reviews

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Malcolm Lawrence: "celebrating e.e. cummings' birthday"
• Previous message: helena spice: "phoebe"
• Next in thread: Malcolm Lawrence: "Re: reviews"

I think Updike has
every right to dissect Salinger's work and, perhaps, show us, even in an
aged review, some of Salinger's shortcomings as a writer. He does have
some despite my own personal and this list's reverence of JDS.

 Agreed. Thats why I wrote the following in my previous post:

 Yes I do support the right of a reviewer to say what they will, just
> venting steam really. 

First, the criticism that Updike
hasn't written anything nearly as good as F&Z would rankle many a
reader, sophicated or otherwise.

Agreed again. This is just a personal opinion of mine, being quite a fan
of F&Z. Ive read some of Updikes work, but not all, as he is quite
prolific.

 Third, I'm not familiar with Updike's entire body of work, but I
would find it hard to believe his work doesn't carry religious messages
as well. Updike openly admits to being a practicing Catholic, according
to one biography I have thumbed through.  I think there is hardly a
serious writer of fiction of any notoriety who doesn't touch on moral or
spiritual themes at some point in his/her fiction, Updike included.
   

 Yes, but F&Z does quite a bit more than touch on moral or spiritual
themes, spiritual themes dominate the book. Updike did make the comment:
"clinches our suspicion that a
lecturer has
        usurped the writing stand."

My post was not really an objective one, nor intended to be. Thanks for
your thoughtful post.


 Unabashedly a F&Z fan...  Paul

• Next message: Malcolm Lawrence: "celebrating e.e. cummings' birthday"
• Previous message: helena spice: "phoebe"
• Next in thread: Malcolm Lawrence: "Re: reviews"