Updike has writtennovels that resemble one another in many respects over the years, but this notissuing the same novel "over and over". I would say that he isthemetically less repetitive than Philip Roth, who is often cited as theAmerican writer most likely to be our next Nobel Laureate in literature. Updikehas themes and ideas that he works in his many novels and short storycollections, but there are usually new variations, nuance, new ironies toexperience. Most good novelists you can name do this, Updike, though, wasespecially keen at setting his ideas--spiritual aridity, infidelity, the denialof death through manic activity and material acquisition , the eventual ironyas Life trudges forward unmindful of character pride or expectations--in settingsone would associate with him.

The astonishing thing about Updike is how much and how oftenhe experimented with form and subject, purposefully and with success strayingfrom the nice little container his critics try to place him in. We can also had"Gertrude and Claudius", his lively prequel to "Hamlet","Terrorist", an especially intense character study of anAmerican-born jingoistic, and "Brazil", a favorite of mine, an inspiredturn at Magic Realism. These novels, as well the novels “The Coup”, “Witches of Eastwick”, and “Seek My Face” , demonstratean impressive range for any novelists, regardless of how high their currentliterary stock might happen to be. Updike's stock should be much, much higherthan it is, and Roiphe's article makes a persuasive argument in Updike'sdefense. Updike was the best American novelist while he lived, I think, and itsticks in the craw of his detractors that there are not others who demonstratedsuch a brilliant consistency over many decades of writing.