The writing I came across was truly a disappointment.

It was filled with such clumsiness that it made for a rather unpleasant reading experience.

In fact, it seemed to read like an adolescent's masturbatory fantasy, lacking in any real substance or sophistication.

The author's attempt to create a story or convey ideas fell flat, leaving the reader with a sense of dissatisfaction.

It was as if the words were thrown together haphazardly, without any regard for proper grammar, sentence structure, or coherence.

Overall, it was a prime example of how not to write, and I would not recommend it to anyone looking for a quality piece of literature.

Sinewy prose about naughty WASPS.

The wasps, with their slender and powerful bodies, seem to be up to no good. They buzz around, flitting from one place to another, as if they have no regard for the rules or the consequences of their actions.

But what is the lesson here? It seems that God doesn't look kindly upon those who flout his commandments. The wasps, in their naughtiness, may think they are getting away with it, but perhaps there is a higher power that is watching and will hold them accountable.

This simple observation about the wasps can serve as a reminder to us all. We too should be careful not to break the rules or go against what is right. For even if we think we can get away with it in the short term, in the end, there will be a price to pay.

So let us learn from the wasps and strive to be better, more obedient creatures. Let us respect the commandments and live our lives in a way that is pleasing to God.

Read this for my American Storytellers and the Theological Imagination class. I TRULY LOVED IT. Everyone in my class thought it was a pessimistic ending, but I didn't. I think Foxy and Piet fell in love and that was what transgressed the rules of their cult. This perspective offers a different interpretation of the story. Instead of seeing it as a solely negative or hopeless conclusion, it presents a glimmer of something more. The idea of love defying the constraints of a cult is both powerful and thought-provoking. It makes us question the rigidity of rules and the lengths people will go for the sake of love. My professor agrees with me, so it seems there is validity to this alternative view. It shows that literature can be open to multiple interpretations, and each person's perspective can add depth and richness to the understanding of a story.

John Updike has been a beloved writer of mine for three decades. I completed reading through his novels last year. Now, I find myself starting to go through them again, at least some of them. I chose "Couples" as a reread for this year. I've always regarded "Couples" as my favorite Updike novel, and it didn't disappoint me the second time around.

The first time I read it, my most profound impression was that I had never felt so deeply immersed in the scenes of a book. Updike has an extraordinary talent for placing you in a room with people and constructing an imposing reality around you. Since "Couples" is largely told through a series of dinner parties, backyard cookouts, town meetings, sidewalk encounters, and bedroom trysts, his skill is constantly on display.

As I reflect on how the book felt to me on this reread compared to my initial experience, I would say that the second time it seemed like a more cohesive whole, but the visceral impact wasn't quite as strong. This is probably true of most rereads. However, I don't think my reaction to the characters or the events was different when I read it at 65 compared to 35.

Updike wrote "Couples" in 1968. I initially thought its setting was exactly contemporary, but in fact, the Kennedy assassination places its action over a period of a little more than one year in 1963 and 1964. We are in Tarbox, Massachusetts, a coastal town 27 miles south of Boston. The first couple we meet is Piet and Angela Hanema. Updike narrates in the third person, with Piet generally being the central character. The Hanemas are part of a group of youngish, married-with-children individuals who socialize together. The roster of couples includes Piet & Angela Hanema, Roger & Bea Guerin, Frank & Janet Appleby, Harold & Marcia Smith, Freddy & Georgene Thorne, Ken & Foxy Whitman, Eddie & Carol Constantine, Ben & Irene Saltz, and John & Bernadette Ong.

Throughout the course of the story, at least seven new couples are formed through adulterous unions among them. I'm not sure how many novels with the theme of married couples freely swapping mates were published during the sexual revolution of the 1960s, but I imagine there were many. However, I suspect "Couples" was one of the most widely read and commented on. I would really enjoy reading some contemporary reviews of the book. I imagine that, regardless of how Updike's views on adultery were interpreted, many reviewers condemned the book as trash and another sign of society's decline.

This leads to the question of Updike's aim with this book. I believe he was simply using an important societal change as a backdrop for a novel. I could research Updike's personal life to determine if he was unfaithful to his wives or vice versa, but one's behavior doesn't necessarily align with one's beliefs, does it? However, even though "Couples" wasn't written as a morality tale, Updike couldn't avoid making direct and indirect comments on the factors influencing adultery and its outcomes.

