Book Review - The Stepford Wives

[BlackSnake]

Do anyone know the word count of "The Stepford Wives"? I picked it up in the grocery store and read half of it before we headed to the checkout. I didn't buy it. Just curious. It only has three chapters and looks more like a short story.

 

[BlackSnake]

The Stepford Wives
Paperback
Ira Levin, 25 May, 2004 HarperTorch
List Price: $6.99
ISBN: 0060738197

 

[BlackSnake]

Here is one review by Jennifer Santiago

 

[BlackSnake]

Here is an Excert from Chapter 1 on HarperCollins.com

 

[BlackSnake]

Imprint: HarperCollins; ISBN: 0060738197; On Sale: 05/25/2004; Format: Mass Market PB; Subformat: ; Length: ; Trimsize: 4 3/16 x 6 3/4; Pages: 208; $6.99; $9.99(CAN)


You can see that it's 208 pages.

 

[BlackSnake]

Here's a review from Barnes & Noble.com

A reviewer, A reviewer, June 7, 2004,
Could have been so much more...
I would have given this book 5 stars had the ending been better. The idea of this book is a very interesting one, especially in today's self obsessed world. The author however decided to leave many questions unanswered. if you read 'Rosemary's Baby,' you can guess the ending without any trouble by the end of page 20. Leaving the ending so open ended seems like the author just wanted to end the book already.

 

[minsue]

I haven't read it since I was in about 7th or 8th grade, but I liked it. At least I could sleep after reading it, unlike Levin's Rosemary's Baby. That one made quite an impression me at the time. (The only reason I remember how old I was when reading it is because of the bed I had at the time. I remember sitting up in the middle of the night, taking the book off my headboard and throwing it across the room because I couldn't sleep with it above my head. )

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I saw The Stepford Wives – the original, not the remake – on TV not that long ago, but I obviously didn’t have the “seventies” mind-set to appreciate it for what it was intended to be, originally.

I saw it as a demonstration how when one person is allowed to dictate the possible dreams and goals of another, it first requires the taking away of that which makes the other person human. After that, there can be no real human interaction, since that other person has been turned into a narcissistic extension of their ruler.

Having no choice makes one less than human. If someone had the ability to stop people who differed from their ideal, or from changing and evolving into something not yet known, exercising the power to force them to stop would be cruel vanity. In fact, it would be fascism!

What motivates the desire for such power is the opposite of love.

Of course, in the 1970's The Stepford Wives was concentrated upon the Women’s Liberation, so their focus was narrowed to just that topic, and they missed the full spectrum of similar situations.

The 1998 movie Pleasantville covered the full spectrum (including Women’s Liberation) with an equally intriguing story idea, and brought it through to a satisfactory conclusion.

I have been interested to see what Hollywood would produce with the remake of Stepford Wives, but so far have been unable to get to see it. Reviews and reports are split – some like it as a satire, others opine that the satire was taken too far.

I am waiting to see whether the promise of the story has been updated to include all of the “aberrant lifestyles,” or if the focus has remained tightly observing only the heterosexual battle of the sexes.

That the producers have chosen satire certainly doesn’t discourage me. Pleasantville was also a comic satire that made strong points with a very entertaining script and one of the most literate uses of special effects I have encountered.

 

[minsue]

I haven't seen either movie. I tend to get irritated when watching movies from books unless I haven't read the books beforehand. The current Stepford movie appears to be removed enough from the book, and my memory of the book faded enough, that I'll probably see it.

 

[Clare Quilty]

The Stepford Wives
Paperback
Ira Levin, 25 May, 2004 HarperTorch
List Price: $6.99
ISBN: 0060738197

2004???? I saw this movie as a kid back in the 1970s. This must be the screenplay to the newer version, or perhaps there was no novel or novelization associated with the original film.

 

[minsue]

2004???? I saw this movie as a kid back in the 1970s. This must be the screenplay to the newer version, or perhaps there was no novel or novelization associated with the original film.

The original film was based on the novel by Ira Levin. And no, it wasn't written in 2004. I would assume the particular printing that Blacksnake was looking at was run this year. Makes sense. They always do that when they make a movie from a book.

 

[Clare Quilty]

I would assume the particular printing that Blacksnake was looking at was run this year. Makes sense. They always do that when they make a movie from a book.

I mistook that for the original date of publication.

 

[Guest]

Mingey, you must see the film of Rosemary's Baby, by Polanski. Brilliant, a fave of mine. Not as scary as the book. I love that you couldn't sleep with it above your bed. P.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I read somewhere that Levin just tossed this off as an idea at a cocktail party or something. He hadn't even intended to turn it into a book until someone apoproached him about making the story into a movie, then he decided he'd better publish and get his name on the copyright.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

Just saw the movie yesterday in the theater. I can't imagine this is how the original was intended. (loved christopher walken and bette midler)
Now that i have seen the movie, i will read the book. i am sure that the book will be much better, they always are.

 

[minsue]

Mingey, you must see the film of Rosemary's Baby, by Polanski. Brilliant, a fave of mine. Not as scary as the book. I love that you couldn't sleep with it above your bed. P.

I may. Either one wouldn't frighten me now the way it did then, but there's the whole psychic scar issue to take into account. I still can't watch the movie Watcher in the Woods because I first saw it home alone, at night of course, as a kid and it was made by Disney for fuck's sake!

 

[Clare Quilty]

Mingey, you must see the film of Rosemary's Baby, by Polanski. Brilliant, a fave of mine...

I have always worshipped Mia Farrow from afar. She is, at once, ethereal and quirky. This combination drives me to distraction.

 

[Clare Quilty]

...but there's the whole psychic scar issue to take into account.

I had similar metaphysical wounds inflicted upon me by the movie Old Yeller. To this day I have never seen the ending of this film, and would go to extremes not to.

 

[Sabledrake]

The book can't be more than 60,000 words. I re-read the entire thing in an hour yesterday afternoon, right after having seen the new movie (which was a hoot; I know the purists are in a snit about the changes but I had fun anyway).

Matthew Broderick just doesn't ever age, does he? Damned if he doesn't still look almost exactly the same as he did in LadyHawke, except pudgier.

Sabledrake