Talk:John Updike

To criticize the Criticism section

That is a pretty poor excuse for criticism; one reading the Wikipedia page would nowhere get even the slightest hint that he was one of the most criticized (to put it far too nicely - in truth, he was destroyed, in print, conversation, and correspondence, repeatedly, over several decades, by prominent authors of every kind) writers of the last fifty years. Off the top of my head I can think of Gore Vidal's scathing "Rabbit's Own Burrow" (in which, besides the author's attacks, Norman Mailer and SJ Perelmen are quoted mocking Updike), and David Foster Wallace's brilliant review of Updike's pseudo-scifi novel. This page, to be perfectly honest, paints a false portrait of this artist, and of the man. Both the man and his art were probably much more widely, and convincingly, criticized, than praised. The article ought to reflect this, while remaining as objective as possible.

And yes, it's in poor taste to post this on the day the man dies. Conceded. The points stand, however. This was a despised writer (when serious artists took the time to trouble about him at all), and was not respected among his colleagues. His politics were also pretty shameful. Really a swing and a miss by God, when he made Updike.

Updike is, along with Toni Morrison, the most written about American novelist of our time. What you just painted is a laughably one-sided account of the massive body of criticism on Updike that is in print. And you added an ad hominem attack. Excellent work. Grunge6910 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC).

He made excellent points, and offered a specific criticism in Vidal's "Rabbit's Own Burrow," a piece which utterly demolishes this second rate, tedious hack. Google it, it's online. --Kelt65 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Updike sucks. So does Toni Morrison. It's crap like this that we're forced to pretend is good in a decadent country, in which literature is dying. But if these are our literary idols, literature here deserves to die. Updike was not a writer of consequence and will never be. He will be one of the great many eminent 'men of letters' who are all but forgotten a generation or two after their own time. Only our own dumb time will have seen fit to waste time praising, or reading, this hack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.108.126 (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not care for him either; more or less the sort of novelist favored by the NPR / WASP / quarter-literate set. I'd never paid much attention to the man until I stumbled across his review of a showing of William Blake's illuminations in New York. He obviously was of such crude intellect he could not offer anything of interest about Blake, and demonstrated himself to be an absolute ass. His review also contained schoolboy errors in writing. Such as, in a backhanded retraction, he writes: "... and that I misquoted a line from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell: "Eternity is in love with the production of time" should have been the less mysterious if less interesting "Eternity is in love with the productions of time." The (his) phrase he favors is decidedly pedestrian and meaningless, 'eternity' does not 'produce' 'time' (or anything else), whereas Blake's phrase suggests several meanings. Also"...less mysterious if less interesting" is patently grammatically incorrect (see Grammatical_conjunction). Junk. Which is why his novels are on fire sale at Rite Aid and people do doctoral theses on Blake. How nice that some WASP-y New England dope gets to imbecilically review one of the greatest writers of the English language. What an ass. --Kelt65 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. I suppose everyone will forget about his 60 books and the hundreds more articles and books written about him.136.244.50.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC).

I LOVE - and I mean it, LOVE - that you posted that sarcastic comment so smugly confident that it not only made sense and was valid, but was unassailable and won you the argument. Newsflash, dummy - countless prolific, much-written-about writers and men of letters have fallen into relative obscurity after their own time. And I mean real obscurity. And it doesn't take very long, and the obscurity is very deep, and very dark. And usually very deserved. Your apparent assertion that someone who's been much written about in his own time (and Updike hasn't, really - I mean he's been written about some, he's gotten his attention, but he's not been a 'star' of his era, especially considering he wrote in an age in which literature was eclipsed by about nine different other forms of art and entertainment), and written many books, won't, or can't, be forgotten, is very funny to me in its complete cluelessness as to what has actually occurred to almost every writer who's ever lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.108.126 (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said. If you say so. 136.244.50.118 (talk)

Newsflash Dummy: by the way, is that your username? I LOVE--and I mean LOVE--it! 1. There are any number of artists who emerged from obscurity AFTER their deaths (to cite the most oft-cited example: Mozart). Obscurity is hardly a one-way street. 2. Speaking of obscurity, what kind are you talking about, Newsflash? In the space of three sentences, you go from "relative", to "real", to "very deep, and very dark". But then comes the Master Stroke: "And usually very deserved." Did we all catch the brilliance of that progression? Three 'very's, each followed by a word that starts with 'd'! What a wit! 3. 'apparent assertion' . . . did you mean to say 'inference'? 4. You're right, Updike hasn't been "much written about"; it's more accurate to say "he's been written about some", "he's gotten his attention", but always keeping in mind that "he's not been a 'star' of his era". That really pins it down, and let me add that yours is a truly discerning intellect. 5. What form of art has eclipsed literature? Film at its best contains it. Music and fine art run parallel to it, going back at least to the Baroque period. Because of modern technology, Salieri, whom you might wish to compare with Updike in terms of future obscurity, is more listened to now than he was in his own time. 6. You used a term I must confess I'm not familiar with: 'cluelessness'. Is that a form of pidgin English, Dummy? If so, I think its word origins are obscure. CMUMailman (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Updike sucks." Now THERE'S some serious literary criticism! I thank God for your Gift, sir! And for your generosity in bestowing it upon us! Mr. Stone Cutter, get your chisel ready for this fellow's future pronouncements! And alert the quarry to supply us with fresh tablets, lest posterity be deprived of his heavenly guidance, and hence fall into idol worship! CMUMailman (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

CMUMailman, your posts lend themselves to being read in the voice of the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons perhaps moreso than any other person I've ever read, online or elsewhere. So you've got that going for you. Which is nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.108.126 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See below regarding what I've done with the criticism section.Grunge6910 (talk)

Regarding the criticism section (rather than venom directed towards other commenters), there's some quite unnecessary weasel wordage where Vidal is described as excoriating Updike for his "Allegedly conservativism." Whether or not being a conservative is a Bad Thing is a discussion for another talk page even ruder than this one of course, but Updike was quite conservative. Here's an article he wrote about his vague support for the Vietnam War, or his ambivalence and tiredness about having to Have An Opinion on it, or perhaps when he characterizes war protesters as "full of pious unction and crocodile tears and power hunger and supercilious rage." .

My own distaste for Updike is kind of coming out, but it's late where I am. I'll write a run-on sentence and then leave: Even though I'm not particularly patriotic, it kind of disgusts me as an American that when people wanted him to have an opinion about this awful thing (and it's awful either way, whether or not you believed in the Vietnam War at that time people were being maimed and killed over there), he couldn't muster anything up but this solipsistic insouciant crap. 2601:602:201:73E0:7197:B5FB:D3B4:C041 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Cleanup

This page needs massive cleanup. I'd help but I have no idea how to do anything on here. You're welcome. 69.114.78.140

One could start by removing all the fawning language describing this tedious, self important hack. --Kelt65 (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Updike enters Heaven

His passing has become a national event. I cannot remember anything like this! The New Yorker has a blog in which every major author is recording his impression-- usually awe. Charlie Rose has devoted two shows to him, so far. Even more extraordinary, days after his passing, are the outpourings of grief from older feminists who in the Eighties railed against Updike's sexual delight in women as sexist objectification. Even here in the ultra orthodox PC Bay Area, the San Jose Mercury News reprinted Sue Gilmore, editor of the Contra Costa Times. (I can only quote pieces, so that I don't violate copyright.) Look at the tone of the first paragraph-- and then, as you read on, realize she's crying despite such intense dislike for some of his work. I just read another article like it by a woman author who confessed she'd literally thrown one of his Witches books against the wall in fury.

John Updike remembered

By Sue Gilmore Contra Costa Times Posted: 01/29/2009 12:48:37 PM PST

'Did you hear about John Updike?" The words didn't really seem to be coming in through my ears Tuesday morning when my editor delivered the news. It felt more like a stab to the heart, bringing an instant sting to my eyes. My all-time favorite author had died. As a journalist, I have spent the better part of 30 years assiduously cultivating at least a veneer of objectivity; being star-struck by the person you are interviewing is in no way helpful to getting good solid information or insightful perspective to your readers....

Lest you think my Updike esteem borders on sheer idolatry, I admit it has not always been smooth sailing between us. Unlike many of the critics, I found his sex-drenched (but what Updike novel isn't?) "Couples," which landed him on the cover of Time magazine in 1968, nothing but trash, albeit of the upper middle-class white variety. And like many women I know, I have cringed at some of his descriptions of flawed female characters that, while they may be ringing with authenticity, still carry the unwelcome whiff of misogyny. (Google "Updike" and "misogynist" and get close to 10,000 hits, including a link to a recent Salon.com interview in which he defends himself pretty well.) And finally, I am inclined to wrinkle my nose and want to smack him when he lets his love of language drive him to verbal pyrotechnics that are show-offishly silly, as he did with "A Month of Sundays."

As you see from Gilmore's review, it isn't just that Updike provoked the most intense admiration and criticism-- but that he provoked them from the same people! She continues, "But even the lesser Updike book is better than most; they certainly tend to linger in memory. I have yet to encounter another writer whose prolific output more accurately surveys, both in pointed detail and in psychological depth, the striving angst and the all-too-ephemeral ecstasies of modern, suburban and mostly God-fearing America."

Sue Gilmore's comment there solves, I think, the paradox. Her anger at Updike was her anger at his being the most faithful recorder of American life, right or wrong, for the last fifty years. I agree with her. Others have been citing Stendhal, "a novel is a mirror carried along a road, sometimes reflecting the sky, sometimes the mud." Our anger at him has often been rage at seeing our American faces in his polished prose. She quoted something Updike recently said to her which confirms that: .... "Updike assures he is not aiming to change anyone's mind with this novel. That does not befit his understanding of a writer's role. "We're describers, really, more than prescribers, "he says. "We're just trying to give the news, as it were, as it affects ordinary lives. And that's my construction of the fiction writer's social duty — by presenting clear pictures of how we act, we're in a way widening our sympathies for each other and our ability to comprehend. I mean it makes us more, I would hope, tolerant and forgiving and insightful in relation to other people." Sue Gilmore is the Times book editor. Reach her at 925-977-8482 or sgilmore@bayarea newsgroup.com.

A last note. Gilmore and I are both oldtimers. If you don't understand what all the fuss is about, try just the first few pages of a work she recommends elsewhere in her review, the opening pages of Rabbit, Run. "Like many, I first encountered his blazing talent in "Rabbit, Run," the 1960 novel that launched the famed "Rabbit" tetralogy that won him two Pulitzer Prizes. Already as an English lit major a confirmed admirer of the well-honed phrase and the dead-on metaphor, I was simply stunned at how uncannily adept Updike was at both; brilliant, brittle prose and revelatory imagery seemed to flow from the man nonstop."

And I would advise you to read, from the astonishing Bech series, the funny and brilliant "Bech Enters Heaven." There is no better American short story.

ProfhumProfhum (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

2005

I can't find an Updike forum where I can ask this question so I'll try here. I really, really want to know the page number on which I can find the quote 'What a threadbare thing we make of life' in Rabbit at Rest. Anyone know? ZephyrAnycon 21:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any record of an Updike novel called "The Angels", published in 1968. Any ideas? EgbertW 18:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Possibly renamed? (Did you purchase it in America?) Very unpopular and out of print? Try searching the catalogues of large library systems.

It looks like it is a poem: [1]. Perhaps the works section should be broken down by category? --Arcadian 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What about A&P? nothing has been said? I would very much like to send Mr. Updike an e-mail...How might one accomplish this?

Quotations

Why are there two sections of quotes and quotations? Also:

"I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability. (Response when asked how he writes women so well)"

Isn't this a quote from the movie As Good As It Gets? Does someone have a citation for Updike that doesn't come from a wiki site?

Besides Wiki and thinkexist, I found absolutely no other references to it. This sounds like a plant, not homage by the film directors. I removed it, but what you posted is verbatim. Let's leave it in discussion until someone coughs up a source; every other quote has a source.

I merged the quote sections, too. --Thatnewguy 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Telephone poles

Isn't the book called Telegraph poles and other poems, and not Telephone poles? Sam Hayes 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Patriotism

This guy seems to be a little too patriotic and WASPy to me. Unfortunately he appears in every issue of the New Yorker as the typical American white male. Teetotaler

Thank you for that useless comment Chicopac (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Teetotaler seems a little too French and Liberal to me. Unfortunately he appears in Wikipedia Talk pages as the typical admirer of Che Guevara.Lestrade (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Je comprend. However, Its too bad Edward Said wasn't alive to show the pathos of orientalism (i.e., racism) in a typical Updike kitsch such as his 'totally original' and 'enlightening' (sarcasm intended) novel "terrorist". How did he ever come up with that one? Sounds like we got another Bill Shakespeare on our hands! Either this guy is really a creative writer or he tapped into his inelimanably modernist mindframe, either that or rabbit is rich -go figure. Teetotaler 10 October, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Amis on Updike - wording?

The section on Amis on Updike is badly worded. Amis being a "sharp critic" on Updike implied to me that he was harsh on him. Of course, technically it could mean 'sharp' as in perceptive, or something, but wording it that way makes it ambiguous. Observing the quotations, three of them are positive and only one negative, so I would prefer to change the wording there. Chicopac (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Original claims?

