Abstract
One of the pitfalls on the road of any commentator on any author is that of seizing upon a single aspect of his work and developing this aspect to the exclusion of others equally important. What is said may then be true enough, yet the total picture becomes a distorted one. The danger of a selective reading pulling the whole critical super-structure awry is peculiarly evident in connection with John Updike. He is a comic writer, a fabulist, a poet, a moralist, an observer of social mores, a religious believer, a student of history, an “earnest meditator” on the ego, a critic of other authors—and sometimes all of these things at once. Those who would bake a critical cake must not only include all the ingredients he has supplied but also mix them in the right proportions. If they fail, the cake will turn out flat.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
