What do you think?
Rate this book
Das Gottesprogramm. Roger's Version
As Roger Lambert tells it, he, a middle-aged professor of divinity, is buttonholed in his office by Dale Kohler, an earnest young computer scientist who believes that quantifiable evidence of God’s existence is irresistibly accumulating. The theological-scientific debate that ensues, and the wicked strategies that Roger employs to disembarrass Dale of his faith, form the substance of this novel—these and the current of erotic attraction that pulls Esther, Roger’s much younger wife, away from him and into Dale’s bed. The novel, a majestic allegory of faith and reason, ends also as a black comedy of revenge, for this is Roger’s version—Roger Chillingworth’s side of the triangle described by Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter—made new for a disbelieving age.
Unknown Binding
First published August 12, 1986
40 people are currently reading
926 people want to read
About the author
John Updike
866 books2,403 followersJohn Hoyer Updike was an American writer. Updike's most famous work is his Rabbit series (Rabbit, Run; Rabbit Redux; Rabbit Is Rich; Rabbit At Rest; and Rabbit Remembered). Rabbit is Rich and Rabbit at Rest both won Pulitzer Prizes for Updike. Describing his subject as "the American small town, Protestant middle class," Updike is well known for his careful craftsmanship and prolific writing, having published 22 novels and more than a dozen short story collections as well as poetry, literary criticism and children's books. Hundreds of his stories, reviews, and poems have appeared in The New Yorker since the 1950s. His works often explore sex, faith, and death, and their inter-relationships.
He died of lung cancer at age 76.
He died of lung cancer at age 76.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews
November 30, 2024
Roger's Version by John Updike has been one of my most bizarre and finest reading experiences.
Our narrator is Roger Lambert a Professor of Theology and a former Methodist Minister. He’s married to Estha – and it’s a stale, somewhat jaundiced marriage, his wife appears to like the material benefits and high profile of being the wife of a senior academic, but she's not so keen on Roger, and is yearning for something else. Enter Dale Kohler, a smart-arse (my words) religious zealot who seems to have an impossibly vast intellect.
This young fellow visits Roger one day to ask for his advice on how to apply for a study grant to run a project to prove the existence of God. Yes, the existence of God. Dale says he will achieve this by creating various mathematical models, on the campus computer (it’s the 1980s remember) with the aim of demonstrating some sort of intelligent design. Dale is also a friend of Verna a single mum, who lives in a rough part of town. Verna is a beguiling young woman, a bit crass, rough and ready, loves men, drugs and alcohol. Verna is also Roger’s niece. On Verna, she was perhaps the character I warmed to the most. The poor girl had a hard life and didn’t always act in her own best interests. One scene involving her young child towards the end of the book I found particularly confronting.
Updike has a certain wicked streak when describing people, such as:
Verna was an inch or so shorter than Edna, and had a course shapeless nose inherited from her blond fool of a father
This type of treatment is handed out to all or most of his characters, I love it. Oh, Updike also goes into enormous detail describing places and things – this can be tedious if not done properly, but this author delivers it masterfully. He made the whole world I was in – a little more vivid.
Brain Fodder
The exchanges between Dale and Roger regarding the Dale’s idea of demonstrating the existence of God are intellectually challenging to read and understand and at times are totally incomprehensible, particularly when the author is at full throttle. Roger is appalled by Dale’s idea of trying to prove the existence of God, he snipes and picks, criticises and tests many of the young bloke’s assumptions and assertions. Richard firmly believes the whole “God thing” is really about faith.
Now, I haven’t counted the pages devoted to the arguments between these two – but it’s a lot. Updike has clearly done a colossal amount of research for this story. The amount of information thrown at the reader regarding Theology/History on one hand and Science/Cosmology/Mathematics on the other is NUTS!! Initially, I jumped onto Google repeatedly and yet still failed to truly understand some of the arguments presented, then I just gave up. But I don’t believe the reader needs to fully understand all aspects of each argument as it is clear what the positions of Dale and Roger are. It truly is fascinating.
Updike must have had a brain the size of a planet. Some of the maths and ‘big-bang’ stuff just blew my mind (in a bewildered, enjoyable sort of way).
When Dale was criticising the commonly held scientific view of the start of the Universe he would throw out to Roger conundrums such as (keep in mind Enzymes are proteins):
“You can’t make proteins without DNA, you can’t make DNA without enzymes and enzymes are proteins. How do you do it?”
A mind-bending thing to ruminate about before going to sleep. But these are the types of arguments Dale posed to support his Divine Intervention hypothesis. My thoughts: I’m not sure how strong God is with Organic Chemistry - perhaps he has a team of scientists working behind the scenes? My money regarding creation is on "pure chance and luck". Also, there is so much we do not know, why should we fill it with belief? Or maybe the very first proteins came about from shorter protein segments (peptides)? See you can go bananas thinking about this!!
This is a bit interesting…
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
The Sex (or Pornogrpahy)
Surprisingly, we see two carnal relationships develop into highly erotic, steamy and saline crescendos of ecstacy, in this story. I won’t say who are involved in these trysts, as that would spoil the fun. But the sex is full on. The eroticism scenes are long, described in intricate – perhaps graphic detail and are quite interesting, I don’t mind saying. They did have this reader quietly looking over his shoulder in case someone was sussing out what I was appreciating over my shoulder. Perhaps ‘appreciation’ is the wrong word, maybe ‘fascination’.
A little like Nabokov’s work with Lolita, there are some unsavoury (maybe that’s a bit strong) aspects to these scenes and their context, but it’s the skill of the writer that had me engrossed. But make no mistake the sex here is explicit, and unapologetically pornographic.
The Narrator
As the title suggests, Roger is our narrator. Roger’s discussions with Dale, are therefore Roger’s Version, which is fine. But you do only hear his invalidation of Dale’s intelligent design ethos. Then there are the sex scenes – well, Roger isn’t omnipresent (like God) so his descriptions of some of the sex scenes (not involving him) are obviously a result of his fertile imagination, as he obviously wasn’t present. He certainly possesses a fecund mind. One wonders about the veracity of this narrator’s story though – it wouldn’t stand up in court, that’s for sure. I came to this conclusion because a part of me believes Roger is also a ‘bit dodgy’ (Dodgy Rodge) or ‘sketchy’ – I wouldn’t like him as a mate, put it that way.
What a mix:
1. Mental Gymnastics
2. Sex
3. Dodgy Narrator
John Updike could very well end up being one of my favourite authors if this keeps up, I just know my second book of his will be equally as good as this one.
Yes, I’ve been well and truly Updiked. Was there a plot here? Who cares – it was brilliant!
5 Stars
Our narrator is Roger Lambert a Professor of Theology and a former Methodist Minister. He’s married to Estha – and it’s a stale, somewhat jaundiced marriage, his wife appears to like the material benefits and high profile of being the wife of a senior academic, but she's not so keen on Roger, and is yearning for something else. Enter Dale Kohler, a smart-arse (my words) religious zealot who seems to have an impossibly vast intellect.
This young fellow visits Roger one day to ask for his advice on how to apply for a study grant to run a project to prove the existence of God. Yes, the existence of God. Dale says he will achieve this by creating various mathematical models, on the campus computer (it’s the 1980s remember) with the aim of demonstrating some sort of intelligent design. Dale is also a friend of Verna a single mum, who lives in a rough part of town. Verna is a beguiling young woman, a bit crass, rough and ready, loves men, drugs and alcohol. Verna is also Roger’s niece. On Verna, she was perhaps the character I warmed to the most. The poor girl had a hard life and didn’t always act in her own best interests. One scene involving her young child towards the end of the book I found particularly confronting.
Updike has a certain wicked streak when describing people, such as:
Verna was an inch or so shorter than Edna, and had a course shapeless nose inherited from her blond fool of a father
This type of treatment is handed out to all or most of his characters, I love it. Oh, Updike also goes into enormous detail describing places and things – this can be tedious if not done properly, but this author delivers it masterfully. He made the whole world I was in – a little more vivid.
Brain Fodder
The exchanges between Dale and Roger regarding the Dale’s idea of demonstrating the existence of God are intellectually challenging to read and understand and at times are totally incomprehensible, particularly when the author is at full throttle. Roger is appalled by Dale’s idea of trying to prove the existence of God, he snipes and picks, criticises and tests many of the young bloke’s assumptions and assertions. Richard firmly believes the whole “God thing” is really about faith.
Now, I haven’t counted the pages devoted to the arguments between these two – but it’s a lot. Updike has clearly done a colossal amount of research for this story. The amount of information thrown at the reader regarding Theology/History on one hand and Science/Cosmology/Mathematics on the other is NUTS!! Initially, I jumped onto Google repeatedly and yet still failed to truly understand some of the arguments presented, then I just gave up. But I don’t believe the reader needs to fully understand all aspects of each argument as it is clear what the positions of Dale and Roger are. It truly is fascinating.
