Rating: 
Summary: Enjoyable Updike
Review: "S." is the story of a lonely woman named Sarah Worth, trapped in a thankless marriage who one day escapes to an Arizona ashram while not knowing which part of her life to live. Her confusion and angst leads her into a sordid relationship with the village's Arnat (leader), duplicity with the organization's questionable fund-raising, and difficult friendships with her peers in the ashram. I found this to be a very interesting look at the desire of one woman to shed her old skin and begin anew, although at the same time not knowing exactly how to do so. Sarah is sort of a metaphor for trapped women everywhere; confused and comedic, she leaves her old self with reluctance, all the while questioning her decisions. The outcome is accurate to her character, while still mysterious enough so the reader isn't sure if her whole journey was worth it in the first place. The book overall is light reading, but great fluff entertainment nonetheless. Updike is at his comedic best here, while still covering everything in the beautiful, pesudo-technical language that has become his trademark. If you would like to learn more spiritual terminology while getting to know a loveably neurotic character I recommend this book, but not if you want something to really make you think.
Rating: 
Summary: Not So Good
Review: "S." is a story told through letters about a woman who leaves her husband and runs off to follow an Indian guru. I thought this would be a great book since I love Updike and thought the premise for the book was hysterical. However, it was like reading the journal of a boring, neglected middle aged woman who loves to ramble about nothing at all. Try "Couples" or "Witches of Eastwick" instead to see what greatness Updike is really capable of.
Rating:
Summary: Letters Home
Review: Ever since Rabbit, Run, Updike has been attracted to the idea of writing a story that feels as if it is actually happening while it is being read - rather than, as is almost inherent in the form of the novel, communicating an impression of recorded history. By way of attempting to put the idea into practice, Updike has both experimented with present-tense narration (see Leaf Season in Trust Me) and - in S. - given us his take on the venerable (if not antiquated) genre of the epistolary novel. From this point of view the fact that S. is made up solely of letters is an attractive feature of the book: one's sense of anticipation (how will events unfold?) is indeed sharpened. What makes the epistolary form work in this novel is the naturally loquacious and confiding disposition of the protagonist and author of the letters, Sarah Worth (or 'S' as she signs herself to her husband).Sarah has in fact left her husband and gone to join a religious commune in Arizona. Through her dispatches to various friends, family and acquaintances we follow the fortunes of the community and her role within it through to its surprising (?) conclusion. The novel has been criticised for its satirical presentation of Buddhism, yoga, etc. in the context of commune life. I'm not sure Updike would accept the charge. In fact I found quite a lot of fair-mindedness in the book - it actually left me with an improved rather than diminished opinion of what Eastern ideas are actually aspiring to - although I don't think Updike can excuse himself from drawing on certain stereotypes. But this is essentially a light, comic novel - although I don't see why it necessarily had to be - and probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. What I missed most was Updike's typically well-observed dialogue, which in this case is mostly paraphrased in retrospect by the narrator. I had a similar problem with A Month of Sundays, in some ways this book's companion volume. Updike may also have found himself missing this type of writing since half-way through he suspends the strict rules of the epistolary genre and has Sarah include a cassette recording of some tapped conversation in with one of her dispatches. This moment was a welcome relief from her up-till-then uninterrupted monologues, but its breaking the rules of the genre made me wonder about the point of the form in the first place. Overall he's done it very well, of course, as he does almost everything very well, but I doubt he'll revisit the experiment.
Rating:
Summary: Failed experiments
Review: I thought that "S" was a strange book - a novel in which Updike experiments with a different (for him) format. "S" is comprised of a series of letters, mostly from and to Sarah Worth ("S"), and the transcripts of taped conversations. Sarah Worth leaves her husband to join an ashram in Arizona, ostensibly to to find a new meaning to her life (or a better way of living). However, Sarah's past life, habits, and ways of thought prove difficult to shake off. The members of the ashram do not live up to their billing. Things begin to deteriorate rapidly. "S" is a deeply acerbic satire. Little escapes Updike's criticism: the ashram; those Americans and Europeans who form the ashram's membership; the leaders of the ashram; the forces of conservatism that oppose the ashram; and the middle-class American female as exemplified by Sarah Worth. But I felt that Updike was moving beyond satire or comedy into contempt - as if to say that he washed his hands of the whole self-indulgent and hypocritical lot. Another difficulty I found with "S" was that it was very predictable. There's not much in the plot to surprise, not much that you feel you haven't seen or read somewhere before. But the main problem was Updike's apparent unease with this style of epistolatory writing. At best it creaks along, only to fall apart with Updike resorting to inserted "taped conversations". As a result, it felt very contrived. Updike has written far better novels than this. G Rodgers
Rating:
Summary: Failed experiments
Review: I thought that "S" was a strange book - a novel in which Updike experiments with a different (for him) format. "S" is comprised of a series of letters, mostly from and to Sarah Worth ("S"), and the transcripts of taped conversations. Sarah Worth leaves her husband to join an ashram in Arizona, ostensibly to to find a new meaning to her life (or a better way of living). However, Sarah's past life, habits, and ways of thought prove difficult to shake off. The members of the ashram do not live up to their billing. Things begin to deteriorate rapidly. "S" is a deeply acerbic satire. Little escapes Updike's criticism: the ashram; those Americans and Europeans who form the ashram's membership; the leaders of the ashram; the forces of conservatism that oppose the ashram; and the middle-class American female as exemplified by Sarah Worth. But I felt that Updike was moving beyond satire or comedy into contempt - as if to say that he washed his hands of the whole self-indulgent and hypocritical lot. Another difficulty I found with "S" was that it was very predictable. There's not much in the plot to surprise, not much that you feel you haven't seen or read somewhere before. But the main problem was Updike's apparent unease with this style of epistolatory writing. At best it creaks along, only to fall apart with Updike resorting to inserted "taped conversations". As a result, it felt very contrived. Updike has written far better novels than this. G Rodgers
Rating: 
Summary: This book reads like my mother talks
Review: I thought Updike really captured the stream-of-consciousness way of speaking of a lot of women (my mom has this tendency). It was hilarious to read about this woman leaving behind all the trivia of everyday life in favor of spiritual enlightenment but still clinging tight to her old world. This was a really good book. Great plot twist at the end.
Rating:
Summary: Fun, Well-Written, But Spiteful
Review: I was very impressed by Updike's ability to create characters that are wholly believable, and to craft a story that is hard to put down -- I read this in a couple of days, and enjoyed it. The protagonist, Sarah, sounds very much like any number of people I've met, down to the fine details -- a difficult stunt to sustain over the length of a novel that is essentially her dictation. And, to be sure, the book is funny, as many have claimed. It is also rather mean spirited, however. Sarah leaves her husband for a "spiritual" commune or ashram, which Updike modeled on the one established in the 70's by Bhagavan Shri Rajneesh in Oregon. Having lived in a community that bears much similarlity to the one portrayed, I can vouche for the accuracy (greatly exaggerated, of course) of the likeness. But although my own experience was no less disappointing than Sarah's, I would have liked to have thought that a writer of Updike's ability and insight would not stoop to getting the usual belly laughs at the expense of all those who have tried to find spiritual growth through Eastern traditions. He seems to have steeped himself deeply in the language and philosophy of Buddhism and Hinduism, but only to lampoon those who are drawn to them. His portrayal is clever, and certainly captures the worst aspects of such endeavors, but it veers towards the most cynical view imaginable -- that those who pursue such traditions and lifestyles are viciously greedy, self-indulgent frauds, and those who steer clear of them to pursue the stock market or whatever are far wiser souls. If you want to wallow in that perspective, this book's for you. Updike's portrayal of Sarah herself is similarly tainted. She is ultimately revealed as selfish, petty, and grotesquely hypocritical, using her "feminism" as a means to express all her worst qualities. Of course, there's no reason not to have such a character in a novel, but I got the impression that this was Updike's view, if not of all women, than at least of women of a privileged background, or women who leave their husbands but aren't willing to impoverish themselves in the process, or who look for salvation in offbeat ways. (And I'm not any of the above.) In short, S. is a cheap shot at feminism and all things "new age," but an entertaining one.
Rating: 
Summary: S. for super hilarious
Review: John Updike does an excellent job changing his style from dark to light with dark undetones in this book. It was so incredibly funny that I laughed out loud while reading it. It is a quick read with some good insights into changing your life for better or worse.
Rating: 
Summary: even great writers can miss the mark
Review: S is the worst book I've ever read by a great writer. Updike clearly was out of his area of expertise/insightful knowledge on this one.
Rating:
Summary: Updike on religious humor and the female condition
Review: S. is the story of Sarah Worth, a New England matron who flees the confines of midcentury feminine affluence to seek spiritual (and sexual) enlightenment in a religious commune. She chronicles her adventure in letters to her best friend, daughter, and estranged husband, as well as short notes to her former dentist and hairdresser, tapes of conversations with the commune's leader, and a selection of the letters she writes on behalf of the commune's business office. The story unfolds briskly and subtely, with Updike employing his satirical skill to show a woman who, in leaving her life behind, manages to take it all with her. A benefit of the letter format is that it allows a full exploration of the narrator's voice, to excellent effect. It also suppresses Updike's tendency to rely too heavily on his (excellent) descriptive language and instroduces an element of suspense that makes the story quite absorbing. S. has been criticized by other reviewers for its perceived mockery of Eastern religions, but I don't think this is intended. Updike has obviously done extensive research - if not into Eastern religions themselves, then at least into their Western offshoots - and presents the characters with what, for him, is considerable sympathy. Of course he mocks the narrator's blind devotion to the commune - that's part of what the book is about - but he's mocking the misdirection of her efforts, not the ideals to which she aspires. The one element of the book that frustrated me was Updike's treatment of his narrator. Sure, it's fun to read a book about an arrogant and slightly hysterical woman who is always just slightly out of her league - a Bridget Jones for our mothers' generation. But it would perhaps be more interesting to watch a character really grow through the course of the novel and transcend, or at least recognize, her own bias. Of course that kind of revelatory change would be anathema to Updike, whose thesis - popping up, appropriately, in book after book - seems to be that life is a cycle, endlessly revolving, lush with beauty and without escape. And this book is - first and foremost, like all his books - Updike.
| 
