Updike, John. The Witches of Eastwick
New York: Random House, Inc., 1984

Although a New York Times Bestseller, John Updike’s The Witches of Eastwick leaves a lot to be desired. Unaware of Updike’s misogynistic nature, I went forward reading the book that inspired one of my favorite movies. It is with a very heavy heart that I report that I still love the movie…much more so than the book; granted, the only real parallel points were character’s names. I went into this situation assuming I would love the result, but was disappointed when it took me longer than a few days to really get into the story (it usually takes about ten seconds) and even more so disappointed when I didn’t even like the characters I was reading about.

The Witches of Eastwick revolves around the lives of three, well, witches living divorced in the sea-side Eastwick, Rhode Island. There’s Alexandra, mother of four and artiste extraordinaire; Sukie, the gossip queen and columnist; and Jane, the flying cellist. Soon enough all three are vying for the attention of Darryl Van Horne, Eastwick’s new mansion-dweller. After a steamy two on two rendezvous, the witches find themselves in a quad of love that is interrupted by the young, beautiful and fertile Jenny. When Darryl decides to marry Jenny, the witches cast a spell that they fear gives her cancer; however, their sick, main goal was for Jenny to die. Mission accomplished. The novel ends with the women creating their own lives. A simple spell requiring them to visualize their lives gives them exactly what they want, and sets the scene for the sequel, The Widows of Eastwick.

Although not much can be said for the plot, I was amazed by Updike’s prose; something that genuinely left me able to see Eastwick. One of my favorite scenes is in the beginning when Alexandra decides to clear the beach so her dog and familiar, Coal, can run around off his leash. Her distaste towards the young beach-dwellers is more than evident, but the storm that follows is visualized perfectly in the minds eyes; something I’ve heard Updike is a master at. I knew what everything looked like, almost to the point of annoyance. I found Witches to be more a description than a story, albeit, a beautiful description.

From a non-feminine perspective I find Updike’s revulsion for women to be almost comical. His female characters are petty and selfish, with none of them seeming to have any maternal instinct. Their kids “yammer” for food and animals attempt to eat wax out of hunger; if I didn’t see child and animal neglect as serious issues, I would have laughed. The women are jealous and insecure with their age and try sleeping with every man in town to ease their egos. They’re distasteful, a point I think Updike would like to prove for every woman if he could.

What bothered me the most was the fact that Updike didn’t seem to do much research on witchcraft; it seems like he skimmed some spell books and text on the Salem Witch Trials and went on to create a story that juxtaposes women and witches. It’s an interesting subject and if more details on witchcraft history had been incorporated, I might have been able to get into the book easier. All in all I wouldn’t say that The witches of Eastwick is necessarily a bad book; I know there are many people who liked it enough to make it a best seller. It’s just kind of boring and “he-man woman-hating.”