In all of his books, Updike enjoys delving deep into the relationships between men and women, exploring their dynamics, balances, power struggles, and exchanges. In "Couples," more than in his other novels, I got the sense that Updike saw women as physically, and perhaps morally, superior to men. There were times when I felt he was suggesting that men are impossible to love and women are impossible not to love. Here, he portrays women's bodies as different forms of perfection, while often comically painting men's bodies and faces as grotesque. Throughout the book, men have equine faces, piscine faces, and hideous bodies. I actually laughed out loud at some of his descriptions. Men are beings who deserve physical adjectives like "invertebrate, elderly (when they aren't), absurd, ingrown (I'm surprised he didn't add inbred!), gangrenous, and twisted." We might easily infer that men are also diseased inside. Even one of the children remarks: "Daddy's ugly." And later: "'Daddy's toes,' Nancy said, gazing up impudently from beneath Angela's protection, 'are like Halloween teeth,' and Piet saw that he represented death to this child: that what menaced and assaulted the fragility of life was being concentrated for her in his towering rank maleness; that this process would bring her in time to (her older sister) Ruth's stage, of daring to admire and tame this strangeness; and at last to (her mother) Angela's, of seeking to salvage something of herself, from the encounter with it. He loved them, his women, spaced around him like the stakes of a trap." I hear Updike commenting on men as takers and women as givers, men as crude and women as sculptors and shapers of unruly men.

Many of Updike's novels include death as a major theme, and "Couples" is no exception. It's interesting to see how this theme actually intertwines with his characters' thoughts as they experiment with extramarital sex. Perhaps Updike feels that many adulterous couplings arise partially or even primarily out of existential angst or boredom. As the novel opens, we find Piet, a house builder, looking approvingly at a beautiful old church in town. On top of the steeple is a weathercock with a copper English penny for an eye. Some of the town's children grow up believing that the rooster is an all-seeing God. So guilt is also suggested. I was reminded of the optometrist's billboard with the glasses and staring eyes in "The Great Gatsby." Harold muses about living with guilt or the threat of it, "The only people who can be themselves are babies and old bastards."

Updike seems to compare sex, especially with forbidden partners, to vibrant life, and ended relationships to death. A character in a sentimental and existential mood declares: "... the... church and naked women - everything else tells us we're dead."

WARNING: THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SPOILERS

Again, I don't think Updike was making a statement on infidelity when he wrote "Couples," but he explores it nonetheless. At one point, he refers to "essential fidelity," as if he believes there can be degrees between black and white. At times, there are clues to his own views through his characters. One qualifies cheating: "... but he had never betrayed (his wife) with a social equal." After one man is cheated on, he goes to a couple he respects and asks what he should do, i.e., divorce her or try to work through it. It's easy for the uninvolved to absolve her, while the victim is crushed with grief. Updike certainly doesn't downplay the serious damages that can be done. There is anger, jealousy, an unwanted pregnancy that throws those involved into a panic, divorces, and a gradual dissolution of the group.

To say that Updike's writing is poetic, evocative, and lyrical hardly does it justice. I've read few books whose writing quality matches this. There are many passages using stream-of-consciousness writing, both in dreams and in conscious thinking. He loves to explore how our silly brains work: even as a character receives terrible news on the phone, his mind wanders to the oddness of the everyday objects around him.

Finally, more than other writers, Updike is always concerned not only with the cerebral and existential aspects of life but also with the corporal. His characters have bodies that eat and digest - sometimes poorly - and eliminate, have sex, age, hurt, and feel illness. He does sex scenes very well - his lovers make romance novel sex scenes look like comic books compared to his Botticelli-, Rubens-, and Renoir-inspired visions.

The novel is set in Tarbox, a small town in an American province, in the years just before its publication in 1968. A series of young married couples, frivolous and bored, socialize for pastime, engaging in chats, board games, and sports matches. However, what mainly stirs the atmosphere is extramarital sex. To mention just a few examples, there is a certain Piet Hanema who hits the mark repeatedly (including pregnancies), while two couples engage in a cross exchange, first hidden and then blatant... The whole thing leaves one perplexed. Beyond any moral consideration, it is the general superficiality of thoughts and behaviors that is disturbing. Updike, who holds the reader captive with remarkable stylistic abilities, perhaps hopes for a reaction, but certainly reveals very little. The "incisive criticism of a society eternally dissatisfied and in the impossible search for the absolute" mentioned in the blurb on the back cover is at least... very indirect. On the contrary, what is more clearly perceived is the excessive condescension of the author towards his immature characters, an attitude that ultimately generates, in the wake of the represented scenes, whether light or spicy, a well-established atmosphere in subsequent times: that of the soap opera.

Ugh! These people!

It's truly exasperating. There are 470 pages filled with descriptions and accounts of these people.

One can't help but feel a sense of weariness just thinking about it.

Who are these people anyway? What have they done to deserve such extensive coverage?

Maybe they are individuals of great significance, or perhaps they are involved in some complex and convoluted story.

Either way, it's a lot to take in.

The thought of delving through all 470 pages is enough to make one's head spin.

But perhaps there is something valuable to be found within those pages.

Maybe it will offer insights into human nature, or provide a fascinating look into a particular time or place.

Despite the initial frustration, one can't help but be curious.

So, with a sigh, one must gather the courage and begin the arduous task of exploring these 470 pages of these people.