Updike must have had a brain the size of a planet. Some of the maths and ‘big-bang’ stuff just blew my mind (in a bewildered, enjoyable sort of way).
When Dale was criticising the commonly held scientific view of the start of the Universe he would throw out to Roger conundrums such as (keep in mind Enzymes are proteins):
“You can’t make proteins without DNA, you can’t make DNA without enzymes and enzymes are proteins. How do you do it?”
A mind-bending thing to ruminate about before going to sleep. But these are the types of arguments Dale posed to support his Divine Intervention hypothesis. My thoughts: I’m not sure how strong God is with Organic Chemistry - perhaps he has a team of scientists working behind the scenes? My money regarding creation is on "pure chance and luck". Also, there is so much we do not know, why should we fill it with belief? Or maybe the very first proteins came about from shorter protein segments (peptides)? See you can go bananas thinking about this!!
This is a bit interesting…
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
The Sex (or Pornogrpahy)
Surprisingly, we see two carnal relationships develop into highly erotic, steamy and saline crescendos of ecstacy, in this story. I won’t say who are involved in these trysts, as that would spoil the fun. But the sex is full on. The eroticism scenes are long, described in intricate – perhaps graphic detail and are quite interesting, I don’t mind saying. They did have this reader quietly looking over his shoulder in case someone was sussing out what I was appreciating over my shoulder. Perhaps ‘appreciation’ is the wrong word, maybe ‘fascination’.
A little like Nabokov’s work with Lolita, there are some unsavoury (maybe that’s a bit strong) aspects to these scenes and their context, but it’s the skill of the writer that had me engrossed. But make no mistake the sex here is explicit, and unapologetically pornographic.
The Narrator
As the title suggests, Roger is our narrator. Roger’s discussions with Dale, are therefore Roger’s Version, which is fine. But you do only hear his invalidation of Dale’s intelligent design ethos. Then there are the sex scenes – well, Roger isn’t omnipresent (like God) so his descriptions of some of the sex scenes (not involving him) are obviously a result of his fertile imagination, as he obviously wasn’t present. He certainly possesses a fecund mind. One wonders about the veracity of this narrator’s story though – it wouldn’t stand up in court, that’s for sure. I came to this conclusion because a part of me believes Roger is also a ‘bit dodgy’ (Dodgy Rodge) or ‘sketchy’ – I wouldn’t like him as a mate, put it that way.
What a mix:
1. Mental Gymnastics
2. Sex
3. Dodgy Narrator
John Updike could very well end up being one of my favourite authors if this keeps up, I just know my second book of his will be equally as good as this one.
Yes, I’ve been well and truly Updiked. Was there a plot here? Who cares – it was brilliant!
5 Stars
November 21, 2013
- I'd like to talk to John Updike.
- Speaking.
- My name is Manny Rayner -
- Do I know you?
- No. I'm calling by intertemporal communicator from the year 2013. I -
- You'll excuse me, Mr. Rayner, I don't find this kind of thing particularly -
- Please don't hang up yet, Mr. Updike! I believe you're writing a book called Roger's Version.
- Yes, I am as a matter of fact. But I don't -
- You've nearly finished it.
- I was working on the final pages when you called. Now I -
- They're in a revolving restaurant. He starts with the consommé, she has the prawn cocktail.
- How the hell did you know that?
- I tell you, I've read it. It was published 27 years ago.
- Jesus Christ, you really are calling from the future?
- I am.
- I... I need a moment to get used to the idea. I'm sorry. I -
- Take your time.
- So, uh, so I guess I could ask who the President is and so on, but let's cut to the chase. Do people like the book? In 2013?
- It has its fans.
- Did you like it?
- To be honest, I found it absolutely unputdownable. I've been at a conference this week in the beautiful city of Seville, which I've never seen before. But any time I had a spare moment I took it out and read some more.
- Ha! Okay, you've started off the right way. Please continue.
- I loved the narrator. Roger is one of your finest creations. So wonderfully cold and manipulative and full of intellectual insincerity. He's fantastic. Verna and Esther are nearly as good. Dale is a terrific nerd. The writing is consistently brilliant, even by your high standards. Once again, you show that you are the true heir of Flaubert.
- You do know how to pile on the flattery.
- I particularly liked the oral sex scene. Surely the most perfectly realized blow-job in all world literature. No one else could have thought of intercutting it with passages from Tertullian in the original Latin, and if they had they wouldn't have been able to make it work. Chapeau, Monsieur.
- I wondered if I'd gone too far.
- No, it's a miracle that it holds together, but it does. You make your point in an extraordinarily imaginative and original way. Not gratuitous at all. I'm lost in admiration.
- Well, thank you. Other people agree?
- I am far from being the only one.
- This really is very good to hear. So was there anything you didn't like?
- As a matter of fact...
- Uh-oh.
- Look, don't get me wrong. The idea of using the modern Argument from Design as the heresy was excellent. I happen to know a lot about that, and I can see you've done your homework. You present it with your usual ironic wit. But -
- But?
- But when Dale's actually going to look for evidence of the existence of God in the physical world, why does he use that ridiculous method? You don't put a foot wrong before or after, and it's such a disappointment to see you screw up at this pivotal moment. I mean, with some novelists I wouldn't nitpick, but I know you love to get the details right. It simply wasn't worthy of you.
- Look, what on Earth was I supposed to use? I'm not a cutting-edge cosmologist. I did the best I could. At least I know about computer graphics.
- I can see you do, Mr. Updike. Good old Common LISP. It made feel quite nostalgic for the 80s. But here's what you should have done.
- I'm all ears.
- You know about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation?
- As you've read in the book, I do.
- In 1986, people are just starting to find patterns in it. There's a guy called Smoot -
- I'm sorry, you're breaking up. Please say that again.
- Smoot. George Smoot.
- Boot? It's terrible, you were completely clear a minute ago -
- SMOOT. S-M-O-O-T. He's developed methods for measuring the tiny variations in the CMBR. His team is trying to launch a satellite experiment to do the measurements. It's called Cosmic Background Explorer, COBE. You need to check it out. Dale could take the data Smoot's team will find and use his image processing expertise to develop a new way to analyze it. He could find something extraordinary. Ambiguous, needless to say, but possibly extraordinary. So COBE -
- It's so frustrating, I can't make out a word you're saying. Adobe? Did you say Adobe?
- COBE. COBE.
- Kobe? In Japan?
- COBE. C-O-B-
- You're breaking up completely.
- C-O- Hello? Hello, Mr. Updike? Are you there? Hello?
- Hello? Hello?
- Damn!
- Speaking.
- My name is Manny Rayner -
- Do I know you?
- No. I'm calling by intertemporal communicator from the year 2013. I -
- You'll excuse me, Mr. Rayner, I don't find this kind of thing particularly -
- Please don't hang up yet, Mr. Updike! I believe you're writing a book called Roger's Version.
- Yes, I am as a matter of fact. But I don't -
- You've nearly finished it.
- I was working on the final pages when you called. Now I -
- They're in a revolving restaurant. He starts with the consommé, she has the prawn cocktail.
- How the hell did you know that?
- I tell you, I've read it. It was published 27 years ago.
- Jesus Christ, you really are calling from the future?
- I am.
- I... I need a moment to get used to the idea. I'm sorry. I -
- Take your time.
- So, uh, so I guess I could ask who the President is and so on, but let's cut to the chase. Do people like the book? In 2013?
- It has its fans.
- Did you like it?
- To be honest, I found it absolutely unputdownable. I've been at a conference this week in the beautiful city of Seville, which I've never seen before. But any time I had a spare moment I took it out and read some more.
- Ha! Okay, you've started off the right way. Please continue.
- I loved the narrator. Roger is one of your finest creations. So wonderfully cold and manipulative and full of intellectual insincerity. He's fantastic. Verna and Esther are nearly as good. Dale is a terrific nerd. The writing is consistently brilliant, even by your high standards. Once again, you show that you are the true heir of Flaubert.
- You do know how to pile on the flattery.
- I particularly liked the oral sex scene. Surely the most perfectly realized blow-job in all world literature. No one else could have thought of intercutting it with passages from Tertullian in the original Latin, and if they had they wouldn't have been able to make it work. Chapeau, Monsieur.
- I wondered if I'd gone too far.
- No, it's a miracle that it holds together, but it does. You make your point in an extraordinarily imaginative and original way. Not gratuitous at all. I'm lost in admiration.
- Well, thank you. Other people agree?
- I am far from being the only one.
- This really is very good to hear. So was there anything you didn't like?
- As a matter of fact...
- Uh-oh.
- Look, don't get me wrong. The idea of using the modern Argument from Design as the heresy was excellent. I happen to know a lot about that, and I can see you've done your homework. You present it with your usual ironic wit. But -
- But?
- But when Dale's actually going to look for evidence of the existence of God in the physical world, why does he use that ridiculous method? You don't put a foot wrong before or after, and it's such a disappointment to see you screw up at this pivotal moment. I mean, with some novelists I wouldn't nitpick, but I know you love to get the details right. It simply wasn't worthy of you.
- Look, what on Earth was I supposed to use? I'm not a cutting-edge cosmologist. I did the best I could. At least I know about computer graphics.
- I can see you do, Mr. Updike. Good old Common LISP. It made feel quite nostalgic for the 80s. But here's what you should have done.
- I'm all ears.
- You know about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation?
- As you've read in the book, I do.
- In 1986, people are just starting to find patterns in it. There's a guy called Smoot -
- I'm sorry, you're breaking up. Please say that again.
- Smoot. George Smoot.
- Boot? It's terrible, you were completely clear a minute ago -
- SMOOT. S-M-O-O-T. He's developed methods for measuring the tiny variations in the CMBR. His team is trying to launch a satellite experiment to do the measurements. It's called Cosmic Background Explorer, COBE. You need to check it out. Dale could take the data Smoot's team will find and use his image processing expertise to develop a new way to analyze it. He could find something extraordinary. Ambiguous, needless to say, but possibly extraordinary. So COBE -
- It's so frustrating, I can't make out a word you're saying. Adobe? Did you say Adobe?
- COBE. COBE.
- Kobe? In Japan?
- COBE. C-O-B-
- You're breaking up completely.
- C-O- Hello? Hello, Mr. Updike? Are you there? Hello?
- Hello? Hello?
- Damn!
May 15, 2022
This book is about theology, computer science and cosmology. And sex, as is to be expected from this author. The other topics pop up because of a rather annoying person who claims that he can prove the existence of God based on the latest measurements in physics and cosmology. He applies for, and receives, a grant to finance his 'research'. While the story unfolds, including several subplots involving well written episodes with enthusiastic sexual activity, the project is described in some detail, and the reader is confronted with a lot of scientific or theological explanations. That seems boring but I found it fascinating and each explanation finished just before it became too much.
November 22, 2013
Mom asked me please not to read this book, and I had respected her wishes up to yesterday. But when Manny posted his review, I'm afraid my curiosity finally got the better of me.
Okay... well, Mom did go through a pretty difficult couple of years when I was a baby, and she's said a few times that she knew Updike. But I mean, everyone in her generation did. It doesn't mean anything.
No, I just can't believe it. Not Mom. I refuse to believe it.
You know, maybe she was right. Here's a hot tip to all you gals out there: if your mom, who usually lets you read whatever you want, says not to read something, then don't read it. She may know what she's talking about. Okay?
Okay... well, Mom did go through a pretty difficult couple of years when I was a baby, and she's said a few times that she knew Updike. But I mean, everyone in her generation did. It doesn't mean anything.
No, I just can't believe it. Not Mom. I refuse to believe it.
You know, maybe she was right. Here's a hot tip to all you gals out there: if your mom, who usually lets you read whatever you want, says not to read something, then don't read it. She may know what she's talking about. Okay?
January 2, 2020
This book is mired in questioning and uncertainty and bitterness; it feels grimy, potent. And I loved it, though the experience of reading it was quite uncomfortable.
Thing is, this book isn’t accessible. I wouldn’t recommend starting here if you’re interested in Updike. It’s filled with techie computer talk (which is way over my head), and lots of theology. It doesn’t help the starring characters are all unlikable, unsympathetic, and it seems their arcs are merely further plunges into the mud.
The convalescence of technology and God in this novel is an endlessly fascinating one, one I’m still thinking of weeks after finishing the book.
Oh, and you can’t forget the sex. All the sex. Dirty sex, classy sex, risqué sex, forbidden sex. Updike loved writing erotic scenes, and they’re done quite well here. Let’s just say this book isn’t for the Ned Flanders sort.
Roger’s Version seems to be forgotten, almost never mentioned in discussions of Updike’s best works. Though this is only my second work of his, it certainly made me hungry for more—and it led to my reconversion to the faith. Talk about an extreme experience.
Thing is, this book isn’t accessible. I wouldn’t recommend starting here if you’re interested in Updike. It’s filled with techie computer talk (which is way over my head), and lots of theology. It doesn’t help the starring characters are all unlikable, unsympathetic, and it seems their arcs are merely further plunges into the mud.
The convalescence of technology and God in this novel is an endlessly fascinating one, one I’m still thinking of weeks after finishing the book.
Oh, and you can’t forget the sex. All the sex. Dirty sex, classy sex, risqué sex, forbidden sex. Updike loved writing erotic scenes, and they’re done quite well here. Let’s just say this book isn’t for the Ned Flanders sort.
Roger’s Version seems to be forgotten, almost never mentioned in discussions of Updike’s best works. Though this is only my second work of his, it certainly made me hungry for more—and it led to my reconversion to the faith. Talk about an extreme experience.
Read
February 27, 2014'Penis with a thesaurus' strikes again.
April 27, 2025
I realize when this was published, I was the exact age Dale was, and in grad school as well, in real life. I'd read Roger's Version back then. I hadn't any precise memory of any details. I thought, despite the tepid reviews, I'd try it again, 2/3 of my life since then possibly adding to its insights, as Updike, like Roth and Bellow, let alone Cheever, isn't a young man's storyteller, at least for those mature efforts.
Well, 2/3 in, it seemed not that dreadful. Typical bawdy sex (oral especially, and as other reviewers did note dutifully, pairing Tertullian's Latin prose with what the protagonist projects into the lusty mind of his wife's lover, same Dale), yet so convoluted and bizarre, even by Updike's erudite bonafides, that I bet Bellow turned envious, wondering if in turn he couldn't have spun Spinoza or channelled Kant in such an academic twist. I had to look up a couple of German terms, but then, at a Yale-like Divinity School, at least in the (unnamed) Reagan Administration, professors would've had to know its lingo.
Then the computer jargon deadened the already ambling, rambling, shambling plot of the standard campus romp for the New Yorker audience two generations ago. I see in hindsight how Updike wants us to feel Dale's weariness of calculating, his postcoital exhaustion, and his chickenfeed grant, which all weigh his heartland Protestant fervor down. But there's too extended a detour into math, at least for a humanist like me (in this I resemble Roger's son, challenged by numbers), and the other sexy subplot between Roger and, again a contrivance, his half-sister's feckless, slatternly, teen-mom of a daughter, stretches credulity. Despite an attempt at last-gasp moral recovery in the final pages (and even a toddler in this scenario doesn't come off devoid of unlikable qualities, although this realism is refreshing), the momentum of the narrative never recovers. Yet, I picked this up (see my recent take on Martin Rees' Just Six Numbers) as I find fine-tuning arguments applied to (un)belief, cosmology, and/or apologetics irresistible as a parlor game. And that's an underappreciated theme in any fiction.
Well, 2/3 in, it seemed not that dreadful. Typical bawdy sex (oral especially, and as other reviewers did note dutifully, pairing Tertullian's Latin prose with what the protagonist projects into the lusty mind of his wife's lover, same Dale), yet so convoluted and bizarre, even by Updike's erudite bonafides, that I bet Bellow turned envious, wondering if in turn he couldn't have spun Spinoza or channelled Kant in such an academic twist. I had to look up a couple of German terms, but then, at a Yale-like Divinity School, at least in the (unnamed) Reagan Administration, professors would've had to know its lingo.
Then the computer jargon deadened the already ambling, rambling, shambling plot of the standard campus romp for the New Yorker audience two generations ago. I see in hindsight how Updike wants us to feel Dale's weariness of calculating, his postcoital exhaustion, and his chickenfeed grant, which all weigh his heartland Protestant fervor down. But there's too extended a detour into math, at least for a humanist like me (in this I resemble Roger's son, challenged by numbers), and the other sexy subplot between Roger and, again a contrivance, his half-sister's feckless, slatternly, teen-mom of a daughter, stretches credulity. Despite an attempt at last-gasp moral recovery in the final pages (and even a toddler in this scenario doesn't come off devoid of unlikable qualities, although this realism is refreshing), the momentum of the narrative never recovers. Yet, I picked this up (see my recent take on Martin Rees' Just Six Numbers) as I find fine-tuning arguments applied to (un)belief, cosmology, and/or apologetics irresistible as a parlor game. And that's an underappreciated theme in any fiction.
