. His scholarship has been published in numerous university journals, even though he came to academia late in life.

Dennis, of Butler, Pennsylvania, graduated from Penn State University Park, served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam era and afterwards the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, then taught at Butler Intermediate H.S. for nearly 30 years. After retiring, he earned a Ph.D. in literature from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and taught as an Assistant Teaching Professor of English at Penn State.

He is survived by his wife, Yong Hui Ledden of Butler; son Dr. Brian Ledden and family of Pensacola, Fla.; and daughter Alicia Ledden Heine and family of the San Francisco Bay area.

Dennis was quietly passionate about literature, and members who attended the 3rd Biennial John Updike Society Conference in Reading/Shillington may recall having wide-ranging discussions with him. He enjoyed the fellowship of fellow Updike enthusiasts so much that he and Yong Hui both attended the 4th Biennial J.U.S. Conference in Columbia, South Carolina. Our deepest sympathies go out to his family. He and his positive energy will be missed.

Pictured below: Closing banquet at the 4th conference. Clockwise from Don Greiner (back of head): Peter Bailey, Fran Bailey, Richard Androne, Yong Hui Ledden, Dennis Ledden, Robert Morace, and Ellen Greiner.

Rabbit Angstrom named one of The Guardian’s 100 best novels

“Harry ‘Rabbit’ Angstrom, Updike’s lovably mediocre alter ego, is one of America’s great literary protaganists, up there with Huck Finn and Jay Gatsby,” The Guardian wrote in naming Rabbit Angstrom: The Four Novels No. 88 on their list of 100 best novels.

“John Updike is 20th-century American literature’s blithe spirit, a virtuoso of language whose perfect pitch illuminated every line he wrote with an airy and zestful brilliance,” Robert McCrum wrote. “He was always something of a miniaturist. His first hope was to be a poet. When that ambition misfired, he took his delight in the English sentence and made a name for himself as a New Yorker short story writer. Finally, he brought his gifts of wit, curiosity and invention to the American novel. By the end of his career, he had become one of the most complete and versatile men of letters in his country’s history. Among many possible fiction choices – his debut, The Poorhouse Fair; the sensational scandal of Couples; the exhilarating magical realism of The Witches of Eastwick – I’ve picked his panoramic masterpiece, the Harry Angstrom series, a portrait of America compiled over four decades: Rabbit, Run (1960); Rabbit Redux (1971); Rabbit Is Rich (1981); and Rabbit at Rest (1990).

Read the full article.

Member’s Updike podcast airs a fourth episode

Bob Batchelor, a longtime member of The John Updike Society and the author of John Updike: A Critical Biography, started an Updike podcast that’s slowly building.

Batchelor has produced four episodes thus far for his podcast, John Updike: American Writer, American Life: “America,” “Falling in Love with John…,” “Who Was John Updike? and “John Updike’s Poetry.” Check them out!

Batchelor said he’s always looking for people knowledgeable about Updike to appear on a future podcast with him “to share their John Updike knowledge and love.” You can contact him through his website, BobBatchelor.com.

Singer-songwriter pens, performs song about Updike

Gary Louris, a singer-songwriter and founding member of the Minneapolis-based band The Jayhawks, has written a song titled “Mr. Updike,” his ode to the author.

“Mr. Updike” is one of the singles on a solo album that was released today, June 4 on Sham/Thirty Tigers.

You can see Louris perform “Mr. Updike” in a music video on YouTube. In addition, here’s a link to Jump for Joy—that new album written, performed, recorded, and produced entirely by Louris, who says he’s currently rereading Rabbit Redux.

 

Author weighs Updike, Roth careers

Writing for Taki’s Magazine, Steve Sailer considered the literary output of John Updike and Philip Roth, who were born almost exactly one year apart and were equally prolific throughout their extended writing careers.

“Both published acclaimed works of fiction in their 20s: Roth’s Goodbye, Columbus, which satirized postwar Jewish affluence, and Updike’s Rabbit, Run, in which a former high school jock with a two-digit IQ (but, for unexplained reasons, the supreme perceptive consciousness of John Updike) repeatedly makes bad decisions that bring trouble for everybody around him. Yet, Rabbit keeps turning out okay because, hey, America is more of a comedy than a tragedy,” Sailer writes.

“In the early 1970s, Roth published some lousy books, such as his strident Richard Nixon parody Our Gang, while Updike pulled ahead in repute.”

Sailer decides that the two writers were close to equal early in their careers, with Updike the superior writer in mid-career and Roth the better late-career writer. And he has the charts to illustrate those assertions. Here’s the link.

Updike’s first New York Times mention came in a parenting article

Photo:  Joyce Dopkeen/The New York Times

Here’s a fascinating bit of trivia:  John Updike—reviewed and interviewed at least as much and probably more than any other writer—first appeared in The New York Times not in connection with his writing, but rather his parenting.

Way back on March 2, 1958, Dorothy Barclay compiled an article on “The Magic World of Words” that appeared in The Times.

The public was reminded of this by a recent article, “John Updike on Parenting, Agatha Christie in the Gossip Pages: First Mentions of Famous Authors in The Times.”

“Not long before his first novel, The Poorhouse Fair, was published, Updike—already an acclaimed short-story writer—was featured in a parenting article, ‘The Magic World of Words,’ which discussed the best ways to spark a child’s love for language. Updike, the father of toddlers, told the paper in 1958, ‘When children are picking up words with rapidity, between 2 and 3, say, tell them the true word for something even if it is fairly abstruse and long. A long correct word is exciting for a child. Makes them laugh; my daughter never says “rhinoceros” without laughing.’”

Review of witch novel prompts another Updike comparison

In Wyatt Mason‘s June 4 Wall Street Journal review of Everyone Knows Your Mother Is a Witch, the reviewer praised author Rivka Galchen by comparing her novel to what he feels are less successful witch-driven narratives:

“High-art witch stories have tended to fare less well, the metaphorical potential of the material turning art into a civics class. Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible is the worst of these, so clearly an allegory for Wrongful Persecution by the Powerful. It is almost tied for badness with John Updike’s The Witches of Eastwick, a satire of male power (creep undone by vengeful coven) that these days is hard not to read as a male fantasy about a four-way with a man in the middle.”

If you’re going to be criticized, there’s worse company to be in than Arthur Miller’s.