I had high expectations for Updike's classic bestseller, which was lauded as an exposé of infidelity in America's suburbs.

When it was written in 1968, it might have been ground-breaking and provocative. However, I'm afraid that the changes in sexual mores in society have made it a bit irrelevant.

Despite the current controversy over the #metoo movement, it's clear that our country has advanced beyond the level of chauvinism accepted by the residents of Tarbox, Massachusetts.

I had to jot down the names of the 10 Tarbox couples; otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to keep them straight. They're all in their 30s, upper middle class, and white, except for the token Ongs (unattractive, never condescending, ridiculed for their mispronunciation) and Ben the Jew.

Together, this group forms a village that helps each other out with the kids. Collectively, these adults all drink too much, play games and sports, discreetly swap spouses, and subtly engage in illicit one-upmanship against each other.

While maintaining neatly polite appearances, on the inside, they boil and fume, backstab, and suffer. I think I was too distracted by all the misogyny to follow the plot, but the underlying atmosphere of desolation and doom never really led to anything rewarding for me.

I feel bad about subjecting my book club to this choice, but it'll make for a good discussion, as long as someone other than me finishes the book.

The novel should have been called "Adultery" to knock down the entry cards.

Because what is this book really about? It's only about the sleepovers between each other, as if it were a philosophy of life or a pastime to relieve boredom. Indeed, it is necessary to place the text within its historical context of the 1960s to appreciate the satire it contains. John Updike denounces the social conventions of this environment where sex is the main driving force behind candid appearances. And the writer does not hold back on the suggestive scenes, being straightforward and not mincing words. At that time, it must have stirred up strong emotions.

All of this seems true and accurate as it flows from the writer's pen, but it remains of very little interest, at least today. Moreover, Updike realizes this in a moment of belated clarity and has one of his characters say in the last pages: "The world, he continued, is not as interested in lovers as we imagine", especially when the story spans over four hundred pages!

Sometimes Updike hits the nail right on the head.

Sometimes he doesn't. And when he doesn't, you're still terribly impressed by his skills.

Couples misses the nail. I didn't particularly care about the inner workings of professional adulterers at mid-century. It's territory that Richard Yates covered far more sympathetically, and that Mad Men covered far more entertainingly. I mean, I get it. The characters were drawn out reasonably well (even if it was a big, messy ensemble cast). And some of their repulsive tics got some good sneers out of me, even if it wasn't like the belly laughs I got out of the best moments of the Rabbit novels. At the end of the day it was just too hard for me to care, though.

Oh, and you'll see why the Bad Sex in Fiction folks gave Updike their lifetime achievement award. The man's descriptive talents, when applied to the human labia, alternate between clinical precision and Penthouse letters. I get why this was a big deal in 1968. In 2020, it made my skin crawl. I'm pretty sure I watch too much porn, and it still made my skin crawl.

Perhaps Updike was trying to push the boundaries and explore the darker side of human nature. But in this case, it just didn't work for me. Maybe I'm too jaded or maybe my expectations were too high. Either way, Couples left me feeling disappointed.

However, I still have to give credit to Updike for his writing skills. He is a master of the English language and his ability to create vivid characters and scenes is truly remarkable. Even when his work misses the mark, it's still a pleasure to read.

I'll definitely be checking out more of his books in the future, hoping to find that one that hits the nail right on the head for me.

I conducted a review of this book here: https://youtu.be/NMTPs4zBWvU.

This review offers a comprehensive look at the book, covering its various aspects.

From the engaging storyline to the well-developed characters, every element is carefully analyzed.

The review also delves into the author's writing style, highlighting its strengths and unique features.

Whether you're a fan of the genre or simply looking for a good read, this review will provide valuable insights.

So, don't miss out on checking it out!

Click on the link above and discover what makes this book worth reading.

Despite the supple beauty of Updike’s style, I’m setting this one aside for the moment. His writing is truly a work of art, with its flowing prose and delicate descriptions. However, I’ve generally found it easier to stick with his short stories than his novels.

The short story form has its own unique charm. It requires a certain concision that forces the author to get to the heart of the matter quickly. This, in turn, prevents the narrative from becoming overly bloated due to the ornamentality of the writing. In a short story, every word counts, and Updike is a master at using just the right words to create a vivid and engaging world.

Novels, on the other hand, have more room to breathe and expand. While this can be a good thing, it also means that the narrative can sometimes get lost in a sea of words. Updike’s novels are often rich and complex, but they can also be a bit overwhelming at times. For now, I think I’ll stick with his short stories and enjoy the beauty and simplicity of his writing in a more concentrated form.

