Revisiting the Witches ~ A Book Diary Review of ‘The Widows of Eastwick’ By John Updike Part IV (Dedicated to The Scarlet Letter (jjo) Whose Kind Words of Support Inspired Me to Publish All Four Parts of ‘WOE’)

Saturday, August 15

                After cheating on this book with three other novels I decided to go back and see if I could patch up the differences between ‘The Widows’ and myself.  Without looking back at the previous notes I made (Part I, Part II, Part III) I can say that after finishing the book my feelings for it was that it was well written but boring. 

There is little doubt that John Updike was a competent writer but I don’t think I would apply the word ‘compelling’ to this novel and wonder if this reflects on his other novels and short stories?  In fact, I’m going to amuse myself a little (primarily because I don’t think I got my fifteen dollars worth I spent on the novel) with the snippet reviews that were used to entice readers on the cover and back of the book.    

“Ingenious…This isn’t writing.  It is magic.” – The New York Times Book Review.  Far be it for me to disagree with the ‘New York Times Book Review’ but I’m going to disagree.  The gals do start to practice magic again, and a lot of this story seemed to stem off on what happened during the first novel which makes me wonder why there wasn’t a preface to explain the plot of ‘Witches of Eastwick’ which was first novel published in 1984.  Did Updike change plot and character elements in ‘Widows’ that were inconsistent to ‘Witches’?  I have a gut feeling that was the case but without looking at the first book (which I am not going to do because this one disappointed me) I will remain ignorant on the question.  

“With its fiery energy and wicked humor, ‘The Widows of Eastwick’ is a truly enjoyable book to read (and) might just be (John Updike’s) best novel since 1990’s Pulitzer Prize-winning ‘Rabbit at Rest’.  – The Kansas City Star  I found ‘Widows’ far from energetic, not very humorous unless you are the type of person who finds various symptoms of old age and sudden death rib ticklers, the book got better (it still wasn’t enjoyable) in the last 100 pages or so. 

Dazzling Updikean prose…Here’s a bet his work will keep fresh for generations, inciting laughter, wonder and sensuous shivers.” – Los Angeles Times.  Yup, there was a lot of descriptive prose to describe what little plot there was.  ‘Widows’ had a very 1970’s feel about it in that every movement a character dared to make was analyzed and then reanalyzed in case a self doubt wasn’t examined down to the last wayward atom.  As far as what future generations will see fit to amuse themselves with, I don’t know if ‘Widows’ we be one of the books on the list.  I did experience a few chuckles but it was usually related to the comparison of one of the characters to a world event of some sort.  I’m sure you have already picked up that I experienced no shivers sensuous or otherwise while reading this novel.

An amusing romp…made unexpectedly moving by the author’s profundity and his renowned dexterity with language… (Updike is a) master of making us want to guffaw and weep in the same sentence.” – The Houston Chronicle.  Shouldn’t that be “guffaw and weep and snore in the same sentence?”  Maybe it was just me, but I’m a fan of the word of the day from Dictionary.com and I could have sworn that I saw many of the words used in various paragraphs almost in the order they were e-mailed (I have been known to write a word quizzes based on the words of the day).  It isn’t out of the realm of possibility and now my heart softens a little for Updike in that he may have shared the same love affair for Word of the Day.

“Elegant prose and unfailing wit…There is moral courage in these pages.  And kindness too.” – The Washington Times.  I think part of my dislike about this novel was that I found none of the characters particularly likeable which made the flimsy plot all that more unbearable.  The last thing I thought about ‘Widows’ was anything what-so-ever having to do with kindness.  Lots of nagging and lamenting about present hurts and times past but not a lot of kindness; sure the three women tried to right past wrongs but more out of boredom than actual regret and if regret was displayed it was because they could no longer party like a ‘Girls Gone Wild’ video.  In many passages I contemplated if Updike was writing about his own fears of cancer and death.  Until a moment ago, when I looked it up, I didn’t know what he died of, but it was lung cancer which is reflected in two of his characters. 

Brilliantly observed…Updike still casts a very clever spell.” – Minneapolis Star Tribune.  Spell binding I would have to say ‘Widows of Eastwick’ was not.  I suppose many may feel different.  Even though I didn’t like the book I still feel a tad mean spirited writing about how I didn’t like it considering that it was Updike’s last novel.  Perhaps if I were of Updike’s generation or even the age of the women in the novel I might feel differently, but try as I might I just didn’t find anything charming about the book except that it was well written in a clever sort of way yet it felt as if it didn’t go anywhere.  

So here is how it stands.  This fall ABC will debut a series based on the ‘Witches of Eastwick’ but the characters have different names so I imagine it will a whole ‘Star Trek the Next Generation’ sort of thing.  Probably between then and now, the movie will be shown on various cable channels (in fact I think within the last few months it was on either HBO or Cinemax).  I’m betting that ‘Widows’ was optioned for a movie that will never be made.         

Westerfield © 2009