Status
Available
Series
Collection
Publication
New York : Knopf : Distributed by Random House, 1984.
Description
Fiction. Literature. HTML: �John Updike is the great genial sorcerer of American letters [and] The Witches of Eastwick [is one of his] most ambitious works. . . . [A] comedy of the blackest sort.��The New York Times Book Review Toward the end of the Vietnam era, in a snug little Rhode Island seacoast town, wonderful powers have descended upon Alexandra, Jane, and Sukie, bewitching divorc�es with sudden access to all that is female, fecund, and mysterious. Alexandra, a sculptor, summons thunderstorms; Jane, a cellist, floats on the air; and Sukie, the local gossip columnist, turns milk into cream. Their happy little coven takes on new, malignant life when a dark and moneyed stranger, Darryl Van Horne, refurbishes the long-derelict Lenox mansion and invites them in to play. Thenceforth scandal flits through the darkening, crooked streets of Eastwick�and through the even darker fantasies of the town�s collective psyche. �A great deal of fun to read . . . fresh, constantly entertaining . . . John Updike [is] a wizard of language and observation.��The Philadelphia Inquirer �Vintage Updike, which is to say among the best fiction we have.��Newsday.… (more)
Media reviews
Mr. Updike takes ''sisterhood is powerful'' at its word and imagines it literally. What if sisterhood really is powerful? What will the sisters use their ''powers'' for? And what - given human nature, of which Mr. Updike takes not too bright a view - what then? Luckily these witches are only
Show More
interested in the ''personal,'' rather than the ''political''; otherwise they might have done something unfrivolous, like inventing the hydrogen bomb.... ''The Witches of Eastwick'' is an excursion rather than a destination. Like its characters, it indulges in metamorphoses, reading at one moment like Kierkegaard, at the next like Swift's ''Modest Proposal,'' and at the next like Archie comics, with some John Keats thrown in. This quirkiness is part of its charm, for, despite everything, charming it is. As for the witches themselves, there's a strong suggestion that they are products of Eastwick's - read America's - own fantasy life. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member gazzy
Three witches in modern New England are courted by the devil disguised as a man.
LibraryThing member kraaivrouw
Reading about small-town WASP New England is like reading science fiction for me. I've spent my life in large cities in the South & on the West Coast with the exception of 3 and a half years in Little Rock, Arkansas which isn't exactly Southern, but certainly isn't New England, either. Arkansas is
Given my background, the environment of The Witches of Eastwick is pretty exotic. I've never been to Rhode Island & have always suspected that it (along with Delaware & Iowa) might very well be fictional places that lots of people talk about, write about, & make movies about, but that no one's really ever lived in. From what I know of Rhode Island & its history, it's frequently been a haven for free thinking (see also, Anne Hutchinson) so it makes sense that a small town there might harbor a trio of witches. I also know from a story on NPR that Rhode Island's full name is Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, but that's as far as the trivia goes.
Reading this book was an odd experience. I was unable to find a way to like or relate to a single character in this novel so it was slow going, but at the same time I was propelled forward because some of his writing is so breathtaking - whole paragraphs or single sentences where I stopped & re-read & thought to myself, "Wow, that is a gorgeous piece of writing."
I am well aware of the feminist criticism of John Updike as a misogynist & he lives up to his reputation in this book, but I think it's more complex than that because I don't think he likes men much, either.
The interesting thing to me about this novel is the way that each of these characters represent something very real in the middle of the somewhat surreal atmosphere they are in. Yes, Virginia, some women are driven by petty lusts & use their power to no greater purpose than finding a man. & yes, Virginia, some men are so filled with contempt for themselves, their lives & for others that they are tragic in their self-pity (or perhaps just need to be smacked around for whining). It's an interesting choice, to play these archetypes off against the background of magic & devils, but it doesn't make for likable characters.
I'm not sure that any author is required to only write well-rounded, well-adjusted, likable men & women fully realized & actualized in an politically enlightened kind of way. I'm also not sure that authors are required to create characters that everyone can like. At the same time, it makes the reading more pleasant if there's someone you can like, but again is the purpose of all writing to create a pleasant experience for the reader? Probably not.
I finished this a few days ago & have been thinking about what I thought about it ever since. It's actually been very meaty in that way - I've had to ruminate & roll the book & the writing around in my head in a way that you don't often get to do unless the writing is very good. In the end this isn't a book I enjoyed, but it definitely made me think.
