Comments on: John Updike: Bech: A Book

By: Trevor

Trevor — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:48:06 +0000

I think, Stewart, that the Bech books might just be the thing to get back into Updike. It did take me a few of the short stories before I, as Kevin said, got into the rhythm of the character, so give it a few – they are very short. Also, since he wrote them over a period of forty years, I don’t feel the obligation to read them that close together, so they’re good reads to come to again and again.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:27:47 +0000

I would give Bech a shot. If you get into the rhythm of the character (as I did and so obviously did Trevor) he becomes quite an interesting curmudgeon. And I give nothing away if I say that — if that does happen to you as a reader — the stories get better and better as the series goes on. And if you don’t get into that rhythm, you can just put the book back on the shelf.

By: Stewart

Stewart — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:49:25 +0000

I hadn’t realised the Bech books were a series of connected short stories. I’ve had the compendium sitting on the shelf for a year now, but can’t say I’ve ever thought of venturing toward it. It’s there more as a case of Updike completism gone awry.

Never finished an Updike book yet, the best I did was half of Rabbit, Run which I remember enjoying and can’t think for the life of me why I would have set it aside. I assume a book more sparkly came out that week and I jumped on its lustre.

The other I tried, his first, The Poorhouse Fair, was one of the more boring reading attempts of last year. I doubt I got more than twenty pages in. I think it’s fair to say that when he’s good, he’s very good, but when he’s bad, he’s torrid.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:05:24 +0000

Both those Everyman’s editions have great introductory essays — Updike himself in Rabbit (where he explains his historical plan) and Malcolm Bradbury in Bech. The last time I read them, I read Bech first, then Rabbit. If I had it to do over again, I think I would try alternating them — Rabbit in particular is a tough go if you read all four one after the other. There is a good argument for saving Bech as well, because all of the stories reward savouring.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:59:56 +0000

So, given that Updike wrote the two series in parallel, you now have a decision to make Trevor. Do you follow Bech through to the end or do you read the books in the order that Updike wrote them?

That's a good question, Kevin, but I'm afraid I don't know the answer right now. This book really made me anxious to read the rest of Bech, but at the same time, I'd kind of like to save some of these stories for later, since I found them so enjoyable. Mostly, it probably depends on which comes my way first. I have my eyes on the Everyman's edition of Rabbit Angstrom and The Complete Bech. That seems a sensible way to move forward, but which one will I get first? Or if I get both at the same time? I'm thinking it will probably be Rabbit.

By: KevinfromCanada

KevinfromCanada — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:30:04 +0000

When I revisited Updike a few years ago, I was intrigued by how well Bech had aged in comparison to the Rabbit books (although I certainly enjoyed that reread as well). I think this review hits on one of the reasons. Updike’s meticulousness is well-suited to the short story whereas too often in the novels one is left with the “will this boring bit never end” kind of feeling. And it is ironic that the Bech stories, while supposedly centred on the individual writer, are actually more outward-looking that the Rabbit novels.

So, given that Updike wrote the two series in parallel, you now have a decision to make Trevor. Do you follow Bech through to the end or do you read the books in the order that Updike wrote them? Since he meant both as a commentary on America as he experienced it, either choice seems appropriate.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:41:49 +0000

That would probably suit my reading style. I do tend to read books of short stories, especially shorter volumes, more or less as one would read a novel. A bad habit, I know, but one that’s not easily shaken (if I put a book down between stories, there’s too much risk that I won’t pick it up again).

By: Trevor

Trevor — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:35:49 +0000

Ugh, Irving. A few months ago a few of us discussed Irving, whom I never have liked, and most people in the discussion said that his work has gone downhill. About this being a good place to start: I think so. It was fairly quick and I think showcases Updike's storybuilding skills, his wordplay, and his eye for detail. The one caveat is in my review: I think one must read these as a novel and not as a short story here and there. I'm not sure where to go next. I have Gertrude and Claudius, and I hear The Centaur is superb. And someday I'll get the Rabbit books. Bech: A Book definitely made me want to get to know him better, so perhaps that makes it a great place to start.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:33:07 +0000

I’ve never got around to reading any Updike, I’m not sure why. It may just be that reading John Irving’s Until I Find You actually put me off any author whose surname begins with a vowel. This one sounds intriguing, though. A good place to start, do you think?