The Witches of Eastwick

Rating:
Summary: Which witch?
Review: I just finished reading this book. Boy, it is almost nothing like the movie. Aside from basic plot of "three witches in the town of Eastwick fall under the influence of a new man in town", the book and the movie have almost nothing in common. I don't want to give away too much of the book's plot, but the witches here are more promiscuous than in the movie. Just about every married man in town has an affair with one of the witches. Anyway, the book is a "good read", as they say, and you will probably enjoy it if you are not offended by sexual content.

Rating:
Summary: A Satanic Romp
Review: I thought that this was a delightful comic novel by Updike set, (as usual?) in a small East Coast community, and (again, as usual?) dealing with the sexual infidelities which cause tensions between the members of that community. But the added twist in this work is that there's black magic going on - witchcraft and adultery working hand-in-hand.

I thought it was fun to read, but more importantly, I suppose that one could look upon "The Witches of Eastwick" as a satire on the deep internal dynamics which operate within small communities (where everyone knows everyone else, or imagines that they do, where newcomers are regarded with suspicion, and so on). Updike might have been pointing out that the very lack of variety in such an environment makes people's lives become very intertwined, or makes them imagine alternative realities, to make up for what essentially must be a boredom bordering on the intolerable.

Such a place as Eastwick could be seen as a throw-back to earlier communities where indeed witchcraft cases did occur - in the past would a discovered adulteress have been branded a "witch"?

Interesting to think of this novel as working on at least two levels. Also, of course, it's an examination of basic human traits such as jealousy, lust and greed. And, by the way, it's far better than the movie.

Rating:
Summary: Not a Bewitching Read
Review: I was attracted to Updike's novel purely by its title and was expecting either an historical novel derived from America's fear and fascination of witchcraft in the era of the Salem witch trials or perhaps a look at contemporary Wiccans or maybe something along the lines of Marion Zimmer Bradley's MISTS OF AVALON. What I found was none of these but rather a psychological exploration of several very unbelievable characters interacting in aberrant and contrived relationships. Two aspects of Updike's novel leave me cold-his unrealistic description of witchcraft and his horribly exaggerated similes which torture the English language.

Updike's witches are neurotic, conflicted women who vacillate between lesbian relationships with one another and seducing all the men in town, especially married men. Their manner of witchcraft is neither historically accurate nor even remotely descriptive of the actual practice of Wicca today, encompassing such ridiculous things as manipulating the nature of a tennis ball to foil their opponents and such purely evil things as killing crabs, pets, and another woman of whom they become jealous. To use one's power to summon a thunderstorm for the simple reason that other people are on a beach where Alexandra wants to run her dog is purely ludicrous. Very little of the witchcraft being practiced in the novel is believable, even in a fictional realm. Oh yes, there's also the practice of having tacks, moths, straw, bird feathers, and suchlike materialize in the mouths of women who annoy our witch friends. This naturally brings to mind the backfired slug spell that Ron Weasley attempts to cast on Draco Malfoy at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Somehow, though, it's much more believable in the realm of Harry Potter than in Updike's "serious" novel.

If Updike's concept of magic is less than believable, his comprehension of effective writing is yet worse. Several pages of THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK could easily win a Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest, a competition that challenges entrants to compose the opening sentence of the worst of all possible novels. Updike's descriptive similes are so extravagant as to be unintentionally hilarious. I thought at first that he was writing tongue-in-cheek in those frequent cases, poking fun at pompous authors, yet I fear that he may himself be one of those pompous writers at whom fun really should be poked. For example:

"But even as it drifted, her mind, like a passenger in an airplane who amidst the life-imperiling sensations of lifting off looks down to marvel at the enameled precision and glory of the Earth (the houses with their roofs and chimneys so sharp, so finely made, and the lakes truly mirrors as in the Christmas yards our parents had arranged while we were sleeping; it was all true, and even maps are true!), took note of how lovely Sukie was, bad luck or not, with her vivid hair disheveled and even her eyelashes looking a little mussed after her hard day of typing and looking for the right word under the harsh lights, her figure in its milky-green sweater and dark suede skirt so erect and firm, her stomach flat and her breasts perky and high and her bottom firm, and that big broad-lipped mouth on her monkeyish face so mischievous and giving and brave." I had marked many other examples of such flatulent writing, but if this one doesn't make the point, then nothing will.

Before winding up these observations, I do feel some need to comment on the triteness in Updike's novel. The idea of having, specifically, three witches is hardly new. Shakespeare used that figure in MACBETH, and most readers will recognize the use of the number three in Christian mythology, as in the Holy Trinity, God-in-three-persons, etc. The character of Darryl van Horne is a stereotypical portrayal of a homosexual male taken to extremes. Using such worn-out and exaggerated symbolism is not the mark of a distinguished author.

In sum, I should venture that Updike's novel may be marginally better than today's typical bodice-ripping paperbacked romance on the supermarket rack, but his characters have a very long way to go to attain the heights of the priestesses who serve the Earth Goddess in Bradley's novels of Avalon.

