Updike, eh?

[Rcfchess at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/05/2005 8:35:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
malignd at aol.com writes:

<Less  boring but equally superficial, I'd say. And obsessed w. sex & 
Jewish  craziness, to the exclusion of almost anything else.>>

One must  assume you've never read Roth.  And what do you mean by  
superficial?





You assume a lot of crap, such as that no one on the list has read anything  
by Eastern philosophers. Why don't you just talk to yourself?
 
I've read several Roth books. I don't think he's very deep. He's not a bad  
writer; in fact he's a good writer. Great? No way. And by standards such as TRP 
 - or even DeLillo or Powers (who's not one of the candidates for the Nobel, 
but  IMHO should be) - yes, he's superficial.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20051005/956187eb/attachment.html>