I've temporarily pulled this section as it looks like original research:

Updike's writing on art exemplifies his usual casual elegance but it lacks originality or, indeed, any depth of understanding of aesthetics or art history. It is based almost entirely upon a now discredited modernist paradigm, which insists upon formalist readings of works of art and a total separation between art and culture, history, and society. Thus, to take one example, Updike's Jefferson lecture, which he presented at the White House on May 23, 2008, pandered to a neo-conservative cultural agenda that excludes the range, richness, and diversity of American artistic production. In attempting to answer the hoary question "What is American about American Art?" Updike resorts to a discredited Cold War paradigm of an essential "Americaness," and somewhat nervously makes his case using a series of examples drawn from the National Endowment for the Humanities's "Picturing America" project, in which American art is almost exclusively the work of white male artists from the eastern seaboard. Thus, for Updike, the "Americaness of American" art boils down to a matter of form ("liney" as a native style) and innocuous biographical anecdote.

This sounds like a review--is it a quote from elsewhere, or original research by a contributor? See Wikipedia:No original research for Wiki policies... --70.94.41.117 (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I first thought this deletion was vandalism. An anonomus user moving a section to the talk page for what they thought was original research. Now that I've read it I have to say that I agree with the user. This section of the article seems to be an opinion than criticism and I beleive is not appropriate. --Npnunda (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section sucks

I haven't read anything by him and I can't criticize his writing, but the criticism section of this page [2] is pathetic. All of the "criticism", except the last, can be interpreted as praise.

A summary of the history of the criticism section:

• It begins. [3]
• One person's general comments about the author's works is added. [4]
• Wikipedia editor adds a link to what can be assumed to be a criticism of a certain book, but is ignored (hopefully because it's not a criticism of the author himself, rather than because of some other reason). [5]
• Descriptions of author's health issues and mentions of criticism against him are sliced off with a dull knife. In the Criticism section, the direct insult is removed and one of the less gentle "criticisms" is also removed. [6]

--68.161.177.82 (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some arguments above (mainly in the other section discussing criticism) miss the point of a criticism section for literary figures. The notability of the author is based on Updike the author, not Updike the person, and thus notable criticism of the figure should be criticism of his work. Health issues should be added to the life section and should have a NPOV. The criticism section here should focus on his works and should contain general literary criticism of his novels, short stories, and poetry by major critics of the 20th and 21st centuries. If important critics found his works lacking certain attributes, then their comments should be listed here, but arguments that Updike was a bad person are by definition unverifiable and do not belong on WP. Mrathel (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

New templates

I just added templates about the lack of citations and what, to me, are issues with unencyclopedic writing, such as: "It appears at times that his ability to spin lovely phrases of delicate beauty and nuance overwhelm his desire to tell a simple, important story in the lives of his characters." I won't delete anything since perhaps a little rewriting and a whole lot of references (which this article is in dire need of) can give the article a slightly more legitimate feel as an encyclopedic article without needing to delete passages a Wiki editor probably put a lot of thought into. Mbinebri (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat: convert to Anglicanism

Source for this? 62.64.200.50 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Born in Shillington or Reading?

The article mentions he was born in Reading; however, his family lived in Shillington, where he spent his early ears. Children in the early 1930s were most often born at home. Is there a source for exactly where he was born? Hospital? Grandparents' house? Or home? 173.49.135.167 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are Martin Amis' comments relevant? Why do they dominate the section of criticism?

Martin Amis is not a literary critic. He is a heavily promoted writer with little penetration into the reading public or the academia and little appreciation therein. I am removing his comments, unless someone conveinces me that they are relevant. 91.132.224.196 (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

The footnote states that Updike's ancestor was born in Husum, Germany, but the citation (here given in full [7]), states that Leuris Jansen Opdyck (spelled in various ways) was born in Holland circa 1600. He sailed from Holland to New Amsterdam, and bought land at Gravesend in 1653. I've never seen mention of a German birth, but believe the fellow was in fact Dutch. [8] Most accounts put his birth at Elburg, Holland, but even this is not certain. In a petition filed at Gravesend, Opdyck called himself a 'Dutchman.' [9] And John Updike, his descendant, called himself 'Dutch' when he appeared on The Charlie Rose Show. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation section

Hey all: I've changed the "Criticism" section to a more encompassing "Evaluation" section. This article sorely lacks descriptions of the way Updike has been evaluated as a novelist. I'm going to work on this for a while but I'm starting us off with evaluations by McEwan, Roth, James Wood, and Karshan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Also added new section for awards won. I believe he's won more, so if anyone can find those we can drop the "(selected)" label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Themes

I've also written a themes section. Any help on that would also be appreciated.Grunge6910 (talk)

Bibliography

The works section is very sad-looking. Some books don't even have articles! And there needs to be an overall article for a complete bibliography. I'd do it myself but would prefer someone more knowledgeable to undertake that. Jmj713 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonfiction

John Updike wrote a great deal of fine nonfiction, mainly for the New Yorker over his years as a staff writer there. I think it warrants some mention, as many writers have noted their appreciation of it. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the literary criticism and art criticism section covers a great deal of that. Did you have other work of his in mind? Grunge6910 (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Major problems with this article

See [10]. Cirt (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote farm tag

The article has way too much use of blockquoting and extensive quoting throughout the article. This should be cut down. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem of block quoting has been, I think, eliminated. I included select block quotes which I believe are important, but the vast majority of those that were there have now been stricken. Grunge6910 (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede is too short

Lede is too short, especially considering the length of the article itself. Per WP:LEAD, the lede should be able to be a stand-alone piece, adequately summarizing the main points of the entire article. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the lede could be doubled in size, perhaps two to three paragraphs long. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some suggestions on how to expand it. I agree that it could use greater length but I'm really at a loss as to what exactly to use to do so. Grunge6910 (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree that this is an issue deserving of a tag. The lead could possibly be longer, but I don't think it is any shorter than most on similar articles. In fact, it isn't much shorter than that of Mário de Andrade, which is an FA Mrathel (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs

There are lots of one sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs throughout the article that don't look that great as short paragraphs. These should be merged into other paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed all but one of these paragraphs; its content (sexual imagery) is continued after the quote it introduces. Grunge6910 (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

More biography would be nice

Especially connecting his work to his life. There is some of that already present, to be sure, but more would be delightful. 128.138.65.150 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

YEEAHHH BOYYYYYY

"The main character in the Eminem film 8 Mile (2002) is nicknamed "Rabbit" and has some similarities to Rabbit Angstrom.[87] The film's soundtrack has a song titled "Rabbit Run"."

Is this sort of "inline advertising" really necessary? 98.236.31.128 (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Any Attempts at Censorship?

In reading Updike's early works from the early 60s I was struck by what would have been considered then its pushing the boundaries of both propriety and vulgarity, with their explicit and detailed descriptions of sex and his use of common vulgarism like the f and s words. I did not see any reference in the article to any controversy over this, particularly out in mainstream America of 1960. Was there any controversy of note or any attempt to ban his work, like excluding it from public libraries and schools, during that era?

Short Stories section: What killed the short story market?

The first paragraph gives a long account of what appears to be a series of personal opinions with regard to American literary history and the market for short stories in commercial magazines in the mid-twentieth century. There are no citations except for the last sentence, which is only loosely based on the rest of the paragraph, deals with Updike's biography rather than than the general issues addressed, and is unverifiable without finding a copy of the book from which the imbedded quote is apparently taken. What the paragraph is missing is any reference to the EXTRAliterary influences that were destroying the short story market and specifically the replacement of magazine reading with television watching as a preferred leisure-time activity over the course of the 1950s and, more importantly, the redirection of advertising revenue into that medium. This is well illustrated in the career of Kurt Vonnegut, for example, by his transformation from professionsl short fiction writer for the slicks in the 50s to professional novelist in the 60s. 68.178.50.46 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Novels Subsection: a complete mess

There is not even attempt at a chronology here. It starts twelve years after his first novel, jumps back vaguely, then plows ahead arbitrarily. References to previous novels are scatterd through the Short Stories subsection and elsewhere in an incoherent manner.Just a mess.68.178.50.46 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Updike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406072411/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb049/is_1_51/ai_n28886937/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb049/is_1_51/ai_n28886937
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805084901/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6584 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6584
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412022459/http://powells.com/prizes/penfaulkner_fiction.html to http://www.powells.com/prizes/penfaulkner_fiction.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201051145/http://neh.gov/whoweare/Updike/Appreciation.html to http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/updike/appreciation.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214055417/http://userpages.prexar.com/joyerkes/Item8.html to http://userpages.prexar.com/joyerkes/Item8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Updike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111132106/http://www.wickedlocal.com/ipswich/news/opinions/letters/x545177024/LETTER-John-Updike-the-Ipswich-Connection to http://www.wickedlocal.com/ipswich/news/opinions/letters/x545177024/LETTER-John-Updike-the-Ipswich-Connection
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202092557/http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/john-updike-on-american-art.html to http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/john-updike-on-american-art.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Updike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100219211757/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/upd0bio-1 to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/upd0bio-1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228131320/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/photocredit/achievers/upd0-006 to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/photocredit/achievers/upd0-006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906112431/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/photocredit/achievers/upd0-007 to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/photocredit/achievers/upd0-007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)