As for the man juice...I can't shut him down for that. I choose to think the same thing about any fluid that comes out of me. "He's loving it; he thinks it's great." Mostly likely though, he feels the same way I do...it's not terrible, but certainly nothing worth spreading on toast.
@Majrhoulihan: "It's not terrible, but certainly nothing worth spreading on toast". If only porn and erotica incorporated quotes like that I would be more into it.
Updike suffers from a syndrome that seems known to most male novelists I have read or met. I have yet to name this syndrome, but am taking suggestions.
The sufferer was usually, in his youth, holed up in his bedroom with (inevitably) comic books. His diet was an endless stream of self-love, provided by the teat of a mother whom he adored into his teens. She, in the oldest but sadly the truest of Freudian cliches, is the archetypal woman for her son - virtuous but altogether sexuallly passive.
The Father (this type of dude always grows up in heteronormative environment) worked and was frequently absent but was a "good man." This "good man" always harboured, however, some kind of "dreamer"'s impulse, which had obviously been kept in check by the selfish need of his wife and child for food and a roof over their heads.
As the Father started, and always failed at many a business endeavour designed to fulfil his Destiny as a good man, his young son came to see the Father as a brave man trying to escape his circumstances rather than as merely what the rest of the world saw, which is to say, an incompetent fool. And he grew angry with his mother, even as he loved her in her womanly perfection, for having needs that did anything but serve the Father.
Fast forward to this man's late twenties, in which he has already met, married and divorced a Sweet Young Thing who, again selfishly, mimicked his mother's slavish devotion to practical things like "actually eating." Shed of this young woman (and the child(ren) they share, of course, his mind being on Greater Things than mere progeny), he decides it is time to answer his True Calling, and write The Great American Novel...
I read Run, Rabbit and do give him credit for the part about Rabbit trying to have sex with his wife, RIGHT after she had the baby and she lying there with him trying to sweet talk her. She has the realization that he could care less about her and her body is just something he is using.
I read that and had a total flashback to an ex-bf. I did think that was well said for a man to write.
Other than that though, yeah I totally agree. He made her sound pretty fat and gross throughout the entire book.
'I am not sure WHAT I or any other woman has ever done to suggest to men that I approach their members with the same reverence and awe I might grant the downy crown of a baby's head.'
Ha haaa, don't all women do this? As a joke? 'Ooh, it's so big and you're so strong!' Maybe some men just don't get it.
When I was 10, a girl's parents showed the Witches of Eastwick as the movie at a birthday party. My father was way not thrilled when he picked me up and heard that! (I think he was less thrilled when I started asking questions).
@treecut just Baracked the Vote!: Interesting point. Like we're merely empty vessels waiting to fulfil men's cravings and desires. I'd say that's a fail at writing women well...
@elysium_kitschen: I guess the first one talks about Jane's "bliss". But, normally if I'm having hot sex I'm not exclusively thinking about how awesome I am making the guy feel or how glorious his member is.
He's done what a writer is supposed to do. He's ENGAGED you. He's infuriated you. He's made you think.
That's why I love the work of John Updike (number two, behind Margaret Atwood for me).
Oh, and -- "I know. I know. Leaving aside the notion of "writing women" as some singular, definitive Arabesque, How the fuck would they know."
You're not suggesting a writer can only write within the cage of his or her immediate experience? A writer lets their mind flow; their imagination go. If someone were to suggest a female writer could only write about other females -- I'm sure you wouldn't like that.
@NewsBunny: I don't think just "making me think" is really a writer fulfilling their job description.
And it's been discussed many a time around here whether "men can write women" and vice-versa, etc...there's no clear answer because nobody's read /everything/ and analyzed it down to a science...But when it comes to making a woman feel "real" I think it takes more than just letting one's imagination go to make a successfully realistic portrayal. I could imagine that all men secretly wear lacy bloomers, garters, cowboy boots and love to do the dishes...but it doesn't make them real or relateable.
@NewsBunny: If all someone had to do to be an excellent writer is piss me off by creating a world that looks nothing like actual reality and then patting themselves on the back for "getting it," Sarah Palin and Bill O'reilly would have a lock on the Pulitzer. Updike doesn't really make me think much beyond wow, does the fact that people hold Updike characters up as "everymen," mean that people think all white men are as self-absorbed and pretentious as Updike is?
