What do you think?
Rate this book
Buchanan Dying : A Play
5 x 8 New foreword by the author Praise for the original edition of Buchanan Dying "Buchanan Dying is an abundant, even opulent, creative act . . . very often Mr. Updike's fantastic talent for mimicry produces quite marvelous results." -Arthur Schlesinger Jr., The Atlantic Monthly "Using the excuse of 19th Century speech, Updike has indulged his love of beautiful, ornate prose; we can sink deep into sentences balanced like mobiles and turned like pots on the wheel." -Joyce B. Markle, The Chicago Tribune To the list of John Updike's well-intentioned protagonists-Rabbit Angstrom, George Caldwell, Piet Hanema, Henry Bech-add James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, the harried fifteenth President of the United States (1857-1861). In a play meant to be read, Buchanan, on his death bed, relives his political and private lives. A wide-ranging afterword rounds out the dramatic portrait of one of America's lesser known and least appreciated leaders. For this edition Updike has written a new foreword, discussing the two productions of the play and the historical context in which it was written. John Updike was born in 1932, in Shillington, Pennsylvania, and has lived in Massachusetts since 1957. He is the author of more than fifty books, and his novels have won the Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Award, the National Book Critics' Circle Award, and the Howells Medal.
- GenresHistory
288 pages, Hardcover
First published June 28, 1974
2 people are currently reading
62 people want to read
About the author
John Updike
862 books2,430 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 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 15, 2012
James Buchanan, the fifteenth President of the United States, was the only Pennsylvanian to hold that office, and its only bachelor. And now he is dying.
In this tour de force, John Updike takes the dying man onstage. On Stage! For this is a play. Three acts, with quickly moving, un-numbered scenes, where Buchanan, mostly abed, is visited by a succession of Marley’s Ghosts, brought forward to remind him (and us) that he was a feckless leader, ill-equipped to the point of incompetence, pragmatic in love as well as politics, and indecisive always. It is a play meant to be read, we are told, and not performed. And it would be hard for even gifted actors and directors to make this work. The time frame of scenes is constantly shifting, with only a raised eyebrow perhaps letting us know that the actor abed is no longer a sovereign, but for a brief moment just a babe suckling a wetnurse’s breast. You can see maybe how that could create some confusion on stage but works well on the printed page.
A world in agony cannot be innocent. The war may have been inevitable given the divide. The election of Lincoln seemed a spark. And yet, four years of Buchanan’s confused caretaking let the weeds grow. The South never had a better friend.
Buchanan’s Southern friends come onstage to visit. So do Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Stephen Douglas and Jefferson Davis. So does his hateful father, his political handler, a black serving girl (with whom he is clumsy). Any derivative sympathy doesn’t last long, for Buchanan is an unlikeable figure.
I’m certain that’s why Updike, another Pennsylvanian, chose him. I liked the inventiveness of this work and was constantly charmed by the nuance in the writing. But, for me, it was as if the whole machination of this work was constructed as a set up for one glorious scene. This will take some explaining.
While there are many vignettes in the play there are two main threads that Updike entwines. One is Buchanan’s attempts through appeasement with the Southern leaders to gain his office and to delay disunion. The other is his engagement with Anne Coleman, which he would delay as well. In a marvelously written dramatic scene, Buchanan is told that the South Carolina Commissioners have sent an answer to his communique. “Mr. Thompson, would you read it aloud,” Buchanan directs. As Thompson stands en tableau, it is, instead, Anne Coleman, voice amplified from offstage, reading her own answer to her betrothed. These parallel threads define the man. The Southern Commissioners prove they are no friends. And Anne Coleman tells him, “I see abyss only. I do not wish, nor, since you are a gentleman, do I expect, to meet you again.”
The dying man groans.
* * * *
I found one small soliloquy amusing and had to share even though, as you will see I think, Updike could never have intended the joke, nor did a more recent author whom you may recognize. A character named Samuel Black enters late in the book and says this:
Excuse me, the name is Black, not Judge Black, a lesser shade as it were, a lesser shade of black – some might even name me Gray.
I guess there are only so many notes.
In this tour de force, John Updike takes the dying man onstage. On Stage! For this is a play. Three acts, with quickly moving, un-numbered scenes, where Buchanan, mostly abed, is visited by a succession of Marley’s Ghosts, brought forward to remind him (and us) that he was a feckless leader, ill-equipped to the point of incompetence, pragmatic in love as well as politics, and indecisive always. It is a play meant to be read, we are told, and not performed. And it would be hard for even gifted actors and directors to make this work. The time frame of scenes is constantly shifting, with only a raised eyebrow perhaps letting us know that the actor abed is no longer a sovereign, but for a brief moment just a babe suckling a wetnurse’s breast. You can see maybe how that could create some confusion on stage but works well on the printed page.
A world in agony cannot be innocent. The war may have been inevitable given the divide. The election of Lincoln seemed a spark. And yet, four years of Buchanan’s confused caretaking let the weeds grow. The South never had a better friend.
Buchanan’s Southern friends come onstage to visit. So do Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Stephen Douglas and Jefferson Davis. So does his hateful father, his political handler, a black serving girl (with whom he is clumsy). Any derivative sympathy doesn’t last long, for Buchanan is an unlikeable figure.
I’m certain that’s why Updike, another Pennsylvanian, chose him. I liked the inventiveness of this work and was constantly charmed by the nuance in the writing. But, for me, it was as if the whole machination of this work was constructed as a set up for one glorious scene. This will take some explaining.
While there are many vignettes in the play there are two main threads that Updike entwines. One is Buchanan’s attempts through appeasement with the Southern leaders to gain his office and to delay disunion. The other is his engagement with Anne Coleman, which he would delay as well. In a marvelously written dramatic scene, Buchanan is told that the South Carolina Commissioners have sent an answer to his communique. “Mr. Thompson, would you read it aloud,” Buchanan directs. As Thompson stands en tableau, it is, instead, Anne Coleman, voice amplified from offstage, reading her own answer to her betrothed. These parallel threads define the man. The Southern Commissioners prove they are no friends. And Anne Coleman tells him, “I see abyss only. I do not wish, nor, since you are a gentleman, do I expect, to meet you again.”
The dying man groans.
* * * *
I found one small soliloquy amusing and had to share even though, as you will see I think, Updike could never have intended the joke, nor did a more recent author whom you may recognize. A character named Samuel Black enters late in the book and says this:
Excuse me, the name is Black, not Judge Black, a lesser shade as it were, a lesser shade of black – some might even name me Gray.
I guess there are only so many notes.
September 21, 2016
Read this in the 80's, found it enlightening, revealing --and as a scholar myself, I liked Buchanan the reader, though most readers do not. I have to re-read it, soon, to elaborate on this review. Buchanan is now often held up as the worst US president--bec he tried his damnedest to avoid the Civil War? But who wouldn't prefer to have left the country without 500,000 killed.. Of course, that is not the point since even England had abolished slavery decades before Buchanan's presidency.
December 28, 2023
This is a weird entry into John Updike's work. The portrait of James Buchanan is compelling and really makes a convincing argument for him as an interesting and sympathetic historic character. You can feel Updike's passion for the guy, developed over an unbelievably rigorous research process. However, this is a con in a way too. The text is pretty unapproachable due to its reliance on a wide and deep knowledge of what's ultimately an esoteric period in American history. I had to do a handful of deep dives on Wikipedia to understand key plot points, not to mention the offhanded references to old laws and the wide rotating cast of often wholly unintroduced minor politicians. This unapproachability is compounded by Updike's choice to have several multi-page passages in French, including lines which seem like they're pretty critical to the play. I could only guess at what those meant.
I can't shake the feeling that this play was over-researched, to the point where the history drowns out opportunities for a radically creative approach. For the author, this book was definitely a labor of love, with emphasis on the labor-- the Afterword details an intense bibliography and frankly describes his difficulty in getting everything to cohere. This difficulty shows; it seems like Updike had to exorcize this book rather than finish it. But with all my grievances being said, the book highlights what ends up being a really interesting life and career, finding interesting thematic throughlines, selecting intriguing historical texts, and forming a really captivating psychological profile.
I can't shake the feeling that this play was over-researched, to the point where the history drowns out opportunities for a radically creative approach. For the author, this book was definitely a labor of love, with emphasis on the labor-- the Afterword details an intense bibliography and frankly describes his difficulty in getting everything to cohere. This difficulty shows; it seems like Updike had to exorcize this book rather than finish it. But with all my grievances being said, the book highlights what ends up being a really interesting life and career, finding interesting thematic throughlines, selecting intriguing historical texts, and forming a really captivating psychological profile.
January 23, 2021
It’s a play, no a novel, no a history – this book defies ordinary categories. If it has any predecessor, it is Thomas Hardy’s little-known The Dynasts. The unusualness of it, however, isn’t necessarily bad. A “play” format doesn’t have to be designed for stage production. A novel can be written exclusively in dialogue.
Updike, who I don’t really know a lot about, is an excellent craftsman and you can see that in this work. The unusual format and setting – taking place by his deathbed as Buchanan recalls his life – is cleverly done and allows for a language that is more figurative/richer and artistic than a straight, realistic setting (in a novel or a play) would allow. I like that part of the play, and I think Updike seems to revel in that opportunity to have some fun with the language.
