Oct

20

I Am Sorry, John Updike

Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

I don’t think it’s that uncommon to be somewhat literary and have some built in prejudices against writers you’re not very familiar with.  Personally, I have never felt much love towards the big male late 20th century writers like Updike and Cheever and Mailer and such.  (I make an exception for Roth, whose great work makes up for his not-so-great work.)  I haven’t done much reading in this area due to my prejudice, and now I must apologize.

Because, John Updike, I just read The Witches of Eastwick, and it was incredible.  I have been unfair.  Not only is Witches incredible, it’s also a book about and involving women.  Few men even attempt that kind of book and even fewer succeed.  Beyond a few missteps (I have to assume a bit of vanity when he has a female character think something great about having sex with a much older man…) it really hit the spot.  And one thing I really loved about it was just how old school it was.  While written in the 80’s, it’s set in the 60’s, and the women are all quite young (early and late 30’s) but have several children and the way Updike writes about their bodies with such honesty was one of the book’s high points to me.  He manages to be captivated by them, but also allows them to look upon themselves critically.

It was also a refreshing change from the current trends in magical realism, which is getting to be really tired and overdone.  Updike just eases you into it slowly and makes it all fit really well with the characters and the plot.  Yes, they are witches, more than that, they are witches in a world where witchcraft is not unheard of.  Even better, Updike’s magical realism has an actual point.  (Oh, how many of today’s young writers need to learn this lesson.)  They are witches and they are ostracized; but they’re also divorced and working and not all that interested in wifely or motherly duties.  (Actually, their neglect for their children was one thing that seemed off to me.  Updike wants to praise and admire women’s ability to bear children, but then seems to want them to cast off the same children once they show up. )

Reading the book was a pleasure (or listening, in my case; it was a new-ish recording with a great reader).  It was well plotted and always interesting, even if it ended a bit abruptly.  I am almost a little curious to see the movie.  I expect it to be completely wrong.  But I admit, I knew when I read the book that Jack Nicholson was in it and while I like him I think he’s often miscast.  I doubt that’s the case here.  This is actually one time when he’s really perfect for the part, I could visualize him the whole way through.  On the other hand, the women seem awfully miscast–Cher as the matronly Lexa?  Susan Sarandon may have the snap to play Jane, but Sukie’s the redhead…  And Michelle Pfeiffer in there makes me think they see Sukie as nothing more than the “hot” one.  I certainly doubt any of them will have anything resembling the bodies Updike describes so well in his book.  It is a very sensual book, for sure, so much took of bodies and skin and features.

As for where to go from here, I am not sure if I should read Updike’s recent sequel, The Widows of Eastwick, which I heard wasn’t great, or his classic Rabbit books, which I see as not being really my thing.  I’m undecided.  I’ll probably wait a while anyway, since I have plenty of books on reserve these days as it is.  I am nearly at 100 books for the year, and I don’t think it’s possible to hit 141 like I did last year, but I think 120 is a reasonable goal.


Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind