Thoughts on John Updike
Tired. Really really tired. So before I log off, I'm going to type in my journal entry, which is kind of short and to the point.
I don't get John Updike's writing style. At all. I feel like an idiot for saying it, but I just slogged my way through Rabbit, Run. It was not easy. I picked up the book on the strength of his poem "Ex-basketball Player," which is one of the best poems in the English language, in my opinion. Seriously, read it. I thought his novels would be similar. I was very wrong.
Partially, I think I'm focusing on the wrong things, but he uses words differently than I am accustomed to, and sometimes even when he uses them in a way in which I am comfortable, it's very difficult to understand. Plus, I have to admit that Rabbit, aka Harry Angstrom, is a colossal jerk. He's also pretty much the stereotype of an ex-jock.
Part of my problem is that this book seems too straightforward. It has a definite plot, a definite setting, and I do think that when I read the story as a story it fails to stand up. The characters don't seem that compelling to me, the plot, while tragic, didn't really rivet me to the page, and as a whole the entire book seems more written in a "beat" style, which tends to defy easy reading.
So I'm not sure how to feel. Maybe if I was smarter or more learned I'd be better able to appreciate the book. Then again, shouldn't a fiction book be able to stand on its own as a story and inspire the reader to dig deeper?
I don't get John Updike's writing style. At all. I feel like an idiot for saying it, but I just slogged my way through Rabbit, Run. It was not easy. I picked up the book on the strength of his poem "Ex-basketball Player," which is one of the best poems in the English language, in my opinion. Seriously, read it. I thought his novels would be similar. I was very wrong.
Partially, I think I'm focusing on the wrong things, but he uses words differently than I am accustomed to, and sometimes even when he uses them in a way in which I am comfortable, it's very difficult to understand. Plus, I have to admit that Rabbit, aka Harry Angstrom, is a colossal jerk. He's also pretty much the stereotype of an ex-jock.
Part of my problem is that this book seems too straightforward. It has a definite plot, a definite setting, and I do think that when I read the story as a story it fails to stand up. The characters don't seem that compelling to me, the plot, while tragic, didn't really rivet me to the page, and as a whole the entire book seems more written in a "beat" style, which tends to defy easy reading.
So I'm not sure how to feel. Maybe if I was smarter or more learned I'd be better able to appreciate the book. Then again, shouldn't a fiction book be able to stand on its own as a story and inspire the reader to dig deeper?