Show More
its own thing & Little Rock is still another thing (kind of like Texas & Austin).Given my background, the environment of The Witches of Eastwick is pretty exotic. I've never been to Rhode Island & have always suspected that it (along with Delaware & Iowa) might very well be fictional places that lots of people talk about, write about, & make movies about, but that no one's really ever lived in. From what I know of Rhode Island & its history, it's frequently been a haven for free thinking (see also, Anne Hutchinson) so it makes sense that a small town there might harbor a trio of witches. I also know from a story on NPR that Rhode Island's full name is Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, but that's as far as the trivia goes.
Reading this book was an odd experience. I was unable to find a way to like or relate to a single character in this novel so it was slow going, but at the same time I was propelled forward because some of his writing is so breathtaking - whole paragraphs or single sentences where I stopped & re-read & thought to myself, "Wow, that is a gorgeous piece of writing."
I am well aware of the feminist criticism of John Updike as a misogynist & he lives up to his reputation in this book, but I think it's more complex than that because I don't think he likes men much, either.
The interesting thing to me about this novel is the way that each of these characters represent something very real in the middle of the somewhat surreal atmosphere they are in. Yes, Virginia, some women are driven by petty lusts & use their power to no greater purpose than finding a man. & yes, Virginia, some men are so filled with contempt for themselves, their lives & for others that they are tragic in their self-pity (or perhaps just need to be smacked around for whining). It's an interesting choice, to play these archetypes off against the background of magic & devils, but it doesn't make for likable characters.
I'm not sure that any author is required to only write well-rounded, well-adjusted, likable men & women fully realized & actualized in an politically enlightened kind of way. I'm also not sure that authors are required to create characters that everyone can like. At the same time, it makes the reading more pleasant if there's someone you can like, but again is the purpose of all writing to create a pleasant experience for the reader? Probably not.
I finished this a few days ago & have been thinking about what I thought about it ever since. It's actually been very meaty in that way - I've had to ruminate & roll the book & the writing around in my head in a way that you don't often get to do unless the writing is very good. In the end this isn't a book I enjoyed, but it definitely made me think.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ivanfranko
Overloaded with American domestic detail; over-bearing busy-body prose that annoys from start to finish. Updike's unable to let up on informing you that he's got a handle on furnishings, gardening, energy technology, conservation and overwhelmingly on women and their motivations. It reaches a
The characters are dull, wasting away in a dull town. The witches manage to struggle on with hobbies that could never satisfy, clay sculpture, amateur cello and writing gossip for their small town rag. Like the book, they cannot last and their witchcraft dispels them.
Daryl van Horne is not a devil, as some tend to portray him. He's a raving nut-case and swindler, in case you wish to know.
If you've got a short time to live, or maybe you simply value your time on Earth, you can pass this book by.
Show More
climax towards the end where there are pages of waffle extolling a piece of cello work by Brahms (or is it Bach?). Spare me!!The characters are dull, wasting away in a dull town. The witches manage to struggle on with hobbies that could never satisfy, clay sculpture, amateur cello and writing gossip for their small town rag. Like the book, they cannot last and their witchcraft dispels them.
Daryl van Horne is not a devil, as some tend to portray him. He's a raving nut-case and swindler, in case you wish to know.
If you've got a short time to live, or maybe you simply value your time on Earth, you can pass this book by.
Show Less
LibraryThing member iammbb
Since I really enjoyed the movie version of Witches of Eastwick, I decided to read Widows of Eastwick. But I couldn't read Widows of Eastwick without having read Witches of Eastwick first.
The book and movie are vastly dissimilar. That I found this surprising is surprising. I mean, I've read enough
What I also found surprising is how intriguing I found Updike's prose. I read novels for plot. I skim the extraneous details, the superfluous descriptions. If it doesn't move the plot forward, it doesn't hold my attention.
And yet, Updike's prose grabbed me in spite of myself. Yes, even the ridiculously lengthy recitation of Jane's middle of the night cello concert kept me, if not engrossed, at least paying attention.
I enjoyed the story told by the movie better, especially the end but on a more superficial level. I found the book's story deeper, more conflicted, more unapologetic about its main characters' amorality.
Now, on to the Widows . . .
The book and movie are vastly dissimilar. That I found this surprising is surprising. I mean, I've read enough
Show More
books after seeing the movie adaptations to be well acquainted with the fact that the book and the movie are often vastly dissimilar. But I was surprised.What I also found surprising is how intriguing I found Updike's prose. I read novels for plot. I skim the extraneous details, the superfluous descriptions. If it doesn't move the plot forward, it doesn't hold my attention.
And yet, Updike's prose grabbed me in spite of myself. Yes, even the ridiculously lengthy recitation of Jane's middle of the night cello concert kept me, if not engrossed, at least paying attention.
I enjoyed the story told by the movie better, especially the end but on a more superficial level. I found the book's story deeper, more conflicted, more unapologetic about its main characters' amorality.
Now, on to the Widows . . .
Show Less
LibraryThing member drbubbles
This book ends less happily than the movie; in fact, the book and the movie go in very different directions after a certain event.
What I will mainly remember about this book is its unsympathetic treatment of the main characters, who are all women. It is not that the characters are inherently
In a similar connection, the other thing I am likely to remember is the sex. It's not a pornographic book, but sex is one of (if not the) main motifs. The writing about sex-the-act, about characters' attitudes towards sex, about characters' own sexuality, and about the sexual relations between characters all, to me, sound very 1970s, which is perfectly understandable given the date of publication. In this respect it has a sort of anthropological or historical interest, at least to one who didn't experience 1970s sexual environment first-hand. In another respect, though, given the emphasis on women characters, the prominence of sex is unsurprising but trite, and contributes to the general air of disrespect towards the characters.
What I still, for the moment, remember about this book was its interesting rendering of witchcraft, which is mostly implied through concrete, witchy actions, but there are enough to draw some conclusions about the witchcraft generally.
Overall, the book seems mainly to be a character study. The plot is quite simple, and seems to exist mainly to provide situations around which the characters can be developed. The tone reminds me somewhat of Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye.
What I will mainly remember about this book is its unsympathetic treatment of the main characters, who are all women. It is not that the characters are inherently
Show More
dislikable, though some become dislikable in the course of the story (while others do not, or do so to a lesser degree). It is that the writing is, somehow, disparaging towards them; regardless of what about them is being described, the words and sentences suggest an air of foolishness or absurdity or ridiculousness. (The men don't escape unscathed, but they aren't developed nearly as much, either.) Literary archetypes of women (virgin, whore, bitch, &c.) are strongly invoked, but the overall effect is to create caricatures of those archetypes rather than to provide any serious insight into Woman or women. About the only affirmative aspect of the main characters' portrayal is their strength of character: though the unpleasantnesses in their characters vitiate that to a greater or lesser extent. In a sort of a inversion, it seems that the men characters are weak and merely responsive, whereas almost all of the women characters (main or not) are quite strong and self-willed, but this does not redound to their credit.In a similar connection, the other thing I am likely to remember is the sex. It's not a pornographic book, but sex is one of (if not the) main motifs. The writing about sex-the-act, about characters' attitudes towards sex, about characters' own sexuality, and about the sexual relations between characters all, to me, sound very 1970s, which is perfectly understandable given the date of publication. In this respect it has a sort of anthropological or historical interest, at least to one who didn't experience 1970s sexual environment first-hand. In another respect, though, given the emphasis on women characters, the prominence of sex is unsurprising but trite, and contributes to the general air of disrespect towards the characters.
What I still, for the moment, remember about this book was its interesting rendering of witchcraft, which is mostly implied through concrete, witchy actions, but there are enough to draw some conclusions about the witchcraft generally.
Overall, the book seems mainly to be a character study. The plot is quite simple, and seems to exist mainly to provide situations around which the characters can be developed. The tone reminds me somewhat of Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye.
Show Less
LibraryThing member willowcove
While I love the movie, the book has more of a malicious element, and is way better than the movie.
LibraryThing member booksandbosox
I couldn't even tell you why I finished this book. Morbid curiosity? Or do I just hate to quit? I could not stand this book. Boring, despite the graphic and unnecessary sex. Don't call them chapters when they're hundreds of pages long - call them parts please. Overuse of the same words, and I'm
Show More
pretty sure Updike just loves listening to himself. Most of this book was unnecessary to tell the story, which ended up being incredibly uninteresting anyway. Regret that I finished it. Show Less
LibraryThing member mdomsky
Set during the Vietnam War, this story takes place in a small town called Eastwick. Three devorcee's, Alexandra, Sukie, and Jane, have discovered that they have the ability to change the world around them. They live an alternative lifestyle in their small town as single mothers, witches, and lovers
Full of artsy, rambling prose and odd, questionable character development, I was a little bored by this book. Seeing inside all the different characters was interesting, but but by the end, I disliked some of the characters, and hated the rest of them. There was no reason for the book to be that long either. But it's by a classic writer.
Show More
to the mostly married men who live there. When a loud, rich, and unusual man moves into a mansion on the edge of town, it changes the lives of the three witches. Full of artsy, rambling prose and odd, questionable character development, I was a little bored by this book. Seeing inside all the different characters was interesting, but but by the end, I disliked some of the characters, and hated the rest of them. There was no reason for the book to be that long either. But it's by a classic writer.
Show Less
LibraryThing member susanbevans
Despite the fact that The Witches of Eastwick is the story of three of the most irredeemable women I've ever read about, it is a wonderfully imaginative book full of sharp wit and snark-tastic satire. Updike is a master of the elements of good literature, giving the reader a plot and setting rich
What a treat for my final read and book review of 2009! I had a delicious and enchanting time reading The Witches of Eastwick, and I recommend that you go pick it up - immediately... if not sooner! This was my first foray into the compelling world of John Updike literature, and I am happy to say it won't be my last.
Show More
in detail and powerful in design. In reading The Witches of Eastwick, I was transported to Eastwick, Rhode Island in the 60s. I could see and feel everything as if the action were taking place in front of my very eyes. John Updike put a spell on me!What a treat for my final read and book review of 2009! I had a delicious and enchanting time reading The Witches of Eastwick, and I recommend that you go pick it up - immediately... if not sooner! This was my first foray into the compelling world of John Updike literature, and I am happy to say it won't be my last.
Show Less
LibraryThing member edwinbcn
Last year, I read The widows of Eastwick by the same author, which I found extremely disappointing. That book seemed "written for the money", unreal and totally uninteresting. Fortunately, "the witches" is a very warm, and beautifully written book. Updike's skills in writing radiates from every
I had some difficulty with the discrepancy between the novel itself and the blurb texts and drum beating around the novel. While the male protagonist, Darryl Von Horne, does seem a mysterious character, it would seem a bit too overworked to assume that he is the devil. Also the magic displayed by the women is far-fetched. For some reason professional reviewers seem to want to push this approach to the reading and understanding of the novel. However, the novel can just as easily be read as a lustful romance. Entertaining, but not in any way outstanding.
Show More
page.I had some difficulty with the discrepancy between the novel itself and the blurb texts and drum beating around the novel. While the male protagonist, Darryl Von Horne, does seem a mysterious character, it would seem a bit too overworked to assume that he is the devil. Also the magic displayed by the women is far-fetched. For some reason professional reviewers seem to want to push this approach to the reading and understanding of the novel. However, the novel can just as easily be read as a lustful romance. Entertaining, but not in any way outstanding.
Show Less
LibraryThing member alana_leigh
1/27/09
My book club settled upon reading this book this morning... and then later in the day, we heard that John Updike had passed away.
2/12/09
Finished this last night and while I know I didn't love it, I must admit that the writing was exquisite and the plot certainly made me think, and I imagine
A brief summary: The Witches of Eastwick unsurprisingly focuses on three witches who live in the fictional Rhode Island town of Eastwick during the late 1960s. Magic witchy power is established as the result of leaving or being left by a man, and so our three divorced women have formed their cozy coven, where chief activities seem to be drinking and discussing the other people in the small town of Eastwick (particularly the married men they sleep with). While the witches themselves seem to help create a good amount of the town's gossip, the real show starts when the dilapidated mansion on the edge of town is purchased by a devilish single man named Darryl Van Horne. A mysterious scientist and collector of tacky art, the women are quickly drawn into a foursome with this fellow, assembling to play tennis and enjoy orgies in his hot tub. But after a shocking event in town that occurs midway through the book, things can't possibly stay the same.
Whenever I read a male author writing about an intimate circle of women (or vice versa, I imagine), I tend to pause and consider if it all rings true. I suppose the thing that surprised me most was that I did fine Updike to be fairly accurate with his women (treating them perhaps more as human beings rather than women), but once in a while, there was a false note or a simplistic detail that didn't quite feel right. But overall, that was my only true critique of the writing itself.
In various reviews, I have heard this book declared to be misogynistic. Now... I'm not entirely sure that I agree with the accusation, but I do find a few things to be interesting on that topic of the male/female dynamic/power struggle. For instance... The insertion of this male figure into a circle of women as a plot point. At first, I assumed he might have magic powers, thus making him more a warlock in command of a coven (after all, he seemed to be a scientific genius and a musical prodigy, as well as quite cold to the touch), but he turned out to be impotent in that manner of speaking... Just a devil genius who wasn't so very devilish as simply debauched (which is perhaps fitting for a lesser demon who isn't even so strong as to really wreak true havoc). The three women become completely wrapped up in his existence, bending themselves to fit his needs and yield to his requests -- he even starts to direct their creative energies (for example, Alexandra, a sculptress, abandons the small figurines she had previously done at his suggestion that she work in a larger medium, only to end up discouraged). While their relationships prove interesting (both as a larger group and as individuals played off of each other), Darryl ultimately isn't as interesting a figure on his own so much as he's interesting for the effect he produces on those around him.
Another notch against Updike in terms of a misogynist accusation is the ending (which I shall not explicitly state here). Sure, we have ladies who appear rather unhappy or at least unsatisfied throughout the course of the novel, but I find it hard to believe that things could turn out so tidily after the three join together to cast a spell that intends to bring death to another character. I wasn't exactly expecting equal comeuppance or anything, or even punishment for their actions, but it seemed a little too neat in how we backed away from what appears to be happy endings all around.
To the idea of magic... I have a small problem with the initial idea that a woman's powers only manifest themselves as a result of a man -- being left or leaving. It seems to be a somewhat male concept that magic would only come from this particular relationship break. He kept rather close to certain ideas of witchery, but it seemed a very fluid thing in the novel that popped up when it was convenient or amusing. One thing I did like, as it pertains to witchcraft, is that oftentimes, the magic was used for rather selfish little things. Now... I think that some more good natured magic could have been injected (we got a good look at squirrel-killing and such), but it's an interesting concept that, since magic became part of their existence like anything else, there wasn't a particular devotion to only using powers for good or evil. It helps, I suppose, that it wasn't as though they were incredibly powerful. Alexandra creates a rainstorm to clear a beach so her dog can run. Sukie turns milk to cream for her coffee. Jane seemed somewhat disappointingly ordinary as a witch when it turned out she could fly.
In any case, clearly you can tell from my half-formed thoughts that this was an interesting novel and I'm quite looking forward to my book club's discussion of it. I've been told that this is not a characteristic Updike novel, but as long as his writing is of such a quality elsewhere, I shall certainly be reading more of his work in the future.
My book club settled upon reading this book this morning... and then later in the day, we heard that John Updike had passed away.
2/12/09
Finished this last night and while I know I didn't love it, I must admit that the writing was exquisite and the plot certainly made me think, and I imagine
Show More
I shall keep thinking about it for some time.A brief summary: The Witches of Eastwick unsurprisingly focuses on three witches who live in the fictional Rhode Island town of Eastwick during the late 1960s. Magic witchy power is established as the result of leaving or being left by a man, and so our three divorced women have formed their cozy coven, where chief activities seem to be drinking and discussing the other people in the small town of Eastwick (particularly the married men they sleep with). While the witches themselves seem to help create a good amount of the town's gossip, the real show starts when the dilapidated mansion on the edge of town is purchased by a devilish single man named Darryl Van Horne. A mysterious scientist and collector of tacky art, the women are quickly drawn into a foursome with this fellow, assembling to play tennis and enjoy orgies in his hot tub. But after a shocking event in town that occurs midway through the book, things can't possibly stay the same.
Whenever I read a male author writing about an intimate circle of women (or vice versa, I imagine), I tend to pause and consider if it all rings true. I suppose the thing that surprised me most was that I did fine Updike to be fairly accurate with his women (treating them perhaps more as human beings rather than women), but once in a while, there was a false note or a simplistic detail that didn't quite feel right. But overall, that was my only true critique of the writing itself.
In various reviews, I have heard this book declared to be misogynistic. Now... I'm not entirely sure that I agree with the accusation, but I do find a few things to be interesting on that topic of the male/female dynamic/power struggle. For instance... The insertion of this male figure into a circle of women as a plot point. At first, I assumed he might have magic powers, thus making him more a warlock in command of a coven (after all, he seemed to be a scientific genius and a musical prodigy, as well as quite cold to the touch), but he turned out to be impotent in that manner of speaking... Just a devil genius who wasn't so very devilish as simply debauched (which is perhaps fitting for a lesser demon who isn't even so strong as to really wreak true havoc). The three women become completely wrapped up in his existence, bending themselves to fit his needs and yield to his requests -- he even starts to direct their creative energies (for example, Alexandra, a sculptress, abandons the small figurines she had previously done at his suggestion that she work in a larger medium, only to end up discouraged). While their relationships prove interesting (both as a larger group and as individuals played off of each other), Darryl ultimately isn't as interesting a figure on his own so much as he's interesting for the effect he produces on those around him.
Another notch against Updike in terms of a misogynist accusation is the ending (which I shall not explicitly state here). Sure, we have ladies who appear rather unhappy or at least unsatisfied throughout the course of the novel, but I find it hard to believe that things could turn out so tidily after the three join together to cast a spell that intends to bring death to another character. I wasn't exactly expecting equal comeuppance or anything, or even punishment for their actions, but it seemed a little too neat in how we backed away from what appears to be happy endings all around.
To the idea of magic... I have a small problem with the initial idea that a woman's powers only manifest themselves as a result of a man -- being left or leaving. It seems to be a somewhat male concept that magic would only come from this particular relationship break. He kept rather close to certain ideas of witchery, but it seemed a very fluid thing in the novel that popped up when it was convenient or amusing. One thing I did like, as it pertains to witchcraft, is that oftentimes, the magic was used for rather selfish little things. Now... I think that some more good natured magic could have been injected (we got a good look at squirrel-killing and such), but it's an interesting concept that, since magic became part of their existence like anything else, there wasn't a particular devotion to only using powers for good or evil. It helps, I suppose, that it wasn't as though they were incredibly powerful. Alexandra creates a rainstorm to clear a beach so her dog can run. Sukie turns milk to cream for her coffee. Jane seemed somewhat disappointingly ordinary as a witch when it turned out she could fly.
In any case, clearly you can tell from my half-formed thoughts that this was an interesting novel and I'm quite looking forward to my book club's discussion of it. I've been told that this is not a characteristic Updike novel, but as long as his writing is of such a quality elsewhere, I shall certainly be reading more of his work in the future.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AshRyan
At first, this book seems like something different from Updike, with its female leads and its fantastic element of witchcraft. But it soon becomes apparent that it is the usual story about the affairs of unpleasant, middle-aged narcissists in small-town New England...but the women in question are
Show More
even more unsympathetic than most of his characters, going so far as to commit murder for the thinnest reason of petty jealousy, and suffering no real consequences for their actions. Completely unrealistic, in every sense, not just scientifically but artistically. And often just plain nasty. It is fairly well written, and amusing in places, but in the end it is not his best work. Show Less
LibraryThing member EdgeOfInsane
I will say that I just read the book for the first time about a week ago, and have yet to see the movie. I thought the characters, or witches, were a little nuts. At least 2 of them seemed to have no emotions whatsoever, except when it came to revenge or some sort.
While I got an idea of who Sukie
While I got an idea of who Sukie
Show More
and Alex were, I had no clue who Jane was. Her character seemed like it was a figment of your imagination. I also thought that none of the characters were fully developed. There was good drama, and enough witchy-ness to keep the reader wanting more. I just wish I had gotten a sense of who everyone truly was. Show Less
LibraryThing member brakketh
Enjoyable Updike writing.
LibraryThing member lesindy
The witches are horrible sluts. I can't empathize or care about them at all. The movie is much better.
LibraryThing member DanielAlgara
3.5 really. And this on a Modified Updike Scale. Most authors wouldn't reach a two on a Modified Updike Scale. Word.
LibraryThing member ashleytylerjohn
A lovely book, very different from the film. The film is frothy and silly and very Touchstone 1980s (whether they made it or not, I can't remember--but it's that kind of mood). The book is much more serious, although (given that it's about three women inadvertently summoning the devil) it's also a
Updike is well-known to be a terrific writer, and there's almost nothing I enjoy more than a good fantasy from a great writer. Not my all-time favourite book, so no 5 stars, but I have nothing to complain of here.
Just don't read it expecting the film in print. The film kept the central premise and the characters, but the tone is entirely changed.
Show More
bit of a hoot.Updike is well-known to be a terrific writer, and there's almost nothing I enjoy more than a good fantasy from a great writer. Not my all-time favourite book, so no 5 stars, but I have nothing to complain of here.
Just don't read it expecting the film in print. The film kept the central premise and the characters, but the tone is entirely changed.
Show Less
LibraryThing member elam11
Originally, I told myself I'd give this book to the 10% mark to grab me, and then I'd DNF it. I did make it to 40%! But as I reflected on it this weekend, I realized I still couldn't say I was actually enjoying it at all on pretty much any level. Time to cut my losses.
Turn-Offs, in order of
- a male author writing female characters rhapsodizing about their newfound embrace of womanhood as they got older, got divorced, became witches. Bold move, Cotton. WORSE, there were 2 different places in which a female character muses on that natural healing nature/instinct of women... sexual healing, natch. The more a guy is a depressed, useless, schlubby, unattractive loser, the more they just want to open their bodies to him to provide him that sexual healing. Of course. That screams male wish-fulfillment waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than it does female sexual empowerment!
At least 2/3 of the women are sleeping with married men (not their first time doing that, either...) with no compunctions about it, but neither do they seem especially happy or fulfilled by it. And then they all sort of compete for/share in the "affections" of the newcomer to the town, who is this abrasive, overbearing, mansplaining dick.
- hard to catch any of the historicity of the setting. Peak sexual revolution and social upheaval, and none of it more than barely mentioned in passing a couple times. What's the point?
- sentences for days. I don't think of myself as the kind of person typically bothered by superfluous details in books (I like all the food descriptions in ASoIaF!), but damn, those were a lot of words to say not a lot about nothing very important, over and over. So many semicolons.
- it was hard to get a grip on how said magic existed. I'm willing to give some leeway on this, but this is an otherwise real-life historical ("Vietnam era") setting with otherwise normal life crap going on, but their magic is definitely real, apparently. It's just taken for granted that they found this outlet, which... if this is an integral part to their new identities... And I mean, I'm cool with unexplained magic, and authors/creators often go wrong in trying to justify or explain the inexplicable. But this is not set up necessarily as "the world is magic, deal with it," so it's just this odd choice that's not even the point of anything, so why...?
Turn-Offs, in order of
Show More
irritation:- a male author writing female characters rhapsodizing about their newfound embrace of womanhood as they got older, got divorced, became witches. Bold move, Cotton. WORSE, there were 2 different places in which a female character muses on that natural healing nature/instinct of women... sexual healing, natch. The more a guy is a depressed, useless, schlubby, unattractive loser, the more they just want to open their bodies to him to provide him that sexual healing. Of course. That screams male wish-fulfillment waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than it does female sexual empowerment!
At least 2/3 of the women are sleeping with married men (not their first time doing that, either...) with no compunctions about it, but neither do they seem especially happy or fulfilled by it. And then they all sort of compete for/share in the "affections" of the newcomer to the town, who is this abrasive, overbearing, mansplaining dick.
- hard to catch any of the historicity of the setting. Peak sexual revolution and social upheaval, and none of it more than barely mentioned in passing a couple times. What's the point?
- sentences for days. I don't think of myself as the kind of person typically bothered by superfluous details in books (I like all the food descriptions in ASoIaF!), but damn, those were a lot of words to say not a lot about nothing very important, over and over. So many semicolons.
- it was hard to get a grip on how said magic existed. I'm willing to give some leeway on this, but this is an otherwise real-life historical ("Vietnam era") setting with otherwise normal life crap going on, but their magic is definitely real, apparently. It's just taken for granted that they found this outlet, which... if this is an integral part to their new identities... And I mean, I'm cool with unexplained magic, and authors/creators often go wrong in trying to justify or explain the inexplicable. But this is not set up necessarily as "the world is magic, deal with it," so it's just this odd choice that's not even the point of anything, so why...?
Show Less
LibraryThing member starbox
I've never seen the movie, but after finishing this I wasnt able to envisage Cher, Pfeiffer and Kidman as the characters therein. This is an absolutely stunning read, as Updike takes his usual (but always brilliantly crafted) themes of sex and dalliance in a New England setting...and adds a touch
Three divorcees - mothers in their 30s with jobs and kids and dogs in a small Rhode Island town- meet up for drinks, gossip and a bit of witchcraft. There's earth-mother Alexandra, with her sculpture, health fears and flabby thighs, sparky red-head journalist Sukie and the most unknowable and dark cellist Jane.
Then one day wealthy stranger Darryl van Horne moves into town; his scientific interests make him something of a wizard and all three make a play for him.
Updike can't write a bad novel; I gravitate more to his tales of real people, but this was unputdownable. Emphatically not about comedy or special effects (I think of the movie and feel unmotivated to watch it) with themes of murder, suicide, death-wishing and orgiastic playtimes at Mr Horne's mansion. All set to read the sequel....
Show More
of Halloween. Three divorcees - mothers in their 30s with jobs and kids and dogs in a small Rhode Island town- meet up for drinks, gossip and a bit of witchcraft. There's earth-mother Alexandra, with her sculpture, health fears and flabby thighs, sparky red-head journalist Sukie and the most unknowable and dark cellist Jane.
Then one day wealthy stranger Darryl van Horne moves into town; his scientific interests make him something of a wizard and all three make a play for him.
Updike can't write a bad novel; I gravitate more to his tales of real people, but this was unputdownable. Emphatically not about comedy or special effects (I think of the movie and feel unmotivated to watch it) with themes of murder, suicide, death-wishing and orgiastic playtimes at Mr Horne's mansion. All set to read the sequel....
Show Less
LibraryThing member Equestrienne
This book was not great......but the movie is really bad, so the book can really luxuriate in comparison.
The witches were just okay until Daryl showed up; after that they were thoroughly unlikable.
I kind of wish John Irving had just issued a press release with his thoughts and feelings on strong
The witches were just okay until Daryl showed up; after that they were thoroughly unlikable.
I kind of wish John Irving had just issued a press release with his thoughts and feelings on strong
Show More
women and his issues with them. Show Less
LibraryThing member EricRosenfield
Beautiful language, but the plot's a mess and doesn't really make sense. I understand why they changed it for the movie.
LibraryThing member Ghost_Boy
Most people probably have see the 80s movie with Jack Nicholson, Cher, Susan Sarandon, and Michelle Pfeiffer. They probably liked the movie like me. However, once you read the book, you'll see how different the book actually is. For starters it takes place in the 60s and not the 80s. Also (minor
Show More
spoiler) Darryl is bisexual. Yet Jack Nicholson was born to play he role if you ask me and they even got quotes from the book too. Yes the movie was rated R, but this book is beyond R. Watching the movie you don't get the Updike feel, but the book is defiantly Updike. I still find it odd this is one of his only fantasy books. He mostly writes plan fiction like Rabbit Run (which is far better in my opinion). Show Less
LibraryThing member kristykay22
It has been a while since I was so unsure how exactly I felt about a book. Updike is obviously very smart and dang the guy can turn a phrase -- he has pages and pages of heavy lifting sentences composed of phrase after descriptive phrase, long paragraphs describing houses, yards, the town of
Show More
Eastwick, and the bodies and mannerisms of our three protagonist witches and the banal and slightly-magical world in which they live. Interspersed with these grand paragraphs are fast-paced conversations, rambling dialogue, and meandering thoughts. Plus more than a little sex, often suddenly and roughly introduced after the reader was lulled into the pacing of the aforementioned rigorous descriptions. The three witches are all divorcees living in the small Rhode Island city of Eastwick in the Vietnam-era. They have kids that they mostly resent and ignore, and ex-husbands that were sacrificed for their wives' independence. You see, breaking free from their traditional roles as housewives unleashed witchy powers, sexual urges, and a real dislike for conventionality. Mostly they use their magic for small acts of revenge (untying shoelaces, killing barking dogs, making bugs and leaves come out of their enemies mouths), or convenience (turning milk into cream in a diner, messing up each other's tennis games). The three of them have formed a little coven and get together once a week to gossip, drink, and make passes at each other. Then a mysterious stranger, Daryl Van Horne, moves to town and shakes things up for all three witches. It soon becomes clear that he is also a bit magical and.... weird. And soon the weekly get togethers move to Daryl's house with lots of hot tubbing, sexuality, and witchy jealousy, especially when non-witch (or is she?) Jenny comes on the scene. There are some interesting, but also confusing shifts in point of view. The book is generally told in third person through the perspective of one of the three witches, but a couple (very disturbing) scenes follow a local man who one of them is having an affair with and his wife. And at the mid-point of the novel and briefly towards the end we also get a "we" perspective from the town itself, apparently looking back at the events in the novel. Finally, the ending is not what I wanted at all from these characters and, this is a me problem only, there is a lot of cancer stuff in the book that I could have done without. And yet I didn't hate it! Although I also didn't really like it. I never saw the movie version of the book, but from what I gather, the book is pretty different. I want to watch it now to see exactly how -- plus I love me some Cher.... Show Less
LibraryThing member Carol420
Set in the fictional Rhode Island town of Eastwick circa 1970, this novel follows for a year the lives of three divorced women in their 30's - actually most of the ex's are dead, Sukie, Alexandra, and Jane, who have unusual powers to affect the course of events. Though they are powerful in a
These three women become flustered when an enigmatic man, Darryl Van Horne, moves into and fixes up a run-down mansion on the outskirts of town. They all vie for his attention during his sybaritic hot-tub gatherings, yet none of them can really penetrate his mysterious aura.
There is little plot in this story as attention is focused on the interactions of the three women and Darryl. The author's tendency to insert lengthy digressions, observations, and descriptions on all manner of subjects in most every scene makes for tedious reading. Unfortunately, the interesting dynamics of the story lose steam by the end of the book.
Actually 2.5 stars
Show More
special way, they are not feminists, per se; they more represent the mystery and subtle desires and capabilities of women. Hardly anti-men, they have had numerous affairs with some of the married men in the town justified largely because the men have been beaten down by haranguing wives. The townspeople barely tolerate them.These three women become flustered when an enigmatic man, Darryl Van Horne, moves into and fixes up a run-down mansion on the outskirts of town. They all vie for his attention during his sybaritic hot-tub gatherings, yet none of them can really penetrate his mysterious aura.
There is little plot in this story as attention is focused on the interactions of the three women and Darryl. The author's tendency to insert lengthy digressions, observations, and descriptions on all manner of subjects in most every scene makes for tedious reading. Unfortunately, the interesting dynamics of the story lose steam by the end of the book.
Actually 2.5 stars
Show Less
LibraryThing member mykl-s
The occult in modern times.
Awards
LA Times Book Prize (Finalist — Fiction — 1984)
Brooklyn Magazine's Literary United States (Rhode Island)