I could hardly bring myself to admit that I had read this crazy, weird, swingers' story. So, I gave it 3 stars and simply put it aside. In fact, I completely forgot that I had even read it.

However, missing Updike, I decided to go back and read it again. This time, I gave it another star. Interestingly, the rampant adultery, which was central to the novel, actually took a backseat to other aspects. Just like in all of Updike's books, the (crazy-ass) characters started to take shape and become familiar. Their flaws gradually gave way to delicate virtues, and before I knew it, I found myself liking most of them despite my initial reservations.

It might indeed take you two readings to fully appreciate this book. But just remember: this was the 1960s. People were... strange. So, it's important to forgive them for that ahead of time. After all, the context of the era plays a significant role in understanding the story and the characters within it.

This was perhaps the closest thing to a romance novel that I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I firmly believe that it not only has literary value but also offers a unique perspective on life and relationships.

I heard that when this novel was first published, it contained some of the raciest scenes that had ever been seen. However, it seems that the public was more than ready for it, as it quickly became a best-seller.

The couples of Tarbox, with its streets ironically named Charity, Purity, and Chastity, and the imposing church on the hill, create a vivid backdrop for the story. Piet, with his charm and womanizing ways, is a central figure whose actions ultimately lead to his downfall.

The question that lingers is whether happiness is truly worth the price of two broken families. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Updike's descriptions are truly superb. His words paint a vivid picture of a group of people who have chosen to substitute the formalities of the country club with the informality of a circle of friends and a cycle of parties and games.

They have settled in unexpected places, like the pastoral mill town of Tarbox, and are trying to create a new way of life. For them, virtue is no longer found in the temple or the marketplace but within the home, both their own and those of their friends.

Freddy's view on the meaning of life is also thought-provoking. He believes that we are all put here to humanize each other, a simple yet profound statement.

Finally, Piet's realization that death is not an invading meteor but occurs on the same plane as birth, marriage, and the arrival of the daily mail is a powerful reminder of the cyclical nature of life.

This novel is a must-read for anyone who enjoys a good story with depth and substance.

Three stars for the prose.

I mean, there is no denying that Updike knows how to use his words. His prose is often beautiful and engaging.

However, I got a little sick of spinning in this dry tumble with frustrated couples. They drink their boredom away and sleep with their neighbor's spouse in an attempt to reignite the fire.

The whole thing seemed so dismal and pointless. Maybe that was Updike's intention, to show the state of the educated classes on the east coast in the 1960s.

Nevertheless, even with Updike's excellent prose, I found it difficult to motivate myself to turn the page and follow the philandering Piet any further down that path.

It felt like I was just going through the motions, reading about the same old problems and the same old solutions.

Perhaps if the story had been more engaging or the characters more likable, I would have been more invested. But as it was, I was left feeling a bit disappointed.

In the 1960s, the phenomenon of wife swapping emerged in New England.

At first, it was rather confusing to figure out who was married to whom, who was having an affair with whom, and to whom the children belonged.

The story is filled with wonderfully poignant and evocative metaphors and descriptive passages.

These literary devices add depth and vividness to the narrative, allowing the reader to truly immerse themselves in the complex web of relationships.

However, other parts of the story are deliberately disjointed, more like a stream-of-consciousness.

This style creates a sense of fragmentation and chaos, mirroring the混乱 and confusion that likely surrounded the wife swapping culture.

Overall, the story offers a unique and thought-provoking exploration of a controversial and often misunderstood aspect of 1960s society.

It challenges the reader to question their own assumptions about marriage, relationships, and morality.

Impossibly silly. It is truly astonishing to think that anyone at any time could have considered this novel controversial. It simply defies belief. How could such a thing be?

If, as the articles and newsclippings from the 1960's seem to suggest, this was indeed the case, then I'm afraid our literary ancestors were a truly primitive breed. What were they thinking?

Perhaps they were more closed-minded and less accepting of new ideas and perspectives. Or maybe they simply didn't understand the true nature and value of the novel.

Whatever the reason, it is hard to fathom how something that seems so innocuous and even delightful could have caused such a stir. It makes one wonder what other works of literature have been unjustly criticized or overlooked throughout history.

This took me a while to get into. At first, I was a bit hesitant and found it a bit challenging to engage with.

However, as I delved deeper into the story, by the end, I was completely hooked. It is not quite as rewarding as the Rabbit series, which I truly adore.

Nevertheless, it is a great example of Updike's incredible prose. His sentences about the seemingly mundane things in life have an almost poetic quality to them.

The characters in the book were not necessarily likable, but they were beautifully portrayed. They came to life on the pages, with all their flaws and imperfections.

The book also reflected the underbelly of life, that side of it which is perhaps more common than we would choose to admit. It shows the darker, more complex aspects of human nature and society.

Overall, it is a great read for those who are willing to persevere. It may not be an easy read, but it is definitely worth the effort.