November 1, 2020
In Roger’s Version, his eleventh novel, published in 1986, John Updike tells the sorry, sexually charged tale of faith-challenged Roger Lambert, 52: disgraced Methodist minister, now a theology professor at a university in an unnamed city on the northeast coast of the US. One day a young man shows up in his office with an unusual request. Dale Kohler, a computer science student, is, paradoxically, engaged in faith-based research. His examination of data gleaned from studies in a number of areas—number theory, geology, astronomy—as well as his own theological readings, has convinced him that the circumstances resulting in life on earth and culminating in the creation of man could never have come about through a natural process and could only have resulted from the deliberate intervention of a supreme being. He senses that he is close to discovering a mathematical proof that god exists and wants Roger to use his influence to help him secure a grant from the divinity school to support him in his efforts. Roger, who regards Dale’s research as presumptuous, futile and hilariously misguided, is initially dismissive. But he eventually allows himself to be persuaded, not because of any change of heart, but because he’s offended by Dale’s exacting and righteous piety and voicing support for the young man’s project presents him with a perfect opportunity to express his cynicism. Dale is acquainted with Verna, the disgraced 19-year-old daughter of Roger’s half-sister Edna. It was Verna who directed Dale to Roger’s office. Edna lives in Cleveland. Verna’s move east was precipitated by her giving birth to a baby (mixed-race), the father of whom is nowhere in sight, and subsequently getting kicked out of home. Roger lives in an elite neighbourhood with his tiny perfect wife Esther, thirteen years his junior (many years previously Roger’s affair with Esther resulted in the loss of his ministry and the collapse of his first marriage), and ten-year-old son Richie. But Roger and Esther’s marriage is strained: the two hardly communicate and are no longer physically intimate. The bulk of the novel is devoted to chronicling the interlocking relationships that spring up among this cast of characters. Dale, introduced into the Lambert household at Esther’s behest, is hired to tutor Richie in mathematics. Roger, deciding to play the dutiful, caring uncle, visits Verna in her threadbare, crumbling, rent-subsidy apartment in the projects. There, he meets the infant Paula, tries to persuade Verna to obtain her high school equivalency, and is subject to Verna’s brazen and titillating flirtatious overtures. Verna, frustrated by her straitened circumstances, immature, irresponsible, and suffering from a severe case of low self-esteem, sees little value in herself except as an object of male sexual desire. She is short-tempered and often cruel to her daughter. When she finds that she’s pregnant again, she turns to Roger to help her through the ordeal. In the meantime, Esther seduces Dale and the two embark on a lurid affair. Large swaths of narrative are given over to Roger’s contemplation of inscrutable theological puzzles and Dale’s obsessive exertions at the university’s mainframe, crunching numbers and seeking a glimpse of god’s face in the printouts that his calculations generate. The prose, as one expects of Updike, is assured, lyrical, endlessly inventive, and crammed with vivid imagery and surprising but appropriate and memorable turns of phrase. This is Updike in virtuoso mode. After much emotional strife and numerous betrayals, the story reaches an ambiguous conclusion, with Dale’s research project at an impasse and Roger and Esther assuming greater responsibility for Paula’s care, but nowhere near a rapprochement. For all the questions it raises about faith and reason and man’s place in the universe, Roger’s Version declines to deliver anything close to a definitive pronouncement. Like Updike’s characters, we are left to our own devices, to grope our way toward truth and meaning as best we can.
April 26, 2015
I didn't read any Updike after I went through his Rabbit series. This book was a good reminder of what a masterful writer Updike is.
Even though the book is almost 30 years old now, the points that Dale, the Christian graduate student looking for a grant from the divinity department to prove the existence of God with computer simulations, raises — how staggeringly fine-tuned constants of nature appear to be in order to support the emergence of galaxies and stars and planets and eventually life — still remain unanswered by physics. Physics hasn't been able to say anything other than the wild and untestable multiverse theory, or the 10-to-the-520th possible solutions of the string theory. Roger Lambert, the divinity professor bore, doesn't like a God who is cornered and forced to show himself through physics equations and computer simulations. God is supposed to be personal, not just another fact.
Updike was clearly a theology buff, but this novel is not just theology and physics and evolution. To spice things up — and to show how our human nature can contradict and overrule our beliefs — there's family drama and sex.
Even though the book is almost 30 years old now, the points that Dale, the Christian graduate student looking for a grant from the divinity department to prove the existence of God with computer simulations, raises — how staggeringly fine-tuned constants of nature appear to be in order to support the emergence of galaxies and stars and planets and eventually life — still remain unanswered by physics. Physics hasn't been able to say anything other than the wild and untestable multiverse theory, or the 10-to-the-520th possible solutions of the string theory. Roger Lambert, the divinity professor bore, doesn't like a God who is cornered and forced to show himself through physics equations and computer simulations. God is supposed to be personal, not just another fact.
Updike was clearly a theology buff, but this novel is not just theology and physics and evolution. To spice things up — and to show how our human nature can contradict and overrule our beliefs — there's family drama and sex.
May 22, 2020
Has anyone ever said John Updike didn't like women?
Yeah, it certainly could be possible. I hated this book. I hope that Updike was trying to show us the moral weakness of the main character in his toleration of child abuse. I'm not that moralistic, but still......Roger was not a pillar of moral strength by any standards. The critics of Trollope's day would have had a bonfire with this book. I was really ready to give this two stars; however, in some form, the ending was oddly satisfying, more satisfying than most modern novels. Of course, the plot turns because one of the most flawed characters in the book sees a therapist.
The book took me back to Cambridge, MA in 1984 and the one likable character was a bacteriology professor, so the book had its few redeeming facets.
Yeah, it certainly could be possible. I hated this book. I hope that Updike was trying to show us the moral weakness of the main character in his toleration of child abuse. I'm not that moralistic, but still......Roger was not a pillar of moral strength by any standards. The critics of Trollope's day would have had a bonfire with this book. I was really ready to give this two stars; however, in some form, the ending was oddly satisfying, more satisfying than most modern novels. Of course, the plot turns because one of the most flawed characters in the book sees a therapist.
The book took me back to Cambridge, MA in 1984 and the one likable character was a bacteriology professor, so the book had its few redeeming facets.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 11, 2015
Put your seat-belt on! This trip inside the mind of a cynical professor of theology is not really a Sunday picnic. The food is of the heavy variety so you'd better have the stomach. What's on the menu this time? The old debate of science-religion : Cosmology, genetics, computer science and the old theology books in dead tongues. Add some sex, love, revenge and here you go. It's like Hawkings, Dawkins , The Bible and Game of Thrones in one book. It's like the carnal vs the spiritual in a sense. But let's try this :
Lambert is filled with the contradictions of old age , the disparity between his pre-existence in the ministry and his current existence in the "religion business" seems huge. Did he lose faith or does he have his "version" of faith ? It's hard to say. Lambert is annoyed by Dale's proposition to prove God with computer science, he loathes the idea of proving God as a whole. He tells Dale that "Even Aquinas, I think, didn’t postulate a God Who could be hauled kicking and screaming out from some laboratory closet, over behind the blackboard”.
Good stuff! But behind the curtains of the theological talk we hear the music of the flesh , the longing for youth. Leading Lambert to cross some moral lines. We hear the carnal song , leading Dale out of his theological/cosmological reasoning into the "arms" of Lambert's wife. Everything else dissolves in this polar liquid : The disparity between our most elaborate abstractions and our intimate animal nature.
Lambert is filled with the contradictions of old age , the disparity between his pre-existence in the ministry and his current existence in the "religion business" seems huge. Did he lose faith or does he have his "version" of faith ? It's hard to say. Lambert is annoyed by Dale's proposition to prove God with computer science, he loathes the idea of proving God as a whole. He tells Dale that "Even Aquinas, I think, didn’t postulate a God Who could be hauled kicking and screaming out from some laboratory closet, over behind the blackboard”.
Good stuff! But behind the curtains of the theological talk we hear the music of the flesh , the longing for youth. Leading Lambert to cross some moral lines. We hear the carnal song , leading Dale out of his theological/cosmological reasoning into the "arms" of Lambert's wife. Everything else dissolves in this polar liquid : The disparity between our most elaborate abstractions and our intimate animal nature.
October 11, 2021
A scientist who claims to be able to prove God’s existence scientifically, a theologian who is a sceptic, various love triangles and lots of university politicking makes this a very enjoyable novel - particularly for readers who move in the sometimes interlocking, sometimes tense, worlds of religion and the academy. Fans of Updike will be very pleased with the result.
March 12, 2008
This is one of the few books I didn't complete. I found the story somewhat disgusting.
June 14, 2020
I’ve always heard so much about John Updike but, aside from a few short stories, I’ve never read him widely. I’m certain some reference to Updike popped up in another, now long forgotten, book I’ve previously read, which prompted me to install Roger’s Version in my bookshelf, where it has languished for many years. I happened to pick it up a few days ago, seeking relief from the other multiple, tedious, non-fictions that I currently have in progress.
Human Fallibility
I was surprised. I never expected this novel to be so sexually graphic! But I do understand the necessity for this as it relates to Updike’s obvious goal: to display a cross-section of the human condition, in all its unbridled sinfulness. Updike’s characters struggle arrogantly to define a God so far removed from their character that their efforts reek with absurdity. Ironically, it is the very recognition of this immense distance that allows discernment of God’s being. The wider we imagine the chasm, the greater the grandeur and ineffability.
To accomplish his goal, Updike highlights our inherent disloyalties to one another, the most blatant of which are our failures to properly nurture the youth about us. And the remarkable thing is that humans do this even amidst their incessant aging, which is indisputable evidence of the ephemeral nature of this existence. Updike’s protagonist remarks to the niece he is sexually exploiting: “When you get to my age, Verna, time is what you can least afford to waste.” Yet waste it is seemingly all that he does.
Instead of growing wiser with age, Updike’s characters cling evermore fervently to lust and materialism, even if it means corrupting the youth about them. Through the process of the novel, Updike enlightens us that our time to say and do the right thing is diminishing and that our effectiveness is weakened by our willing descents into quagmires of conceit, ego, lust and animality.
Entertaining ourselves with lustful thinking can have an adverse effect on those we thirst for, particularly when we relegate their wellbeing to the satisfaction of our animal needs. Love is distinguished from lust because it involves a desire for the wellbeing of the one loved and a desire to be with the one loved for more than a momentary tryst. Instead, Updike’s characters hurt the very youth who are looking desperately for goodness in the world about them and who need the encouragement and assurance of a good person. When these younger ones find outrageous evil in those they look to for guidance, their worlds become chaotic.
Our persistent failure to live up to the ideologies that we all nevertheless harbor is a theme that Updike drives home with long, rambling accounts of computer research into God and cosmological speculations rendered by academic types. These rambling sections are actually quite boring, but I believe Updike has purposefully made them so, in order to accentuate their absurdity.
The isms: Catholicism, Gnosticism, Heresy, Protestantism, Atheism
I found Updike’s foray into Gnosticism and heresy quite fascinating. His mention of heretics like Marcion, the Cathars, and others, whose writings were destroyed by the early Catholics, is described as something Rome fought against in order to instigate the authority and dogma that passes today for religion. For, as anyone familiar with history knows, the arrogant hierarchy of the church has made one dramatic historical mistake after another: the crusades, inquisitions, and holocaust not the least of them.
What Updike shows us thorough his characters acquiescence to evil is their true atheism, no matter how much they may profess otherwise. It is a hard atheism that thrives beneath the ornate masks they direct at society, bearing forth products of falsehood, deteriorated relationships and oppressive guilt.
Updike’s Protestantism presents itself again and again throughout the novel, not only in lamentations over the censorship and extinguishment of the Gnostic’s, but in many other ways: such as suggesting that the Christian apologist Tertullian invented the Trinity, or at least was the first to use the term, more than a hundred years after the death of Christ. Or, in pointing out that everyone from Saint Francis to Joan of Arc wanted a direct pipeline to God instead of filtering through a “Pope and his indulgences”.
Updike makes us shudder at the flagellations, talismans, and self-mortifications of Catholics that manifest like hooks in the skin (Or am I shuddering more because I’ve suddenly noticed Max Weber peering out from my shelf of theological books, which the stirrings of faith somehow deposited at my door? Or is it because I’ve suddenly recalled rejecting the candles peddled by priests, in the clamor of the weary holy places, along the Camino de Santiago? ).
The Power of Thought & Existentialism
Updike shows us that God is not found in deep theological writings, computer analytics, or cosmological arguments, but rather in our personal thoughts: in what we choose to allow ourselves to dwell upon. This theme reaches its climax near the end of the novel when Dale, the computer whiz, is listening to Professor Kriegman explain how creation arose out of nothing. Kriegman’s argument is that, even in a total vacuum, there exist “imagined points” and these points may be assembled into a manifold of dimensionality and spatial configurations, which is exactly what we do in our thoughts.
We create, or allow to be created, either good or evil in our minds. In this way, from out of nothing but thought, good or evil emerge into the world. Ironically, and to the Professor’s chagrin, the atheistic notion is turned on its head by the necessity for a conscious observer (God) to recognize these points. Nevertheless, the point (pun intended) is well taken: mind really does affect matter.
Updike shows that the real struggle to find God must occur in the very essence of our thinking; for thoughts are not only the precursors for our deeds, they are the very elements that define what we are. To drive his themes home, Updike causes the computer whizz kid to wonder if a computer gaining self-awareness wouldn’t immediately attempt to birth itself into flesh. Additionally, Updike has his protagonist point out that the Gnostic Marcion in fact believed Christ to have been a kind of holograph on earth.
Humans shudder and resist accepting the premise that good and evil originate in their thoughts because it brings forth the existential angst of accepting responsibility for our choices. In fact, Updike actually inflicts his computer whizz character, Dale, with “nausea”, bringing into mind Sartre’s famous novel, in which the character becomes sickened by the power of inanimate objects and situations. Similarly, Dale accuses the uneducated and slutty character Verna of persistently forgetting that actions have consequences, as she wallows in the mire by passively accepting the absurdities of the world.
Conclusion
Updike’s characters demonstrate for us that faith in God must be more than superficial and not something that we only wear outwardly, as dogma, science or social conformity. Updike quotes the passage in Matthew about hypocrites praying aloud instead of in secret and has his atheistic protagonist, in saying grace before eating, admit that: “the old words (just) roll forth, once my rusty mouth has flopped open.”
Updike laments the hypocrisy of people who pay Sunday homage to Biblical prototypes by calling them “hairy-nostrilled old Jews that would never be admitted to the country club”. The protagonist’s prior occupation as a minister permits him to remark that church-goers have no idea what they’re hearing, they just want a bit of verbal music before heading out the door to the luncheon party.
We have to stop and contemplate what we are doing. Are we just following along? What is God to us, personally? What is conjured forth in our minds when we assemble those geometric points that loom in the nothingness? Demons, Angels, or something else?
No doubt, there really is existential angst in our decision making but it is the very essence of who we are. We can’t hide from it by simply following the crowd, cowering beneath the theological ramblings of others, or thinking we’re going to be rescued by technology.
In the end, we must live with that which we conjure.
-End_
Human Fallibility
I was surprised. I never expected this novel to be so sexually graphic! But I do understand the necessity for this as it relates to Updike’s obvious goal: to display a cross-section of the human condition, in all its unbridled sinfulness. Updike’s characters struggle arrogantly to define a God so far removed from their character that their efforts reek with absurdity. Ironically, it is the very recognition of this immense distance that allows discernment of God’s being. The wider we imagine the chasm, the greater the grandeur and ineffability.
To accomplish his goal, Updike highlights our inherent disloyalties to one another, the most blatant of which are our failures to properly nurture the youth about us. And the remarkable thing is that humans do this even amidst their incessant aging, which is indisputable evidence of the ephemeral nature of this existence. Updike’s protagonist remarks to the niece he is sexually exploiting: “When you get to my age, Verna, time is what you can least afford to waste.” Yet waste it is seemingly all that he does.
Instead of growing wiser with age, Updike’s characters cling evermore fervently to lust and materialism, even if it means corrupting the youth about them. Through the process of the novel, Updike enlightens us that our time to say and do the right thing is diminishing and that our effectiveness is weakened by our willing descents into quagmires of conceit, ego, lust and animality.
Entertaining ourselves with lustful thinking can have an adverse effect on those we thirst for, particularly when we relegate their wellbeing to the satisfaction of our animal needs. Love is distinguished from lust because it involves a desire for the wellbeing of the one loved and a desire to be with the one loved for more than a momentary tryst. Instead, Updike’s characters hurt the very youth who are looking desperately for goodness in the world about them and who need the encouragement and assurance of a good person. When these younger ones find outrageous evil in those they look to for guidance, their worlds become chaotic.
Our persistent failure to live up to the ideologies that we all nevertheless harbor is a theme that Updike drives home with long, rambling accounts of computer research into God and cosmological speculations rendered by academic types. These rambling sections are actually quite boring, but I believe Updike has purposefully made them so, in order to accentuate their absurdity.
The isms: Catholicism, Gnosticism, Heresy, Protestantism, Atheism
I found Updike’s foray into Gnosticism and heresy quite fascinating. His mention of heretics like Marcion, the Cathars, and others, whose writings were destroyed by the early Catholics, is described as something Rome fought against in order to instigate the authority and dogma that passes today for religion. For, as anyone familiar with history knows, the arrogant hierarchy of the church has made one dramatic historical mistake after another: the crusades, inquisitions, and holocaust not the least of them.
What Updike shows us thorough his characters acquiescence to evil is their true atheism, no matter how much they may profess otherwise. It is a hard atheism that thrives beneath the ornate masks they direct at society, bearing forth products of falsehood, deteriorated relationships and oppressive guilt.
Updike’s Protestantism presents itself again and again throughout the novel, not only in lamentations over the censorship and extinguishment of the Gnostic’s, but in many other ways: such as suggesting that the Christian apologist Tertullian invented the Trinity, or at least was the first to use the term, more than a hundred years after the death of Christ. Or, in pointing out that everyone from Saint Francis to Joan of Arc wanted a direct pipeline to God instead of filtering through a “Pope and his indulgences”.
Updike makes us shudder at the flagellations, talismans, and self-mortifications of Catholics that manifest like hooks in the skin (Or am I shuddering more because I’ve suddenly noticed Max Weber peering out from my shelf of theological books, which the stirrings of faith somehow deposited at my door? Or is it because I’ve suddenly recalled rejecting the candles peddled by priests, in the clamor of the weary holy places, along the Camino de Santiago? ).
The Power of Thought & Existentialism
Updike shows us that God is not found in deep theological writings, computer analytics, or cosmological arguments, but rather in our personal thoughts: in what we choose to allow ourselves to dwell upon. This theme reaches its climax near the end of the novel when Dale, the computer whiz, is listening to Professor Kriegman explain how creation arose out of nothing. Kriegman’s argument is that, even in a total vacuum, there exist “imagined points” and these points may be assembled into a manifold of dimensionality and spatial configurations, which is exactly what we do in our thoughts.
We create, or allow to be created, either good or evil in our minds. In this way, from out of nothing but thought, good or evil emerge into the world. Ironically, and to the Professor’s chagrin, the atheistic notion is turned on its head by the necessity for a conscious observer (God) to recognize these points. Nevertheless, the point (pun intended) is well taken: mind really does affect matter.
Updike shows that the real struggle to find God must occur in the very essence of our thinking; for thoughts are not only the precursors for our deeds, they are the very elements that define what we are. To drive his themes home, Updike causes the computer whizz kid to wonder if a computer gaining self-awareness wouldn’t immediately attempt to birth itself into flesh. Additionally, Updike has his protagonist point out that the Gnostic Marcion in fact believed Christ to have been a kind of holograph on earth.
Humans shudder and resist accepting the premise that good and evil originate in their thoughts because it brings forth the existential angst of accepting responsibility for our choices. In fact, Updike actually inflicts his computer whizz character, Dale, with “nausea”, bringing into mind Sartre’s famous novel, in which the character becomes sickened by the power of inanimate objects and situations. Similarly, Dale accuses the uneducated and slutty character Verna of persistently forgetting that actions have consequences, as she wallows in the mire by passively accepting the absurdities of the world.
Conclusion
Updike’s characters demonstrate for us that faith in God must be more than superficial and not something that we only wear outwardly, as dogma, science or social conformity. Updike quotes the passage in Matthew about hypocrites praying aloud instead of in secret and has his atheistic protagonist, in saying grace before eating, admit that: “the old words (just) roll forth, once my rusty mouth has flopped open.”
Updike laments the hypocrisy of people who pay Sunday homage to Biblical prototypes by calling them “hairy-nostrilled old Jews that would never be admitted to the country club”. The protagonist’s prior occupation as a minister permits him to remark that church-goers have no idea what they’re hearing, they just want a bit of verbal music before heading out the door to the luncheon party.
We have to stop and contemplate what we are doing. Are we just following along? What is God to us, personally? What is conjured forth in our minds when we assemble those geometric points that loom in the nothingness? Demons, Angels, or something else?
No doubt, there really is existential angst in our decision making but it is the very essence of who we are. We can’t hide from it by simply following the crowd, cowering beneath the theological ramblings of others, or thinking we’re going to be rescued by technology.
In the end, we must live with that which we conjure.
-End_
December 31, 2017
This year I'm doing my practicum training working with clients who have moderate-to-severe anxiety. One of the hallmarks of anxiety disorders is what we refer to as rigid thinking. Rigid thinking leads to anxiety in a number of ways: thinking that things must be just so can lead to distress when they don't work out that way; dogmatically sticking to one approach to things while refusing to consider others can lead to repeatedly encountering problems that cause anxiety; rigid thinking about how oneself should be can lead to automatic thoughts about oneself or one's efficacy that can be anxiety-producing; etc.
After a few months of this, I've become more sensitive to my own patterns of occasional rigid thinking, particularly a tendency to stick to arbitrary plans, even as they become increasingly untenable or pointless. A while back, I decided that I was going to read every Updike novel through Rabbit at Rest. At this point I don't even remember why I made this plan, yet I feel compelled to stick to it, even as I enjoy his novels less and less. Part of me really thinks I should stop here, and yet I keep hearing that voice that says, "Keep at it! Only two to go!"
As with other stylistically consistent, prolific writers who I've read fairly extensively (e.g., Nabokov, Wharton, Banville), I'm well past the point where anything Updike does surprises me. I know exactly what to expect. And, with Updike and the other three aforementioned novelists, the primary draw for me is the prose, which I happily devour regardless of the only minor deviations in subject matter and structure (though Nabokov is the least guilty of this). However, unlike the other three, I find myself gradually losing my interest in Updike over time. The writing keeps me enjoying him somewhat, but it's becoming more and more strained. Mostly each subsequent novel makes me wish that I was rereading one of his earlier, better novels (Couples, the Centaur, etc.). The prose remains strong, but I find that either his more irritating qualities as a writer come more consistently to the fore over time or my tolerance for these qualities is waning.
What irritating qualities, you ask? Pretty much the same ones that most of his critics harp on: the weird sexual proclivities and the often embarrassingly poorly written sex scenes (this was such a common criticism of him that I often wonder if he kept including them, and even increased their frequency, out of spite. But good god they are bad), the hints of reactionaryism and racism, the overt sexism, the repetitious obsession with affairs, etc. And then there's the characters. Banville, for example, loves morally-detestable/sad/broken first-person narrators. And yet I never conflate those characters with the author; Banville seems to me like a perfectly okay human being. But Updike? Even when we're clearly supposed to find certain narrators to be detestable, there are certain trends that remain consistent across his characters that I can't help but see as being characteristics of Updike as well. I think we're now at the point where I kind of hate Updike as a person.
And yet I'm still reading. Am I a masochist? A hopeless completist? I always explain that I love quality prose above all other elements of writing, and for this reason I'm willing to stick with Updike, who is certainly one of the all-time greats in that department. And yet that doesn't seem to explain the amount of time I've sunk into reading his work (or the fact that I've visited his homes in both Ipswich and Reading). Something keeps me reading.
Which brings us here, where I've finished Roger's Version with much the same reaction as I've had to the past few Updike novels I've read. I disliked it (it made me feel icky) and I also enjoyed it and breezed through it. The prose was good. And I think I am out of things to say about Updike. Only two to go.
After a few months of this, I've become more sensitive to my own patterns of occasional rigid thinking, particularly a tendency to stick to arbitrary plans, even as they become increasingly untenable or pointless. A while back, I decided that I was going to read every Updike novel through Rabbit at Rest. At this point I don't even remember why I made this plan, yet I feel compelled to stick to it, even as I enjoy his novels less and less. Part of me really thinks I should stop here, and yet I keep hearing that voice that says, "Keep at it! Only two to go!"
As with other stylistically consistent, prolific writers who I've read fairly extensively (e.g., Nabokov, Wharton, Banville), I'm well past the point where anything Updike does surprises me. I know exactly what to expect. And, with Updike and the other three aforementioned novelists, the primary draw for me is the prose, which I happily devour regardless of the only minor deviations in subject matter and structure (though Nabokov is the least guilty of this). However, unlike the other three, I find myself gradually losing my interest in Updike over time. The writing keeps me enjoying him somewhat, but it's becoming more and more strained. Mostly each subsequent novel makes me wish that I was rereading one of his earlier, better novels (Couples, the Centaur, etc.). The prose remains strong, but I find that either his more irritating qualities as a writer come more consistently to the fore over time or my tolerance for these qualities is waning.
What irritating qualities, you ask? Pretty much the same ones that most of his critics harp on: the weird sexual proclivities and the often embarrassingly poorly written sex scenes (this was such a common criticism of him that I often wonder if he kept including them, and even increased their frequency, out of spite. But good god they are bad), the hints of reactionaryism and racism, the overt sexism, the repetitious obsession with affairs, etc. And then there's the characters. Banville, for example, loves morally-detestable/sad/broken first-person narrators. And yet I never conflate those characters with the author; Banville seems to me like a perfectly okay human being. But Updike? Even when we're clearly supposed to find certain narrators to be detestable, there are certain trends that remain consistent across his characters that I can't help but see as being characteristics of Updike as well. I think we're now at the point where I kind of hate Updike as a person.
And yet I'm still reading. Am I a masochist? A hopeless completist? I always explain that I love quality prose above all other elements of writing, and for this reason I'm willing to stick with Updike, who is certainly one of the all-time greats in that department. And yet that doesn't seem to explain the amount of time I've sunk into reading his work (or the fact that I've visited his homes in both Ipswich and Reading). Something keeps me reading.
Which brings us here, where I've finished Roger's Version with much the same reaction as I've had to the past few Updike novels I've read. I disliked it (it made me feel icky) and I also enjoyed it and breezed through it. The prose was good. And I think I am out of things to say about Updike. Only two to go.
September 7, 2018
This is projectile-vomited words on a page! Wtf Updike! I really didn’t think I’d pick a novel of his and be this disappointed. I’ve not read much of his work, but what I have read I’ve really enjoyed. This is awful. By page 50 I was done. The superfluous tangents and clauses and side-observations between the start and ending of an utterance or narrative passage was exhausting, and frankly only served to demonstrate that he’s a keen observer of details and life like any good writer should be, except that these observations should also be relevant to the moment in the story. It’s too much.
May 9, 2009
In this rather strange story, Dale, a grad student at a religious college, begs for a grant to "prove" God's existance using the school's mainframe computer. He starts the request through the story's narrator, Roger, an ex-minister and current professor specializing in religious heretics. He's leaned the way many college professors lean and is not so very religious anymore. He left his first wife by way of having an affair with a non-religious highly vain woman, which intentionally resulted in his getting kicked out of the ministry.
Dale, on the other hand, is zealous in his beliefs. He meets Roger through Roger's niece Verna, a 19 year old who has an illegitimate mulatto baby. She was kicked out of her house by her religiously fanatic father because of the pregnancy. She's moved away from home and into Roger's city but they never meet up until Dale pushes them.
What follows is a disturbing account of sexuality, racism, religion, and incest. The passages that focused on Dale's work were full of computer lingo I skimmed through because it was over a non-computer-tech's head and I simply had no interest in trying to follow it all. The parts dealing with the story of Roger and Verna were gritty and intense and real. Roger's wife plays a rather minor role and he shows her as fake and rather uninteresting. They have a pre-teen son who seems more an embarrassment to Roger than anything else, since he is learning disabled.
Roger is a true anti-hero with almost no redeeming qualities. Verna is quite an interesting character and I found myself hoping she could get her life straightened out with some real help. Dale seemed to be nothing but a theory -- a tool. I did find it interesting that the writing portrayed the atmosphere: stiff while Roger was at home in his upscale house paid for by his wife's money, technical and dry while discussing theory, both computer and religious, and intense while in the midst of Verna's world.
There is a lot to get out of this story, but be ready for a long emotionally charged although somewhat dry ride.
Dale, on the other hand, is zealous in his beliefs. He meets Roger through Roger's niece Verna, a 19 year old who has an illegitimate mulatto baby. She was kicked out of her house by her religiously fanatic father because of the pregnancy. She's moved away from home and into Roger's city but they never meet up until Dale pushes them.
What follows is a disturbing account of sexuality, racism, religion, and incest. The passages that focused on Dale's work were full of computer lingo I skimmed through because it was over a non-computer-tech's head and I simply had no interest in trying to follow it all. The parts dealing with the story of Roger and Verna were gritty and intense and real. Roger's wife plays a rather minor role and he shows her as fake and rather uninteresting. They have a pre-teen son who seems more an embarrassment to Roger than anything else, since he is learning disabled.
Roger is a true anti-hero with almost no redeeming qualities. Verna is quite an interesting character and I found myself hoping she could get her life straightened out with some real help. Dale seemed to be nothing but a theory -- a tool. I did find it interesting that the writing portrayed the atmosphere: stiff while Roger was at home in his upscale house paid for by his wife's money, technical and dry while discussing theory, both computer and religious, and intense while in the midst of Verna's world.
There is a lot to get out of this story, but be ready for a long emotionally charged although somewhat dry ride.
March 27, 2019
This dark satire is set in the mid-1980s, a time when social stress and disintegration began to gain serious momentum in American life. At one level it’s a confessional novel about hollowed-out morals, deception and self-deception in the successful and in the struggling/failing middle classes. It's told by an unreliable narrator, the cynical and troubled professor of Christian history, Roger.
Updike's story knocks the skids from under moralistic postures. Characters manipulate one another, sometimes with guilty feelings, but without ever really moving on. The only character showing real backbone is an Afro-American doctor who confronts the novel’s two main characters – a teenage single mother who horribly abuses her child, and Roger, her uncle, who tries to cover up the abuse by openly lying to the doctor. The doctor pushes back not on the basis of morals or Christian doctrine, but on the basis of his obligations under public law. In side remarks on how a rotting public sector under Ronald Reagan disadvantaged poor Americans, Updike (whose political sympathies weren’t all that progressive) hints that the pursuit of a decent life in America can hardly be a matter of individual conscience alone.
Updike also gives the academic enterprise a roasting. Early in the book a committee of university professors grants money to one of the main characters, an evangelical nerd (who later cuckolds Roger), for a preposterous research project to prove the existence of God by crunching numbers in a computer. Elsewhere, Updike lets both the computer nerd and Roger, who's enamored of classical texts, spout long paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo to the point where readers’ eyes can only glaze over. That was Updike's intention, I think, the better to drive home his satirical message. This kind of writing is far from conventional. Yet this novel is of a traditional 'the way we live now' kind, in the time-tested genre of social commentary. It is as relevant today as it was thirty-three years ago.
Updike's story knocks the skids from under moralistic postures. Characters manipulate one another, sometimes with guilty feelings, but without ever really moving on. The only character showing real backbone is an Afro-American doctor who confronts the novel’s two main characters – a teenage single mother who horribly abuses her child, and Roger, her uncle, who tries to cover up the abuse by openly lying to the doctor. The doctor pushes back not on the basis of morals or Christian doctrine, but on the basis of his obligations under public law. In side remarks on how a rotting public sector under Ronald Reagan disadvantaged poor Americans, Updike (whose political sympathies weren’t all that progressive) hints that the pursuit of a decent life in America can hardly be a matter of individual conscience alone.
Updike also gives the academic enterprise a roasting. Early in the book a committee of university professors grants money to one of the main characters, an evangelical nerd (who later cuckolds Roger), for a preposterous research project to prove the existence of God by crunching numbers in a computer. Elsewhere, Updike lets both the computer nerd and Roger, who's enamored of classical texts, spout long paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo to the point where readers’ eyes can only glaze over. That was Updike's intention, I think, the better to drive home his satirical message. This kind of writing is far from conventional. Yet this novel is of a traditional 'the way we live now' kind, in the time-tested genre of social commentary. It is as relevant today as it was thirty-three years ago.
August 30, 2007
Roger's Version starts out with both barrels blazing, presenting two opposing sides (each persuading and well-constructed in its own right) of a God-vs-science argument between Roger, a jaded divinity professor, and Dale, a brash young grant candidate at his university. However, the book begins to bog down as outside forces in the characters' lives begin to chip away at Dale's once-unassailable beliefs and Roger's self-assured perceptions of moral superiority.
Like a lot of Updike's work, the book explores dark regions of the male sexual identity, venturing into cringe-inducing seediness at times (like Philip Roth, Updike often gives the disturbing impression that the c-word once enjoyed a decades-long run of dominance as the euphamism of choice for female genitalia).
The pacing of the book is appropriate, given the increasing complexity of the subject matter as the narrative moves forward. As the characters' beliefs and self-identities are alloyed through trying personal experiences, the prose becomes less clear and my reading slowed over the course of the book from an exhilirating sprint in the first 100 pages to a crawl through mud in the last 80 or so. While that may not make for an aesthetically enjoyable read, it's a rewarding allegory for how the more we learn about ourselves and our world, the more unclear our search for existential answers becomes.
Like a lot of Updike's work, the book explores dark regions of the male sexual identity, venturing into cringe-inducing seediness at times (like Philip Roth, Updike often gives the disturbing impression that the c-word once enjoyed a decades-long run of dominance as the euphamism of choice for female genitalia).
The pacing of the book is appropriate, given the increasing complexity of the subject matter as the narrative moves forward. As the characters' beliefs and self-identities are alloyed through trying personal experiences, the prose becomes less clear and my reading slowed over the course of the book from an exhilirating sprint in the first 100 pages to a crawl through mud in the last 80 or so. While that may not make for an aesthetically enjoyable read, it's a rewarding allegory for how the more we learn about ourselves and our world, the more unclear our search for existential answers becomes.