2 stars

My relationship with this book has been one of love-hate (actually, more hate than love). It cannot be denied that Updike knows very well how to use language and has a very particular narrative voice. There are moments when you get lost in those delicately articulated sentences. However, the rest of the book (characters, themes, etc.) are disjointed, banal, and extremely misogynistic. No matter how much I take into account the year of publication or the author's intention in creating this work, I am unable to overlook the demeaning conversations and the scenes of female humiliation that appear in the book (and there are dozens of them...). It's truly a disappointment. The beautiful language seems to be used to cover up the less savory aspects of the story. I found myself constantly cringing at the portrayal of women and the overall tone of the book. It's a shame because the potential was there, but it was ultimately squandered.

In November 2015, our rare-book service had a remarkable sale. We sold a first edition, first printing of John Updike's Couples through our eBay account [http://ebay.com/usr/cclapcenter]. Here is the detailed write-up for its listing.

Like many of the great authors of the Postmodernist era, John Updike had already made a name for himself by the late 1960s. He had followed the traditional path of the Mid-Century Modernist age. After his time at the Harvard Lampoon, he became a staff writer for The New Yorker. A prim and erudite New Englander, his Kennedy-era books had already received accolades such as the National Book Award.
However, in 1968, everything changed with the publication of Couples. This novel was a scandalous work that marked a significant shift in Updike's career. It was the first mainstream book in American history to address the topics of suburban wife-swapping parties and casual drug use. By doing so, it brought these subjects into the national "establishment" conversation for the first time. Couples was a huge bestseller that coined the phrase "post-Pill paradise" and landed Updike on the cover of Time magazine. It served as a rallying cry for sexual freedom during the countercultural years.
Moreover, the fact that Updike based the anecdotes on the true stories of his upper-middle-class suburban friends in Ipswitch, Massachusetts, added to the book's salacious reputation. In reserved New England, this was a shocking development that kept the book as a subject of whispered conversations for decades. When combined with Philip Roth's Portnoy's Complaint and Gore Vidal's Myra Beckinridge, all of which were published within the same 12-month period, Couples represents a watershed moment in American literary history. It marks the transition from the smooth and slick Modernist era to the Postmodernist one.
For collectors interested in first editions from this period, this copy of Couples is an absolute must-have. It is being sold at a premium price today due to the exquisite condition of this particular copy. For more details on the condition, please refer to "Condition" below.

3 and 1/2 stars out of 5

This novel is truly remarkable in its deeply perceptive narrative focus and masterful characterization. The text is not only witty and well-written but also highly entertaining and ambivalent. The characters, their affairs, and their daily situations are exquisitely created and vividly described. However, the structure, directions, and the larger meanings and messages that Updike presents with these well-crafted elements also pose some of the main flaws of this novel.

For instance, the novel pretends to be ambivalently situated on the border between adulterous affairs and friendly couples engaging in the swinging lifestyle. In reality, it is firmly about adulterous affairs. The chapter, "Applesmiths and Other Games," seems unnecessary as it dedicates a full chapter to secondary characters who only pretend to be involved in the swinging lifestyle, adding little real substance to "Couples." Updike could have shown the friendly couples' "party harty" behavior and their secret sexual sharing without this entire chapter. Neither the Applebys nor the Smiths make any agreed-upon arrangement to continue their swapping affairs. They verbally agree to end them while subtly and secretly continuing, which is clearly adultery and not swinging. The couple-swapping sexual arrangement between the Applebys and Smiths in this chapter lacks the proper depth to examine true couple swapping/swinging in a work of fiction and should, therefore, be omitted. With Piet being the main character and only briefly mentioned in this chapter, it also feels incongruous with the rest of the novel.

Despite Foxy wrapping Piet around her fingers near the novel's end, it is hard to believe that she can or will "teach this old dog (Piet) any new tricks." Moreover, given Piet's nature, it is mind-boggling why he would want affairs with his wife, Angela, and his mistresses Georgene, Foxy, and Bea, overlapping or nearly at the same time. Why would even the greatest "dog/player" want to deal with so many companion idiosyncrasies simultaneously? This novel also builds the reader up for a letdown. When Foxy returns to Tarbox to visit Piet for a weekend rekindling of their flame after the disgrace of their affair, the breakups of their respective marriages, and a lengthy absence, it seems like a great direction that could lead to an excellent ending. As the more special "other woman" now evolved into the all-powerful femme fatale, Foxy is playing the player, tempting and testing Piet while figuratively digging her claws into him. This sets up a great war of wills between Foxy and Piet. However, Updike abandons this intriguing direction, which could have made for an exciting payoff at the end. Instead of the femme fatale bitch (a compliment, not an insult) gaining Piet's hand in marriage as the least of her conquests over this man, we see Piet salvaging his wrecked life, and we don't even get to see the details of how Foxy's and Piet's relationship progresses from a mess to a potential marriage.

