why isnt he discussed more? his writing is pretty good. i know bloom didnt like his writing for whatever reason

>>24566495 (OP)
>bloom didnt like his writing

Wasn't wrong. His introduction to Nabokov's Author lectures is a crime.

Lit is way to autistic to enjoy updike

>>24566495 (OP)
I wonder why an author whose primary topic is the romantic life of suburban middle class WASPs in the pre-sexual revolution era speak poorly to the primary audience of this board.

>>24566593
Updike would laugh to death at modern women on tiktok reading romantasyslop

>>24566495 (OP)

>>24566593
Updike is very much post sexual revolution. But your point stands.
Both sides of current literary culture will always hate him because he’s a white man who likes having sex with women.
He does better than Roth, who has all the same sex haver issues but is also Jewish

>>24566593
Lmao

>>24566495 (OP)
He's in the same vein as Henry Miller for me. A degenerate more in their orientation to sex than in their actual sex life and who disgusts me on every level, disgusts me morally as well as intellectually for the utter waste of time that their writing is, but at the same time I can appreciate that they had some talent but they're not talented enough to deserve the amount of praise they get. They're dirty, dirty men that I hate.

>>24568089
This may surprise and shock you, but the generations prior to yours actually had sex on a pretty regular basis.

>>24566582
Welcome to /lit/. You'll fit right in.

>>24568089
>Updike deserves incel hate

Will chuds never learn

>>24568089
He doesn't really celebrate it, though. Or at least I got the impression that he was skeptical about both the pre and post sexual revolution era for different reasons.

>>24568326
>>24568350
>>24568368
Yeah, the reason authors before the 20th century didn't incessantly talk about sex is because they didn't have it... just moronic. But I do like decadent literature and its influences, even the most decadent, because it's actually inspired and not just miring in the mundane insignificance of sex-obsessed autoeroticism. Likewise when traditional literature describes or talks about sexuality, and I mean the most candid examples, it's much more interesting than anything Miller or Updike wrote.

He suffers from a male version of Virginia Woolf face.

>>24568089
>They're dirty, dirty men that I hate.
Why do I get the impression that some feminist sexual hangups are finding an outlet in your post?

>>24566495 (OP)
His writing is pretty but puddle deep. The subject matter is miserable. He admired and imitated Nabokov (to some success) but spent his time writing about husbands cheating on their wives with prostitutes and wives drowning their babies in drunken stupor.
>She lifts the living thing into air and hugs it against her sopping chest. Water pours off them onto the bathroom tiles. The little weightless body flops against her neck and a quick look of relief at the baby's face gives a fantastic clotted expression. A contorted memory of how they give artificial respiration pumps Janice's cold wet arms in frantic rhythmic hugs; under her clenched lids great scarlet prayers arise, wordless, monotonous, and she seems to be clasping the knees of a vast third person whose name, Father, Father, beats against her head like physical blows. Though her wild heart bathes the universe in red, no spark kindles in the space between her arms; for all of her pouring prayers she doesn't feel the faintest tremor of an answer in the darkness against her. Her sense of the third person with them widens enormously, and she knows, knows, while knocks sound at the door, that the worst thing that has ever happened to any woman in the world has happened to her.

>>24566495 (OP)
>Why isn't he discussed more
>can't simply name the person
>no name included in the image
Seriously, why do you do this?

>>24568540
If you can't recognize an author from an image, you have zero business talking about that author.

>>24568546
You just pulled that out of your ass.

>>24566685
>Updike is very much post sexual revolution.
this. his notoriety level really fell off after he died but it was still big while he lived. the same happened to saul bellow

>>24566495 (OP)
He just gives off massive pervert vibes

>>24568546
Pertinent maybe for threads where the hopeful response isn‘t to stimulate interest from those who aren‘t currently

>>24566495 (OP)
He's good but slimy. And after a while he gets very same-y. But at the very least I think most people will feel reading him that here is something that will help them write better themselves.

You can learn from him even though you definitely don't want to become him.

>>24568383
>authors before the 20th century didn't incessantly talk about sex
Anon, I...