I don't think "male authors" can't write women, I think Updike can't convincingly write women, or people of color, or basically anyone who isn't an erudite white man of a certain age who feels insecure about his masculinity and needs to assert his superiority. And the characters he does write convincingly he convinces me are shallow and in no way contributing to my understanding of life/art/anything.
@NewsBunny: See, I also love Updike and Atwood - but as much as the above piece implies Updike can't write women, I feel that Atwood's male characters are severely lacking.
I don't want to limit one's literature portrayals to their personal experience. I think there are many men who can 'write women' and vice versa, but in both of your examples, their other-gender portrayals fall flat.
@rollergirl76: I hear that cited pretty often as a good example of men-writing-women, but haven't read it myself yet.
@samethingwedoeverynightpinky: And the characters he does write convincingly he convinces me are shallow and in no way contributing to my understanding of life/art/anything.
Aha -- this is the language I was groping for when I was thinking of a response. It's not enough to promote "thought", it's about promoting/furthering/contributing to understanding or discovery.
@Rhymeswithfeather: Okay, I just thought of an example to contradict myself. Have you read The Blind Assassin? The narrator's lover was under-explored but, in my (female) opinion, a well-written male character.
@NewsBunny: So we have totally different tastes anyway and this is a blog. But I'll take you up on this.
The mark of a good writer is not "engagement" or "infuriation" - because by that standard Ann Coulter is a good writer. It is, to me, the level on which the writing feels authentic or true. Now, the kind of authenticity/truth here I'm talking about is not necessarily literal truth - it's not that the writer must convey the price of mangoes in South Dakota, for example - but rather that something in what they write illuminates and clarifies the world.
Sure I want something more than solipsism from my writers. But I do not want them to stretch out into the realm of ludicrous just to prove a point - which indeed they only prove to themselves - about how well they "understand" some other experience. Moreover, if they do make these stretches, the writer needs to come from a place which understand the limits the writer's own experience might have imposed on him. Nothing Updike has ever written, past or present (and yes I've read a lot of it) suggests that degree of writerly self-awareness. Which, by the by, I would say is the real way to actual truth - which is to say, humility.
@SlappySquirrel: I agree. Some men can write women, but it seems weird for men to acclaim that a male author's one virtue is that he writes women well. I mean, they might recognize that he writes interesting characters, but they really don't know if it is an accurate portrayal of a woman's inner thoughts.
@PilgrimSoul: Oh, realism is not the end all and be-all of a good writer. I mean, we're talking about witches here. Steven King's a good writer, and Salem's Lot was about vampires. Tim Robbins is a good writer, and he writes about nuns in the desert and wacked out badger creatures. Brad whats his name is a good writer, and he writes about fight clubs and cross-dressing men with sisters lacking jaws. A good writer sucks you into the world he or she has created, and brings into the soul of his or her characters.
I stand by my a good writer engages you and makes you think. And we're taking fiction here, not rants by cable TV people.
@PilgrimSoul: Are great writers humble, typically? Even the periodic "___ treated his ex-wife poorly; consequently, his books/paintings/poems are worthless" debates don't usually throw up a claim that the miscreant in question was too full of himself to write well.
@Rhymeswithfeather: A bit late, but The Blind Assassin is one of my favorites. I think the "mystery man" was sort of underdeveloped on purpose, since that's what adds to the mystery. Anyway the story was more about Iris using him as an escape, IMO. I mean she was unhappy to say the least in her marriage. And the affair was pretty much all she had that was authentically her own. As for the Witches of Eastwick- never read the book but the movie was faaantastic. And I've never read Updike, and now I know why. "Oooh, let's all drop to our knees and worship the phallus!! It's *whispers* ma-gic-al!!!" (disclaimer: i do show my man's penis a good amount of love, but that's because he's soooo gooooood with it.)
@NewsBunny: I too am glad we have these discussions :D
I'm a stickler for a dash of realism in the midst of my fantasy. And by real I mean...identifiable as something that could exist given the author's self-defined parameters.
@PilgrimSoul: ...humbled by the vast gulf between having an experience and writing fiction about it....
That sounds more like an old, old moral argument than an aesthetic one. In particular, a moral argument arising out of suspicion of the power that accrues to some artists, at the (presumed) expense of other, worthier candidates.
@veronykah: I think there are probably a few who enjoy it, and some others who don't necessarily like it but will do it as a favor to their guy. (hopefully in return for some favors themselves).
@RoxNminral: I would assume this is the case, and that there are lots of women who neither enjoy it nor let it happen. Just like most acts and activities, sexual and non.
@treecut just Baracked the Vote!: I think they're kind of cute. Well, mostly I think guys' reactions to them are cute: "I'm the shit, 'cause I have a penis. Isn't it great?" I just want to tell them their delusion is adorable, like a 5 year old with an imaginary friend.
I feel the need to head to the library. How have I never read any Updike? Hmm . . . I may need to pay-off my fine first.
@Papershoes: Does anyone actually still USE "nards"? I remember it from elementary school, and it wasn't that popular even then!
Note: I do remember smirking, in high school, during our school's performance of West Side Story. I was in the orchestra and seriously had to bite my finger not to laugh whenever they referenced "Nardo".
@Papershoes: What is 'nards'? It makes me think of lard, which I've never actually tasted, but once at primary school we made chocolate with Kremelta, which is supposedly the vegetable-based equivalent, and it was horrible, so I'm guessing so too are nards?
(And now you know my thought process. How awkward.)
@rollergirl76: @Cafezinha: I believe nards and nads derive from the same slang about the same, erm, body part. Though of course all I think of is Andy Bernard (Who let the NardDog out? Who? Who who?
@Cafezinha: Maybe the resurgence is only affecting certain circles then, because I've cringed a few times over its usage recently. Although, maybe to be more efficient I should just cut all the juvenile man-boys out of my life.
That would eliminate most icky words from being used.
auuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh. I hate any and all literature that refers to male ejaculate as magical, nutritious wonder juice. I have swallowed exactly twice, it was a favor, an act of love, not of sexual appetite. I as a rule don't want to be anywhere near the area when "the event" goes down. I don't find that the greatest fulfillment of my sexual power occurs when I'm making a man "juice." Usually it's when one or the other of us is making me juice.
@Mkp-hearts-nyc: But some women do really enjoy that. And I don't think it's ridiculous to have a character who does, too. I mean, maybe the description is a bit much for some of us, but it's not like, insane.
@Mkp-hearts-nyc: Really? I um, love going down on my boyfriend. And I always swallow. And while it doesn't taste like, oh, something I'd want to snack on-- it certianley doens't taste bad. And its fun, and yeah, it makes me feel good to know that I made him come. *shrugs*
OWOWOW!! SORE SPOT!!! I will read ANYTHING. ANYTHING! I usually pride myself on my ability to get through any book, be it "Beowulf" or "Twilight". However, I have tried and tried and tried, but I cannot get through the Witches of Eastwick. Or any other Updike work, for that matter. I really feel like something is wrong with me.
@TheUptightMidwesterner: Witches was the only one I could get through. Probably because I'm from New England and love witches. I couldn't get through any of the Rabbit books.
11/21/08
As for the man juice...I can't shut him down for that. I choose to think the same thing about any fluid that comes out of me. "He's loving it; he thinks it's great." Mostly likely though, he feels the same way I do...it's not terrible, but certainly nothing worth spreading on toast.
11/21/08
11/21/08
Now excuse me while I go back to contemplating my unspeakable nether-parts....
11/21/08
The sufferer was usually, in his youth, holed up in his bedroom with (inevitably) comic books. His diet was an endless stream of self-love, provided by the teat of a mother whom he adored into his teens. She, in the oldest but sadly the truest of Freudian cliches, is the archetypal woman for her son - virtuous but altogether sexuallly passive.
The Father (this type of dude always grows up in heteronormative environment) worked and was frequently absent but was a "good man." This "good man" always harboured, however, some kind of "dreamer"'s impulse, which had obviously been kept in check by the selfish need of his wife and child for food and a roof over their heads.
As the Father started, and always failed at many a business endeavour designed to fulfil his Destiny as a good man, his young son came to see the Father as a brave man trying to escape his circumstances rather than as merely what the rest of the world saw, which is to say, an incompetent fool. And he grew angry with his mother, even as he loved her in her womanly perfection, for having needs that did anything but serve the Father.
Fast forward to this man's late twenties, in which he has already met, married and divorced a Sweet Young Thing who, again selfishly, mimicked his mother's slavish devotion to practical things like "actually eating." Shed of this young woman (and the child(ren) they share, of course, his mind being on Greater Things than mere progeny), he decides it is time to answer his True Calling, and write The Great American Novel...
And so it goes...
11/21/08
11/21/08
I read that and had a total flashback to an ex-bf. I did think that was well said for a man to write.
Other than that though, yeah I totally agree. He made her sound pretty fat and gross throughout the entire book.
11/21/08
11/21/08
Ha haaa, don't all women do this? As a joke? 'Ooh, it's so big and you're so strong!' Maybe some men just don't get it.
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
That's why I love the work of John Updike (number two, behind Margaret Atwood for me).
Oh, and -- "I know. I know. Leaving aside the notion of "writing women" as some singular, definitive Arabesque, How the fuck would they know."
You're not suggesting a writer can only write within the cage of his or her immediate experience? A writer lets their mind flow; their imagination go. If someone were to suggest a female writer could only write about other females -- I'm sure you wouldn't like that.
11/21/08
And it's been discussed many a time around here whether "men can write women" and vice-versa, etc...there's no clear answer because nobody's read /everything/ and analyzed it down to a science...But when it comes to making a woman feel "real" I think it takes more than just letting one's imagination go to make a successfully realistic portrayal. I could imagine that all men secretly wear lacy bloomers, garters, cowboy boots and love to do the dishes...but it doesn't make them real or relateable.
11/21/08
I don't think "male authors" can't write women, I think Updike can't convincingly write women, or people of color, or basically anyone who isn't an erudite white man of a certain age who feels insecure about his masculinity and needs to assert his superiority. And the characters he does write convincingly he convinces me are shallow and in no way contributing to my understanding of life/art/anything.
11/21/08
11/21/08
I don't want to limit one's literature portrayals to their personal experience. I think there are many men who can 'write women' and vice versa, but in both of your examples, their other-gender portrayals fall flat.
11/21/08
@samethingwedoeverynightpinky: And the characters he does write convincingly he convinces me are shallow and in no way contributing to my understanding of life/art/anything.
Aha -- this is the language I was groping for when I was thinking of a response. It's not enough to promote "thought", it's about promoting/furthering/contributing to understanding or discovery.
11/21/08
11/21/08
It does seem like a weird thing for men to congratulate other men on being able to do, though.
11/21/08
The mark of a good writer is not "engagement" or "infuriation" - because by that standard Ann Coulter is a good writer. It is, to me, the level on which the writing feels authentic or true. Now, the kind of authenticity/truth here I'm talking about is not necessarily literal truth - it's not that the writer must convey the price of mangoes in South Dakota, for example - but rather that something in what they write illuminates and clarifies the world.
Sure I want something more than solipsism from my writers. But I do not want them to stretch out into the realm of ludicrous just to prove a point - which indeed they only prove to themselves - about how well they "understand" some other experience. Moreover, if they do make these stretches, the writer needs to come from a place which understand the limits the writer's own experience might have imposed on him. Nothing Updike has ever written, past or present (and yes I've read a lot of it) suggests that degree of writerly self-awareness. Which, by the by, I would say is the real way to actual truth - which is to say, humility.
11/21/08
11/21/08
I stand by my a good writer engages you and makes you think. And we're taking fiction here, not rants by cable TV people.
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
But, that's the beauty of books -- everyone takes away something a little different.
11/21/08
I'm a stickler for a dash of realism in the midst of my fantasy. And by real I mean...identifiable as something that could exist given the author's self-defined parameters.
/language parsing
11/21/08
11/21/08
(although I do think the "full of oneself" genre is pretty insufferable anyway so I might try to make out that claim when I've thought more about it.)
11/21/08
That sounds more like an old, old moral argument than an aesthetic one. In particular, a moral argument arising out of suspicion of the power that accrues to some artists, at the (presumed) expense of other, worthier candidates.
11/21/08
"Brain"=not entirely available
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
Is he serious with this line?! It sounds like something out of a Penthouse Letter.
11/21/08
Are there women who really dig that?
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
I do love Witches of Eastwick though.
11/21/08
I feel the need to head to the library. How have I never read any Updike? Hmm . . . I may need to pay-off my fine first.
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
Great green globs of greasy grimey gopher guts....
11/21/08
Also, may I nominate "nards".
11/21/08
Note: I do remember smirking, in high school, during our school's performance of West Side Story. I was in the orchestra and seriously had to bite my finger not to laugh whenever they referenced "Nardo".
11/21/08
(And now you know my thought process. How awkward.)
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
(heeheehee)
11/21/08
That would eliminate most icky words from being used.
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/23/08
11/21/08
I will read ANYTHING. ANYTHING! I usually pride myself on my ability to get through any book, be it "Beowulf" or "Twilight".
However, I have tried and tried and tried, but I cannot get through the Witches of Eastwick. Or any other Updike work, for that matter.
I really feel like something is wrong with me.
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/23/08