Pessimistic misogynist literature may never be the same

Current book: The Beautiful and Damned
Pages read: 3-16

Shameful level of progress, I realize, but my motivation has not been high, to say the least. We've met our main character, Anthony Patch, gotten a bit of his family history (mainly that he's rich, his father died when he was young, and he has a crotchety grandfather) and a general description of his youth and current personality traits. He's attractive, somewhat diffident, impressed with himself in the way that most young men (according to Fitzgerald) secretly are, and settling down in New York to write a history of the Spanish Inquisition. My guess is that the great debauchery of New York high society will soon tempt and corrupt him.

The prose isn't actually bad, so far, and a definite relief after Updike's horrors. Why is it, though, that authors of "great literature" so often feel the need to give you the history of a character's boyhood years and possibly those of his father and grandfather before they actually start telling their stories? Aside from rare cases in which said characters were deeply scarred by their terms at Eton, it just doesn't seem relevant.

However, Mr. Patch does have a bathtub "equipped with an ingenious book-holder," which has endeared him to me somewhat.

I've been informed by several people that Updike died today.

My attorney has advised me not to comment at this time.