Rating:
Summary: Updike gives witchery a whirl.
Review: John Updike astutely recognizes the modern American suburb, with its hypocritical social mores and superstitions, as a rich literary setting. Into this milieu he introduces the fantastical and invents a tale of what life would be like for three divorced and bored housewives, who happen to be witches, living in such a place -- the fictitious Eastwick, Rhode Island -- in the late 1960's. It's like Updike is channeling Nathaniel Hawthorne through "Rabbit Redux."

The women are Alexandra Spofford, a sculptress, Jane Smart, a cellist, and Sukie Rougemont, the local gossip columnist. They drink a lot, neglect their kids, have sex with married men, and cast spells to torment their enemies, who are usually their lovers' wives; they have the traditional witchlike manners of being vindictive, temperamental, and spiteful. They've never desired a man in common until they meet a vaguely devilish fellow named Darryl Van Horne who has bought an old mansion on the outskirts of town. Van Horne is quite mysterious: He's a Manhattanite, a pianist, a collector of tacky nouveau art, and a renegade scientist, trying to discover impossibly efficient methods of generating electricity. He takes an interest in Alexandra's crude little sculptures, accompanies Jane in some sonatas, and encourages Sukie to write novels. He invites them to play tennis (where their magic lends itself to some creative cheating) and partake of the orgiastic pleasures of his hot tub.

The witches' auras induce strange and tragic effects on the lives of their lovers. Ed Parsley, the Unitarian minister, runs off to join the anti-war movement, leaving his churlish wife Brenda to take over the pulpit. Clyde Gabriel, the editor of Sukie's newspaper, is stuck with a gabby wife who gets her satisfaction from finding fault with everything. But it's the Gabriels' adult daughter Jenny that serves to drive a wedge between the witches and Van Horne. When Jenny shows up in town from Chicago, Sukie takes pity on the seemingly pathetic girl and invites her to join the "coven" at Van Horne's mansion. Jenny attracts Van Horne's amorous attentions, but his intentions, it turns out, confound even the witches' intuition.

Popular culture has interpreted the witch mystique as a form of feminine self-empowerment -- women willing themselves to be able to act in retribution or defense against men's hurtful actions -- so it makes sense that the witches in the novel imply that witchcraft is an untapped power all women have, particularly those who have been hurt by or are unhappy with the men in their lives. And it makes sense for Updike to have set the novel in the era of the Women's Movement of the 1960's, where witchcraft would have shed a new, different light on liberation. Are the witches of Eastwick liberated? Probably so, but it's too bad they're so miserable nonetheless.

Rating:
Summary: Slow, But Layered
Review: Reading this book was like pushing a locomotive through a sea of molasses. Updike is apparently known for his very heavy descriptions, focusing in and in on seemingly unimportant details (like the scenery), and 'Eastwick' is no exception. Whether this appeals to you or not will most likely determine how much you like it. Literary trifles aside, this is a rich, sex-laden novel with lots of social commentary and underlying meaning. It's almost nothing like the movie as well; the characters are spiteful, hypocritical and vengeful, the magic seems to have more symbolism, and Darryl's role is somewhat different.

One flaw I saw with the novel was the fact that very little happened with any consequence. The witches have affairs all over the place, people die, and magic is thrown around a good deal, but it seems more for the sake of getting a vague 'impression' of what's going on, rather than pushing the non-existant plot forward. Much of the consequences in this novel usually result in something being gossiped about, and then it's back to the sex and hyper-focused detail and narrative meanderings, and then more sex.

In short, it'll be hard to sit on the fence about this one- it's not a likable book, but it'll be entertaining and thoughtful if you want it to be.

Rating:
Summary: Slow, But Layered
Review: Reading this book was like pushing a locomotive through a sea of molasses. Updike is apparently known for his very heavy descriptions, focusing in and in on seemingly unimportant details (like the scenery), and 'Eastwick' is no exception. Whether this appeals to you or not will most likely determine how much you like it. Literary trifles aside, this is a rich, sex-laden novel with lots of social commentary and underlying meaning. It's almost nothing like the movie as well; the characters are spiteful, hypocritical and vengeful, the magic seems to have more symbolism, and Darryl's role is somewhat different.

One flaw I saw with the novel was the fact that very little happened with any consequence. The witches have affairs all over the place, people die, and magic is thrown around a good deal, but it seems more for the sake of getting a vague 'impression' of what's going on, rather than pushing the non-existant plot forward. Much of the consequences in this novel usually result in something being gossiped about, and then it's back to the sex and hyper-focused detail and narrative meanderings, and then more sex.

In short, it'll be hard to sit on the fence about this one- it's not a likable book, but it'll be entertaining and thoughtful if you want it to be.