Rather than giving an ending that shows how Foxy could truly make Piet shape up or face a fate worse than dying and going to hell, Updike presents one of those "heart of gold" and "happily ever after" endings. This ending implies the moral idea that life for all the characters would be better if they make better life choices, such as indulging in parties and friendly gatherings less and thus being less tempted into extramarital affairs. However, as we see in Angela's case, the more important question is whether the joy is worth the pain. The ending does suggest the feasible idea that Piet and Foxy are better off suffering together in marriage than each suffering alone. However, to me, this novel is not finished as we need to see at least some of the "joy the color of hellflames" of Piet's and Foxy's marriage. This marriage would be vastly different from their previous extramarital affair. The chapter about the Applebys and Smiths should have been replaced with one about Piet's and Foxy's marriage. I simply refuse to believe that their marriage is, or will be, as potentially happy as the ending tries to make it seem.

I came to this book with a specific purpose in mind. I wanted to engage in a mental conversation about couples in the suburbs of New England.

Recently, I have been reading other authors who write on a similar subject. Fitzgerald, with his "Tender is the Night," Cheever, and Yates, whose "Revolutionary Road" is related thematically.

Unlike some who might call these books "outdated," I usually find that 90% of the social behavior described is still universal and familiar today. However, "Couples" did feel a bit dated due to its focus on the impact of the birth control pill and Updike's attempt to shock the reader with blasphemy of the church (which, to be honest, made me yawn).

That being said, I was left with a very slow book that did have some incredibly beautiful sentences. The sexual descriptions were so vivid and specific that you might feel the need to take a shower after finishing each chapter.

The gorgeous imagery meant that I liked the book, I appreciated it, and I'm glad I read it. But I didn't love it. I found the characters to be shallow, immoral, callous, and incapable of real love. What is sex without emotion? You want to empathize with the characters, not just watch them hop from bed to bed.

This novel might as well have been titled "SWINGERS." The pace does pick up at the end, and when the consequences of promiscuity come crashing down, you are entertained but left emotionally empty.

I gave this book 2 stars.

Just like the other Updike work I've read, "Rabbit, Run", there is no doubt that "Couples" is well-written.

However, similar to "Rabbit, Run", I simply didn't like it. I don't take pleasure in Updike's characters. I find them all entirely unsympathetic.

This novel appears to be about the peril of a prescriptive existence in an unforgiving and unimaginative suburban town. Here, several (how many were there in the end? 8? 10?) couples, in the early years of marriage and having children, break the monotony by sleeping with one another.

This time period, the 1960s, is not a particularly sympathetic one in the history of the American white middle class anyway. And Updike surely portrays it with a clear lens.

I think I found the motivations of essentially every character the most exhausting. Everyone was so egoistic that nothing seemed to have any value at all.

It's as if the characters were trapped in a web of their own making, unable to break free and find true meaning or connection. The story, while well-written, left me feeling somewhat empty and dissatisfied.

Perhaps it's a reflection of the times or a commentary on human nature, but for me, it just didn't hit the mark.

I really liked this story.

However, it had a significant drawback. It was a full 100 pages longer than it needed to be. This excessive length made it a bit of a chore to get through.

Moreover, there were an overwhelming number of characters. Keeping track of all of them was a real struggle for me.

I found myself constantly flipping back and forth through the pages, trying to remember who was who and how they fit into the story.

Despite these issues, I still had an overall positive impression of the story.

The plot was engaging and the writing was well done.

If only it had been a bit shorter and the character count more manageable, it would have been an even better read.

Updike poses a strong and clear provocation: marriage as the womb and cradle of inevitable as well as probably necessary compromises.

In his work "Coppie", John Updike presents a thought-provoking perspective on marriage. He argues that within the institution of marriage, compromises are not only inevitable but also likely necessary.

This idea challenges the traditional view of marriage as a harmonious union where both partners always get their way. Instead, Updike suggests that marriage requires give and take, and that both partners must be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of the relationship.

While some may find this view pessimistic, others may see it as a realistic and practical approach to marriage. After all, no relationship is perfect, and conflicts and differences are bound to arise.

By acknowledging the need for compromises, couples can better navigate these challenges and build stronger, more fulfilling relationships.

Overall, Updike's work offers a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion about the nature and meaning of marriage.