Great article! Counterpoint: he's actually one of the best 20th century American writers ever despite the searing criticism of "wrote about sex too much" and whatever second-order arguments are always implied to flow naturally from that!
Okay, counterpoint: what is the private horny correspondence between a couple supposed to suggest about writing ability? The man wrote like 50 novels and won two Pulitzers and this is supposed to function as some damning critique?
Eris, Love it when we hate the same! I could never get into Updike. I never could get beyond the first few sentences of his novels or short stories. Decades ago, when an issue of the New Yorker fell into my hands (note how I duck and dodge), with a short story's first sentence I could name the author before flipping to check. (Okay, it was bound to be one of five, still . . . I pride myself on spotting an Updike within eight syllables . . . ) I really tried to go all the way with the A&P one. I suppose I could try again.
After the seizure of power, I would like to offer you the portfolio of Minister of Culture.
Amazing piece. I had to read Updike in college. Oh man how he disgusted me. Confirmed that Johnny Rotten was right: sex is just free love hippie bullshit designed to sell deodorant. That he is being forgotten is a rare positive sign of health in body politic. Or maybe it’s just because he’s an old white assed cracker. I don’t care because no matter the reason, i’ll take it.
(You know, now that I think about it, the actual (if not literal) castration of the male led to that glorious period of American cinema (68-83). Is _Portnoy's Complaint_ really too high a price to pay?)
I've heard versions of these criticisms from a whole range of women talking about male writers. I think you should use this as a template for all your discussions of male novelists. Just change the name of your take-down target and you're good to go. It would be as meaningful then as it is now.
You're projecting this "male writer" thing -- I even spoke positively of Charles Bukowski in this post, as I've also done below (though not without some critical even-handedness) and he's about as "male writer" as they come.
And even though I made a criticism of Vonnegut in this piece, I love the man's work. I don't know why it isn't worth commenting that Vonnegut's woman characters were never very good. I don't think it really detracts much from Vonnegut's work overall, but, I mean, it's in there, I don't see the sin of mentioning it.
I have no issue with Updike's "maleness," if a woman wrote this way to her male lovers / about men I'd find it just as funny. If you were to look at the blog you'd also see I take at aim at several female writers including Roxane Gay, Kim Thuy, and Margaret Atwood. It sort of seems like some sort of "inverted wokeness" to assume that my distaste for a writer who is a man must come from some fucking identity gripe, that I'm just "sexist against male writers" or some shit. C'mon now. This is just bad writing, plain and simple.
I don't know, reads too much like standard haterade. The dude published an insane amount of verse and prose both fictive and non-. It's a massive American achievement, his corpus. The writing is a little purple at time but give me somebody who takes a full swing as opposed to someone who's all fearful and beseeching and afraid to offend on the page. Male writing from the 1950s-1990s (pre-internet) just feels more honest and less surveilled. Some of it smacks of chauvinism and sexism and misogyny by the standards of 2026, but I don't know why we're so comfortable judging prose written in the past as if it's supposed to magically conform to modern sensibilities.
"Wolcott, an obviously slobbering fanboy, cannot see Updike for the absolute dunce that he was..." Whatever Updike was a dunce he was not. Wolcott's finely tuned review is hilarious and critical, not sycophantic. That's just two of the swings and misses in this one-dimensional review.
Thinking Updike was anything other than a vacuous albeit verbose ninny, especially after reading these tiresome letters, is fanboyism of the highest degree. Vidal was right. Sure, Walcott might admit that 'Toward the End of Time' sucked, but I said Walcott was a "fanboy" not a cultist.
"Thinking anything other than" what you proclaim to be the absolute truth is not just "fanboyism" but the "highest degree of it." This is not criticism. It's insecurity. Also boring as hell.
Brilliant!
Great article! Counterpoint: he's actually one of the best 20th century American writers ever despite the searing criticism of "wrote about sex too much" and whatever second-order arguments are always implied to flow naturally from that!
that's not a counterpoint you're just saying "counterpoint: no"
Okay, counterpoint: what is the private horny correspondence between a couple supposed to suggest about writing ability? The man wrote like 50 novels and won two Pulitzers and this is supposed to function as some damning critique?