June 6, 2008
Roger's Version starts out with both barrels blazing, presenting two opposing sides (each persuading and well-constructed in its own right) of a God-vs-science argument between Roger, a jaded divinity professor, and Dale, a brash young grant candidate at his university. However, the book begins to bog down as outside forces in the characters' lives begin to chip away at Dale's once-unassailable beliefs and Roger's self-assured perceptions of moral superiority.
Like a lot of Updike's work, the book explores dark regions of the male sexual identity, venturing into cringe-inducing seediness at times (like Philip Roth, Updike often gives the disturbing impression that the c-word once enjoyed a decades-long run of dominance as the euphamism of choice for female genitalia).
The pacing of the book is appropriate, given the increasing complexity of the subject matter as the narrative moves forward. As the characters' beliefs and self-identities are alloyed through trying personal experiences, the prose becomes less clear and my reading slowed over the course of the book from an exhilirating sprint in the first 100 pages to a crawl through mud in the last 80 or so. While that may not make for an aesthetically enjoyable read, it's a rewarding allegory for how the more we learn about ourselves and our world, the more unclear our search for existential answers becomes.
Like a lot of Updike's work, the book explores dark regions of the male sexual identity, venturing into cringe-inducing seediness at times (like Philip Roth, Updike often gives the disturbing impression that the c-word once enjoyed a decades-long run of dominance as the euphamism of choice for female genitalia).
The pacing of the book is appropriate, given the increasing complexity of the subject matter as the narrative moves forward. As the characters' beliefs and self-identities are alloyed through trying personal experiences, the prose becomes less clear and my reading slowed over the course of the book from an exhilirating sprint in the first 100 pages to a crawl through mud in the last 80 or so. While that may not make for an aesthetically enjoyable read, it's a rewarding allegory for how the more we learn about ourselves and our world, the more unclear our search for existential answers becomes.
June 11, 2015
Roger Lambert, you might say, takes creepiness to new heights, or shall I say, depths. Despite a tenured professorial position and a fairly attentive wife, he can't seem to keep his hands off his nubile niece. Worse, he fails to protect the niece's tragic child from abuse. Roger is not what you might call a sympathetic character.
There is a strong note of misogyny and racism throughout this book, some of it seemingly projected by the author. Calling the child a "tarbaby", repeatedly referring to the shape of its nose and other African characteristics--politically correct, this is not. The year was 1986, and I imagine Irving's later novels must be more enlightened, or at least I would hope so.
Nevertheless, the writing is strong, if somewhat text-booky in sections. I don't know anyone who talks like the characters in this book; then again, the university setting may be a world unto itself.
I had to take points off for the sheer sleaze-ball factor; if Irving was trying to present a sympathetic view of a near-pedophile, he did not succeed in my case. However, the book did keep my interest throughout, except for the repetition of the young zealot's scientific case for God, which was expounded upon ad nauseum. An interesting concept novel, rendered in somewhat hit or miss fashion.
There is a strong note of misogyny and racism throughout this book, some of it seemingly projected by the author. Calling the child a "tarbaby", repeatedly referring to the shape of its nose and other African characteristics--politically correct, this is not. The year was 1986, and I imagine Irving's later novels must be more enlightened, or at least I would hope so.
Nevertheless, the writing is strong, if somewhat text-booky in sections. I don't know anyone who talks like the characters in this book; then again, the university setting may be a world unto itself.
I had to take points off for the sheer sleaze-ball factor; if Irving was trying to present a sympathetic view of a near-pedophile, he did not succeed in my case. However, the book did keep my interest throughout, except for the repetition of the young zealot's scientific case for God, which was expounded upon ad nauseum. An interesting concept novel, rendered in somewhat hit or miss fashion.
July 11, 2013
Having never read anything by John Updike, I wanted to try one of his lesser known novels. I saw this novel at a flea market, and once I read the synopsis on the back of the book, I knew I wanted to give it a try.
I must say, I was very impressed by this novel. It dealt with the very heavy themes of religion and life. It was wonderful to see the numerous battles between the two main characters about proving the existence of God. Science vs. religion has always been a difficult topic for me. I have tried to wrap my head around it for many years. This novel seemed to draw no conclusions...making wonderful points for both sides many times.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who constantly questions life in general. One can not deny the massive impacts that both sides (science and religion) have made throughout history. Maybe we should consider merging the two to try and help explain WHY things are the way they are.
I must say, I was very impressed by this novel. It dealt with the very heavy themes of religion and life. It was wonderful to see the numerous battles between the two main characters about proving the existence of God. Science vs. religion has always been a difficult topic for me. I have tried to wrap my head around it for many years. This novel seemed to draw no conclusions...making wonderful points for both sides many times.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who constantly questions life in general. One can not deny the massive impacts that both sides (science and religion) have made throughout history. Maybe we should consider merging the two to try and help explain WHY things are the way they are.
May 7, 2016
You know, naturally, the premise won't be delivered upon: proof of God via math, science, computers, etc. (It's like one of those books about a book: you know going in you're never going to be able to read the book about which the author is writing.) Also, everyone here is unlikeable: they do and say unlikeable things. And the researcher himself has, apparently, just one singular attraction: a large penis of which he is particularly proud. (As if that will get him closer to God?) But it's Updike! He had won his first Pulitzer by the time "Roger's Version" was published, and won another one several years later. Without those two prizes, I don't think we would be reading much of Updike outside of his Rabbit tetralogy. But I like a "campus" novel, and Updike can throw out some great zingers like: "Still, you can't quit on reason; next thing you'll get somebody like Hitler or Bonzo's pal running things." Amen.
December 12, 2013
Roger Lambert, a professor of divinity is certain that God must be accepted on faith (though we get the impression that perhaps his own faith is walking on rather slippery rocks). His student, Dale Kohler is convinced that God may be proven through science, or more specifically through computer science; His Divine Majesty reduced to a series of ones and zeroes.
Roger's Version is a snapshot of man working through late middle age in a not so graceful fashion. Responding to a world of strained social forces, failing marriages and his own rather tawdry sexual urges, Lambert is not going to a destination, but just trying to get through circumstances as they arise. All this amidst the struggle between the purely rational and the instinctual – think of the balance between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus.
As usual, well done Mr. Updike.
Roger's Version is a snapshot of man working through late middle age in a not so graceful fashion. Responding to a world of strained social forces, failing marriages and his own rather tawdry sexual urges, Lambert is not going to a destination, but just trying to get through circumstances as they arise. All this amidst the struggle between the purely rational and the instinctual – think of the balance between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus.
As usual, well done Mr. Updike.
May 11, 2009
This is a book that I read once for fun and a second time to write a college paper for a religion course. Each reading gave me new thoughts on the religious debates between the two main characters (a divinity Professor and a computer science student). It's understandable that Updike would be capable of handling the (Karl Barth based) religious argument (religion figures into many of Updike's works) but it's amazing how he's able to handle the computer data arguments within this novel (I'm fairly computer literate so I'd know when he was off track). Updike proves just how amazingly capable he was at absorbing enough knowledge for his characters to speak intelligently on nearly any subject. This is one of Updike's more challenging novels.
December 28, 2013
Brilliant portrayal of a learned, cynical, arrogant, adulterous and incestuous professor of theology, who lives a lie and becomes an accomplice in a case of child abuse. Still, one feels for Professor Lambert, his prevarications and distaste for his overenthusiastic student who misunderstands faith with proof of God's existence. The novel is also prescient, in anticipating recent hype over the question whether the universe can arise from nothing. Certainly Lawrence M. Krauss could recognize himself in the character Myron Kriegman, an insensitive and confident scientist who shreds into pieces Dale Kohler's idea of proving God's existence on the basis of the strong anthropic principle with the aid of computer simulation.
April 28, 2016
"By what you use, you are used, per carnem. Indeed, it has occurred to me that in my sensation of peace post coitus, of sweet theistic certainty beneath the remote vague ceiling, of living proof at Verna's side, I was guilty of heresy, the heresy of which the Cathars and Fraticelli were long ago accused amid the thunders of anathema--that of committing deliberate abominations so as to widen and deepen the field in which God's forgiveness can magnificently play. Mas, mas. But thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God.
March 5, 2009
Can't say that I am an Updike fan. This book had wonderful challenging dialog about the differences between science and religion and their relationship to God. That was the highlight of the book. Updikes characters were not ones you care much about. I also found that I lost the thread of the story and had to work to keep going on because I didn't care that much. Clearly Updike is really intelligent and has an amazing command of the language. It was just too much for me.
May 27, 2014
Man, Updike wrote a lot of books. Most of them are good, but I've had to resign myself to the fact that none of them are going to be as great as his Rabbit novels. Still, his extraordinary talent for description and imagery makes even a lesser book like this one worthwhile.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews