This book grew on me as I read it. I'm still not sure it's 'necessary' - people weren't eager for a sequel, but it is nice to catch up with old friends and Sukie, Jane and Alexandra don't disappoint. Updike isn't entirely convincing when writing about women, but he's a hell of a lot better than most men. This is a quick, guilty pleasure kind of read. While I enjoyed it, I kind of hope he leaves it where it is and doesn't write a third. Twenty-five years is a long time to wait for a sequel. I need to go back and reread "Witches." Updike is a master of sequels. Rabbit didn't really hit his stride until the third book, and I think I liked this better than "Witches." I'm slowly saying goodbye to Updike; only a few books left to read. Sometimes he failed, but that was part of his greatness. He was never satisfied with just sticking to comfortable territory. To the Nobel committee: You lost all credibility by failing to award John Updike. You could regain some of it by not makijng the same mistake with Philip Roth.
I liked it but I hadn't read the Witches of Eastwick so I felt like I was missing quite a bit.
—mel
I wish he had left Suki, Jane, and Alexandra alone and published a meditation on aging.
—uniaeri
Updike's gifts are still evident but I got bored with this one.
—atshah
Not enough EVENT.
—Iloveyou
