Showing posts with label John Updike. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Updike. Show all posts

The Rose Room and a National Book Awards Memory

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

This past weekend we took refuge, for a spell, inside the New York Public Library, a place I always try to visit whenever I come to New York.

As we stood beneath this Rose Room sky, I recalled, as I always do, my first trip to that building, which happened in the company of my first editor, Alane Salierno Mason. Alane bought three of my books, not just the first, and she brought to each one a rigorous, unyielding eye. Alane cares very much about the state of books, not just in this country, but in the world.

I wrote something about that Rose Room in 1998, in the wake of my experience at the National Book Awards and published it then. Today, in between a spate of client projects, I was feeling melancholy and looked at that old essay again:

Hours before the 49th National Book Awards ceremony got under way, Alane Salierno Mason, my literary editor, remembered a room I had to see; we went. A lion, an edifice, a swoop of stairs, and then there it was, big as a city block, and skied with permanent weather. There were six-hundred pound tables and a constellation of polished lamps, people enough for a subway station, though this was the New York Public Library, the newly splendoured Rose Reading Room. I thought I heard a holy hush. I felt drawn out, thrown out of kilter by the hundreds hunkered down with books.

A while later, John Updike took the stage at the Marriott Marquis to accept the 1998 award for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. His voice had a quiet, avuncular appeal, and in that darkened room he stepped his audience back into the library of his youth, the glamour of a typeface, the beauty of a book “in proportion to the human hand.” There were stacks of books on every table, images of books hung like pendants on the walls. There were authors in the room, editors, publishers, agents, reviewers, there were readers, and we understood why we had come.

The media, the next day and for days to come, would write of dark horses, battlefields, upset victories, dueling styles. They would tally winners and losers as if bookmaking were a gamble or a sport. They would declaim the event because their heroes had not been crowned, because somehow they had not deduced the final outcome. But what too many lost in their rush for the headline was the reality of what that evening was: a celebration of books. A communion of stories. A tribute to the humanity of words.

What I’ll remember is not so much who won, but what was said. What I’ll remember is how Gerald Stern, upon accepting the poetry honor, venerated his fellow poets: individually, distinctively, with elemental and essential grace. I’ll remember how Louis Sachar, winning for Young People’s Literature, did the same, and how Alice McDermott, one of the most exquisite, time-proven novelists in the land, hadn’t the ego to believe her name was called. I’ll remember the dignity of that old-fashioned tribe, the integrity of the jurors, the company I was keeping—my husband, my parents, my brother, the W.W. Norton team, my agent, Amy Rennert. I’ll remember how it felt to be sitting there amongst the others all because I’d been given the certain exceptional privilege of publishing a little book about love.

Why do we read? Why do we write? For me, the answer made itself known some 24 hours prior to the ceremony, when the twenty National Book Award nominees gathered at the New School for a reading. Twenty voices from four disciplines, each taking the stage for five minutes, each singing a story or a phrase. Linda Pastan threading us through the eye of a pantume. Henry Mayer reviving the abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison. Anita Lobel bringing on a Holocaust chill. Jack Gantos becoming a way-too-active child. Harold Bloom impassioned us with Shakespeare and Allegra Goodman took us inside a painting and B.H. Fairchild conjured the dust of a baseball field, while Yaffa Eliach bustled a shtetl back to life and Edward Ball planted dead slaves into the ground, at night. I know it doesn’t make for modern-day headlines, but we do not write to win or lose. We write to roar our secrets out. We write because language is the music we dance to. We write because we’ve been alive, or because we have survived, or because we’re determined to survive, tomorrow, the next day. We write because solitary crowds have gathered and hushed beneath a brilliant, plaster sky on a city street at a mid-day hour, and because they are seeking, they are dreaming, they are needing, they are deserving of something rare, good, ever-true from books.

Read more...

The Who of Us

Monday, February 2, 2009

The tributes to John Updike keep pouring in, and I keep reading them. Carlin Romano, in this Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, declares Updike a Master, not just a Master Stylist (as some have accused), and notes that "Updike shared the view that beauty in life or literature could never be only sentence-deep, some valuable extracted from virtuoso mosaic work in words or rococo flourishes across pages."

Charles McGrath, in the Times' Week in Review (February 1), speaks to the man himself in a beautiful piece entitled "Acknowledgments." He notes Updike's "quiet, burgherly life," his penchant for a round of golf following a morning's work, his reliable presence at the post office (and not in Manhattan, where the deals went down), his rare acceptance of a literary advance, his legacy among writers who prized, in McGrath's words, "his prose—that amazing instrument, like a jeweler's loupe; so precise, so exquisitely attentive and seemingly effortless.... He was an old-fashioned realist, with an unswerving belief in the power of words to faithfully record existence and to enhance it. If other writers, younger ones especially, couldn't quite subscribe to that belief, still it was reassuring to know that there was someone who did."

The world notices a life lived rightly, and not just the art that life brings forth. These past several days, flooded by tributes to Updike, we are reminded that the who of us counts at least as much as the way we write things down.

Read more...

John Updike and the Beauty of the Book

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

It is often only after dinner has been cooked and all the spices put away that I travel back into my office to learn how the rest of the world has fared throughout the day. So that I did not know until late last night about the passing of John Updike. It took my breath away. It seemed wrong, not yet his time, for how Updike still gleams in his poignant October interview with Sam Tannenhaus at the New York Times, how gloriously that white hair still shines. Even as Updike suggests that perhaps it is time to step away from the writerly task. Even as he confesses the "stickiness" that attends the writing of an historical novel. Even as he notes the prevailing glory and glamor of youth.

It feels personal with me and John Updike. Not because I've loved or even read all 61 of his books, but because he always represented to me the potential elegance of the writerly self. In 1998, when I knew next to nothing about books but somehow found myself seated at the National Book Awards, it was Updike who spoke that night about the inherent physical beauty of books and type. I looked at the enterprise differently after that. I never opened another book without feeling its particular weight or noting the width of its margins or the roundness or sharpness of its letters "b," "w," "a."

So may the great man of letters rest in peace. In his own work, and in the reviews he wrote about the work of others, he had and has so much to teach.

Read more...

The Line of Truth

Monday, September 8, 2008

In John Updike's predictably wonderful piece on the master William Maxwell in The New Yorker, the following line stands out—a line Maxwell wrote about the poet Louise Bogan:

In whatever she wrote, the line of truth was exactly superimposed on the line of feeling.

Read more...

Historical Fiction

Wednesday, April 30, 2008


So there I was, on the train, after a day of work on my historical novel. I had the latest New Yorker on my lap, was reading back to front, as I do, was all caught up in the Updike critique of Andrew Sean Greer's new "The Story of a Marriage," when I came upon this quoted bit from none other than Henry James, who was writing (Updike tells us) to Sarah Orne Jewett:

"You may multiply the little facts that can be got from pictures & documents, relics & prints, as much as you like—the real thing is almost impossible to do, & in its essence the whole effect is nought.... You have to think with your modern apparatus a man, a woman,—or rather fifty—whose own thinking was intensely-otherwise conditioned, you have to simplify back by an amazing tour de force—& even then it's all humbug."

Humbug? I thought. Oh my. Please, after all this time and work, don't tell me that.

The key, I've always thought, to historical fiction, is to live it in your mind as if it is happening right now. To not let a single speck of dust layer down upon the story. To achieve the essential urgency.

Read more...

  © Blogger templates Newspaper II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP