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 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. ( )

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 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 . . . ( )

Updike uses the unique idea of utilizing a coven to convey the chaos and moral confusion of the 1960s. I'm still not sure whether I actually liked this book or not, though. It's a bit odd. ( )

Updike understands and clearly represents the feel of New England towns. There are a couple of truly disturbing parts, and the witchcraft seems unbalanced. I can't figure out if it's misogynistic or simply anti the culture of the 1960s. ( )

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 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. ( )