Rating:
Summary: The Witches of Eastwick: Male Feminism At Its Finest
Review: There's a scene in "The Witches of Eastwick" when one of the witches raises a thunderstorm on a beach. She then kills a number of sand crabs, because all magic is based on the principle of sacrifice (i.e., death). The book gives us this rule, and then ignores it. The witches paralyze people, transmute tennis balls into birds, make feathers & pieces of gravel come from their enemies' mouths, etc. and there's no sacrifice. If you're not a literary giant like Updike, this is known as sloppy writing. The witches themselves are an unhappy lot. Their anger oozes through the pages. They hate their kids; they use their powers to hurt people (they are feminists, yet the people they hurt are always other women); they are primarily sexual creatures (an old male fantasy); they become witches by dumping their men, yet men continue to define them. The strange thing is that "The Witches of Eastwick" was praised by some feminists, despite the fact that it's portrayal of feminism is quite unflattering. The movie is no masterpiece, but it added little things Updike left out, most notably a plot. This is one case where the movie is better than the book.

Rating:
Summary: An European approach to THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK
Review: This extremely rich novel is an outstanding sample of American society (in New England)in the late 60's*, also because the main characters are mostly centered on women.I believe it is not mere coincidence.
It is an extraordinary novel for a "europeanized" analysis. Thanks to one of Updike's most delicious characteristics, the description into minimal details -(is there anything wrong with a surgical look on reality? Is it not a sign of accurate awareness and of extreme lucidity?)- allows to cross all the cultural references in the novel and to some extente we understand all the research that must have been carried out to write this novel (sorcery and witchcraft history, just to mention one).
Updike goes through several chief aspects of human existence (as we grew accustomed to with his books), from religion and all co-related metaphysical anxieties to a very soft criticism to the America of the huge urban centres, going through daily life in small communities, sexual intercourse, violence, moral values in crisis... What else could one wish for? And all this is presented to us in a somehow humorous tone, not really a comedy. One gets a sweet and sour taste, after all. I would rather not make any reference to the film. Being a European and living in Europe I missed the musical, therefore no opinion whatsoever.
Again, it is no coincidence that this particular novel by Updike was to be chosen, among others, by H. Bloom in "The Western Canon".

*Obviously, any attentive reader could argument with the "Rabbit" tetralogy, but to synthetize is always harder than to analyse, so if in ONE novel you concentrate so many concerns of contemporary society, then that is an achievement.

Rating:
Summary: Don't read this if you want a written version of the movie
Review: This is a case where the movie is so different from the original novel that you will find yourself wondering if the person who wrote the screenplay ever read the book. The movie follows the book fairly faithfully for the first part, but after that, the movie takes a very different and much more feel good path.

But that aside, let's discuss the book as it is. The three witches are not particularly likeable. They are spiteful and vindictive. I guess I was dismayed at how much they talked about treasuring life, and then how quickly they would just kill someone or thing. I felt like Mr. Updike was trying to make some sweeping comment about humanity in general, but I never quite "got" it. It was almost as if, we had three different women, who just happened to be witches and we were given a look into how they would react if they really could make someone's life a living hell. As a character study, it was interesting. Jane seemed to be the most vindictive and hateful. Alexandra seemed the most caring, but even she had a vindictive streak that she usually felt sorry for after the fact. She managed to kill one day, and one squirrel just because they were irritating. Sukie struck me as the flaky one.

I feel that the novel was supposed to be an allegory, but I still found it a bit disturbing that the three witches were portrayed as quite so promiscuous. I just can't believe that in a small town, there could be three women that were having affairs with just about every married man in town and no one seemed to notice. It also seemed to be common knowledge that the three were witches and no one seemed to think that unusual.

In spite of the characters that aren't particularly likeable and the unbelievably of a lot of the novel, it still seems to draw you into the story and I found myself continuing to read, just to see how it all would end.

My star ratings:

One star - couldn't finish the book
Two stars - read the book, but did a lot of skipping or scanning. Wouldn't add the book to my permanent collection or search out other books by the author
Three stars - enjoyable read. Wouldn't add the book to my permanent collection. Would judge other books by the author individually.
Four stars - Liked the book. Would keep the book or would look for others by the same author.
Five start - One of my all time favorites. Will get a copy in hardback to keep and will actively search out others by the same author.


Rating:
Summary: Verbose, homophobic, and misogynistic.
Review: Updike's novel is totally overworded with unnecessary details that fail to move the story on. Did we really need to know about Sukie contemplating the area between her legs while in the bathroom before having an affair with a married man? And of course the lesbian sex scenes just had to be Updikes hypersexual drive outdoing itself. And I don't think I can count the number of times the word "fag", or one of its similars, was used on one hand! Not to mention how our hero Darryl turns out to be one and has conned the women into doing his bidding. The problem is I WANTED to like this book since I love the movie and musical so much. But it was so damn hard to get into I could ONLY read it on the bus because I had to have NO alternative distraction! My opinion: unless you're a huge fan of Updike, get the movie. It's practically a completely different story than the book anyway.