#johnupdike — Public Fediverse posts on home.social

Ulf B. 🐘 @[email protected] · 2026-07-05 · 17:28 UTC

#ImmerWiederSonntags kommt die Erinnerung. Literarische Retro-Empfehlungen zum WE.

Wo die Liebe hinfällt? Oder: Kleinstadt-Sex? – Über Sex so zu schreiben, dass es nicht peinlich oder zotig wirkt, ist eine Kunst, die #JohnUpdike beherrscht wie kaum ein anderer. Der letzte Roman des US-Autors, veröffentlicht fünf Jahre vor seinem Tod. Erinnerungen an ein vergangenes Leben.

💛 💛 💛 🤍 🤍
Landleben, John Updike, 2006
#LiteraturBlogKreis

💥 #Flashback: https://e-script.de/flashback

#immerwiedersonntags #johnupdike #literaturblogkreis #flashback

Grenhas Valhalla @[email protected] · 2026-06-19 · 15:37 UTC

#literatura #novela #narrativa #prosa #literaturaestadounidense
Autor: #JohnUpdike ✒️📖✒️
«Es fácil amar a las personas en la memoria; lo difícil es amarlas cuando están frente a ti.»

#literatura #novela #narrativa #prosa #literaturaestadounidense #johnupdike

Grenhas Valhalla @[email protected] · 2026-06-19 · 15:37 UTC

#literatura #novela #narrativa #prosa #literaturaestadounidense
Autor: #JohnUpdike ✒️📖✒️
«Es fácil amar a las personas en la memoria; lo difícil es amarlas cuando están frente a ti.»

#literatura #novela #narrativa #prosa #literaturaestadounidense #johnupdike

Grenhas Valhalla @[email protected] · 2026-06-19 · 15:37 UTC

#literatura #novela #narrativa #prosa #literaturaestadounidense
Autor: #JohnUpdike ✒️📖✒️
«Es fácil amar a las personas en la memoria; lo difícil es amarlas cuando están frente a ti.»

#literatura #novela #narrativa #prosa #literaturaestadounidense #johnupdike

Grenhas Valhalla @[email protected] · 2026-06-19 · 15:37 UTC

#literatura #novela #narrativa #prosa #literaturaestadounidense
Autor: #JohnUpdike ✒️📖✒️
«Es fácil amar a las personas en la memoria; lo difícil es amarlas cuando están frente a ti.»

#johnupdike #literaturaestadounidense #prosa #narrativa #novela #literatura

Grenhas Valhalla @[email protected] · 2026-06-19 · 15:37 UTC

#literatura #novela #narrativa #prosa #literaturaestadounidense
Autor: #JohnUpdike ✒️📖✒️
«Es fácil amar a las personas en la memoria; lo difícil es amarlas cuando están frente a ti.»

#literatura #novela #narrativa #prosa #literaturaestadounidense #johnupdike

Thoughts on Everything under the Sun or I am a guilty Secularist @[email protected] · 2026-06-13 · 03:50 UTC

John Updike’s six rules for literary criticism

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

2. Give him enough direct quotation—at least one extended passage—of the book’s prose so the review’s reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.

3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy précis.

4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending. (How astounded and indignant was I, when innocent, to find reviewers blabbing, and with the sublime inaccuracy of drunken lords reporting on a peasants’ revolt, all the turns of my suspenseful and surpriseful narrative! Most ironically, the only readers who approach a book as the author intends, unpolluted by pre-knowledge of the plot, are the detested reviewers themselves. And then, years later, the blessed fool who picks the volume at random from a library shelf.)

5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author’s oeuvre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s his and not yours?

Via World Literature Today where Chicago Review of Books founder Adam Morgan takes stock of book reviewing in the US.

#criticism #johnUpdike #writing

#criticism #johnupdike #writing

Thoughts on Everything under the Sun or I am a guilty Secularist @[email protected] · 2026-06-13 · 03:50 UTC

John Updike’s six rules for literary criticism

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

2. Give him enough direct quotation—at least one extended passage—of the book’s prose so the review’s reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.

3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy précis.

4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending. (How astounded and indignant was I, when innocent, to find reviewers blabbing, and with the sublime inaccuracy of drunken lords reporting on a peasants’ revolt, all the turns of my suspenseful and surpriseful narrative! Most ironically, the only readers who approach a book as the author intends, unpolluted by pre-knowledge of the plot, are the detested reviewers themselves. And then, years later, the blessed fool who picks the volume at random from a library shelf.)

5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author’s oeuvre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s his and not yours?

Via World Literature Today where Chicago Review of Books founder Adam Morgan takes stock of book reviewing in the US.

#criticism #johnUpdike #writing

#criticism #johnupdike #writing

Thoughts on Everything under the Sun or I am a guilty Secularist @[email protected] · 2026-06-13 · 03:50 UTC

John Updike’s six rules for literary criticism

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

2. Give him enough direct quotation—at least one extended passage—of the book’s prose so the review’s reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.

3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy précis.

4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending. (How astounded and indignant was I, when innocent, to find reviewers blabbing, and with the sublime inaccuracy of drunken lords reporting on a peasants’ revolt, all the turns of my suspenseful and surpriseful narrative! Most ironically, the only readers who approach a book as the author intends, unpolluted by pre-knowledge of the plot, are the detested reviewers themselves. And then, years later, the blessed fool who picks the volume at random from a library shelf.)

5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author’s oeuvre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s his and not yours?

Via World Literature Today where Chicago Review of Books founder Adam Morgan takes stock of book reviewing in the US.

#criticism #johnUpdike #writing

#criticism #johnupdike #writing

Thoughts on Everything under the Sun or I am a guilty Secularist @[email protected] · 2026-06-13 · 03:50 UTC

John Updike’s six rules for literary criticism

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

2. Give him enough direct quotation—at least one extended passage—of the book’s prose so the review’s reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.

3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy précis.

4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending. (How astounded and indignant was I, when innocent, to find reviewers blabbing, and with the sublime inaccuracy of drunken lords reporting on a peasants’ revolt, all the turns of my suspenseful and surpriseful narrative! Most ironically, the only readers who approach a book as the author intends, unpolluted by pre-knowledge of the plot, are the detested reviewers themselves. And then, years later, the blessed fool who picks the volume at random from a library shelf.)

5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author’s oeuvre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s his and not yours?

Via World Literature Today where Chicago Review of Books founder Adam Morgan takes stock of book reviewing in the US.

#criticism #johnUpdike #writing

#writing #johnupdike #criticism

Thoughts on Everything under the Sun or I am a guilty Secularist @[email protected] · 2026-06-13 · 03:50 UTC

John Updike’s six rules for literary criticism

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

2. Give him enough direct quotation—at least one extended passage—of the book’s prose so the review’s reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.

3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy précis.

4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending. (How astounded and indignant was I, when innocent, to find reviewers blabbing, and with the sublime inaccuracy of drunken lords reporting on a peasants’ revolt, all the turns of my suspenseful and surpriseful narrative! Most ironically, the only readers who approach a book as the author intends, unpolluted by pre-knowledge of the plot, are the detested reviewers themselves. And then, years later, the blessed fool who picks the volume at random from a library shelf.)

5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author’s oeuvre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s his and not yours?

Via World Literature Today where Chicago Review of Books founder Adam Morgan takes stock of book reviewing in the US.

#criticism #johnUpdike #writing

#criticism #johnupdike #writing