Eris, Love it when we hate the same! I could never get into Updike. I never could get beyond the first few sentences of his novels or short stories. Decades ago, when an issue of the New Yorker fell into my hands (note how I duck and dodge), with a short story's first sentence I could name the author before flipping to check. (Okay, it was bound to be one of five, still . . . I pride myself on spotting an Updike within eight syllables . . . ) I really tried to go all the way with the A&P one. I suppose I could try again.
Thank you!
After the seizure of power, I would like to offer you the portfolio of Minister of Culture.
Amazing piece. I had to read Updike in college. Oh man how he disgusted me. Confirmed that Johnny Rotten was right: sex is just free love hippie bullshit designed to sell deodorant. That he is being forgotten is a rare positive sign of health in body politic. Or maybe it’s just because he’s an old white assed cracker. I don’t care because no matter the reason, i’ll take it.
james wolcott btw
FUCK that's an embarrassing mistake to make... [checks blog post] ...seven fucking times.
hahaha but u can change now & i can delete my comment and nobody will know …
C'mon. Be serious.
Roth is much worse.
(You know, now that I think about it, the actual (if not literal) castration of the male led to that glorious period of American cinema (68-83). Is _Portnoy's Complaint_ really too high a price to pay?)
I've heard versions of these criticisms from a whole range of women talking about male writers. I think you should use this as a template for all your discussions of male novelists. Just change the name of your take-down target and you're good to go. It would be as meaningful then as it is now.
You're projecting this "male writer" thing -- I even spoke positively of Charles Bukowski in this post, as I've also done below (though not without some critical even-handedness) and he's about as "male writer" as they come.
https://www.discordiareview.com/p/must-we-burn-bukowski
And even though I made a criticism of Vonnegut in this piece, I love the man's work. I don't know why it isn't worth commenting that Vonnegut's woman characters were never very good. I don't think it really detracts much from Vonnegut's work overall, but, I mean, it's in there, I don't see the sin of mentioning it.
I have no issue with Updike's "maleness," if a woman wrote this way to her male lovers / about men I'd find it just as funny. If you were to look at the blog you'd also see I take at aim at several female writers including Roxane Gay, Kim Thuy, and Margaret Atwood. It sort of seems like some sort of "inverted wokeness" to assume that my distaste for a writer who is a man must come from some fucking identity gripe, that I'm just "sexist against male writers" or some shit. C'mon now. This is just bad writing, plain and simple.
I don't know, reads too much like standard haterade. The dude published an insane amount of verse and prose both fictive and non-. It's a massive American achievement, his corpus. The writing is a little purple at time but give me somebody who takes a full swing as opposed to someone who's all fearful and beseeching and afraid to offend on the page. Male writing from the 1950s-1990s (pre-internet) just feels more honest and less surveilled. Some of it smacks of chauvinism and sexism and misogyny by the standards of 2026, but I don't know why we're so comfortable judging prose written in the past as if it's supposed to magically conform to modern sensibilities.
I have a blog you may like
Trust me, you don't.
"Wolcott, an obviously slobbering fanboy, cannot see Updike for the absolute dunce that he was..." Whatever Updike was a dunce he was not. Wolcott's finely tuned review is hilarious and critical, not sycophantic. That's just two of the swings and misses in this one-dimensional review.
Thinking Updike was anything other than a vacuous albeit verbose ninny, especially after reading these tiresome letters, is fanboyism of the highest degree. Vidal was right. Sure, Walcott might admit that 'Toward the End of Time' sucked, but I said Walcott was a "fanboy" not a cultist.
"Thinking anything other than" what you proclaim to be the absolute truth is not just "fanboyism" but the "highest degree of it." This is not criticism. It's insecurity. Also boring as hell.
he don't like the writer I gone done like! It must be cuz he one dem insecoors!
Have you read Patricia Lockwood's thing in the LRB?