I came into the play knowing the basic outlines of Buchanan’s life and legacy. (And being a fellow Keystone resident and Civil War buff, the story had an additional appeal.) So this was of some interest to me, and it being a play, well, I couldn’t resist. I learned a lot and it appears that Updike sticks pretty close to the history, with his skills and interpretation primarily shaping the characterization.
The question is, of course, is it worth reading? Whether you read it as a novel/play/history, it has some interesting parts, but overall the history weighs down the novel/play. The details get a bit thick in policy discussions germane only to those interested in mid-19th century American politics. I think this could have been glossed over a bit and more attention could have been paid to the characterization, though that is good. I think that if this were adapted for the stage, the overall, edited-down work (whether a play or not) would be stronger.
Updike is clearly sympathetic to Buchanan, who was an unusual character who appeared different to different people, who tried to satisfy everyone, but ended up satisfying no one. His natural conservative and calculative tendencies prevented him from making a bold move, or forming enduring relationships. In a calmer time, he may have been a competent, if not admirable president. For a nation in crisis, though, he lacked the bold certainty required to act.
He rightly saw that, in most situations, we operate on limited information, and compromise is best. But when the storm hits, you can’t wait for the sky to clear up or a committee to be formed to make a rational, calculated maneuver. It takes audacity, boldness and brimming (arrogant) self-confidence – beyond even what is rational – to save the ship.
Overall, this is an intriguing work. If you have an interest in mid-19th-century American history and the Civil War, this is an entertaining take on history. If you’re looking for a well-developed, tightly formed work of art, you may not find this satisfying.
Updike, who I don’t really know a lot about, is an excellent craftsman and you can see that in this work. The unusual format and setting – taking place by his deathbed as Buchanan recalls his life – is cleverly done and allows for a language that is more figurative/richer and artistic than a straight, realistic setting (in a novel or a play) would allow. I like that part of the play, and I think Updike seems to revel in that opportunity to have some fun with the language.
I came into the play knowing the basic outlines of Buchanan’s life and legacy. (And being a fellow Keystone resident and Civil War buff, the story had an additional appeal.) So this was of some interest to me, and it being a play, well, I couldn’t resist. I learned a lot and it appears that Updike sticks pretty close to the history, with his skills and interpretation primarily shaping the characterization.
The question is, of course, is it worth reading? Whether you read it as a novel/play/history, it has some interesting parts, but overall the history weighs down the novel/play. The details get a bit thick in policy discussions germane only to those interested in mid-19th century American politics. I think this could have been glossed over a bit and more attention could have been paid to the characterization, though that is good. I think that if this were adapted for the stage, the overall, edited-down work (whether a play or not) would be stronger.
Updike is clearly sympathetic to Buchanan, who was an unusual character who appeared different to different people, who tried to satisfy everyone, but ended up satisfying no one. His natural conservative and calculative tendencies prevented him from making a bold move, or forming enduring relationships. In a calmer time, he may have been a competent, if not admirable president. For a nation in crisis, though, he lacked the bold certainty required to act.
He rightly saw that, in most situations, we operate on limited information, and compromise is best. But when the storm hits, you can’t wait for the sky to clear up or a committee to be formed to make a rational, calculated maneuver. It takes audacity, boldness and brimming (arrogant) self-confidence – beyond even what is rational – to save the ship.
Overall, this is an intriguing work. If you have an interest in mid-19th-century American history and the Civil War, this is an entertaining take on history. If you’re looking for a well-developed, tightly formed work of art, you may not find this satisfying.
January 18, 2017
Possibly the worst play I've ever read. I made it fifty pages and had zero idea what it was about.
November 24, 2023
Leave it to John Updike to write his first plan on the death of James Buchanan, a man both boring and lethal to the country. Yawn. Buchanan (1857-1861), widely regarded by historians as America's worst president, yes worse than Nixon or Trump, has his say in this overlong apologia pro vita sua on his deathbed. It doesn't work, since nothing justifies doing nothing to hold the union together and secretly conspiring with the South to keep slavery alive post-1860. BUCHANAN DYING is a lot like the best and worst of John Updike: Elegantly written, thoughtful, and in the end signifying nothing. If you think this is Updike's nadir consider that he wrote a novel in the guise of a memoir of the Gerald Ford administration. Double yawn.
May 6, 2023
Decepcionante.
Si, no tengo mucho más que añadir al título, porque lo fué. Quizás pasó porque me había hecho una idea distinta del tema del libro, pero creo, si no recuerdo mal, que ni siquiera lo terminé.
Si, no tengo mucho más que añadir al título, porque lo fué. Quizás pasó porque me había hecho una idea distinta del tema del libro, pero creo, si no recuerdo mal, que ni siquiera lo terminé.
January 27, 2016
Best to read this play after reading Updike's "Memories of the Ford Administration." James Buchanan was the only US president from Pennsylvania, Updike's birthplace.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews