1. This review by @WDeresiewicz on Begley's Updike bio is excellent on why Updike will continue to be read: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119200/updike-reviewed-william-deresiewicz …
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
2. Review is less good on the problems with Begley's book. Deresiewicz is right bio bio is narrowly focused but there's much more to say.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
3. I noted a problem of Begley adopting point-of-view of Updike's 1st wife & caricaturing 2nd wife in this review: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/updike-what-kind-of-biography-do-you-write-when-you-are-the-closest-thing-to-being-john-updikes-son/article17833952/?page=all …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
4. Beyond that, there a many small but telling factual mistakes in Begley, signs he's over-interpreting his material.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
5. Example: Not true that Couples was 1st book Updike dedicated to wife Mary (portrayed as an "ironic" and "possibly hostile" gesture).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
6. Example: Updike referring to mother as "would-be" writer (p. 17) not a dis -- JU was specifically talking about period when he was young
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
7. Begley's bio has gotten generally positive reviews, but I think a close-read looking at sources & evidence would be damaging.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@preuxchevalier Updike left vast archive to Harvard. Millions of pages.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.