Wicked
Really, my meeting's at three, so what better thing to do than write a
comparative analysis of book vs musical Wicked? I'm sure that will help
me on my thesis . . .
Ok, so this whole post is about Wicked, so don't bother reading it unless you a) like Wicked, and b) want spoilers. Basically now I have read the book and am obsessed with the musical (although currently Waa Mu is the musical of choice, but whatever . . . ). Interestingly I like the story of the musical better than that of the book. I did enjoy the book, especially certain scenes and lines, like all the jokes people make about the house falling on Nessa or when Nanny tries to welcome Dorothy to the castle, and I did like certain characters better in the book, well, character - Boq. However, on the whole I did not like the writing style, the character development, or the story line of the book as well as the musical. Perhaps this will change when I see the musical and it turns out to be trite drivel, but yeah, for the moment that's where I stand.
1) Writing style: I'm sorry but if you use phrases such as "took a leak" and "cock" in sentences without joking or being part of a verbatim dialogue, I don't buy it. It automatically turns me off. And yeah, the book used both of them. It makes it sound like a trashy romance novel, which is not really my style (not that I've ever read one. I suppose I should) and also even if it was my style it's not what I expected from "Wicked." Just the writing in general seemed decidedly low-brow. Yes, I did just read Les Mis, but I also read Good Omens and am re-reading the fourth Harry Potter and it seemed even less well-written than those. I don't know, it didn't have that punch that made me feel like I was a part of the story.
2.) Character developmen: Umm there wasn't really any. Elphaba is caustic the whole way through with no appreciable change, even when the author tries to portray her as being neglected and such, it just seems like lip-service on the author's part and not heart-felt. Galinda, although the descriptions of her are great, also is static. It seems like she'll develop but then just sort of doesn't. Fiyero, while I find diamonds really hot, umm did he have a character? If so I pretty much missed it. He just shows up, there is some cute reparte but then suddenly he's wondering if "he loves her" and, well, it just came out of the blue. And then of course he gets bludgeoned to death, so there goes that character. In the musical you get to see Fiyero (who is actually a composite of Fiyero and Avaric, who I actually thought was more amusing than Fiyero in the book) fall for Galinda, but then realize how shallow it all is and switch to rescue Elphie and it's all so dramatic and heart-wrenching. Even Boq, who was the one character I liked better in the book than the musical, and Nanny, who wasn't in the musical at all, don't go anywhere. Boq is fabulous for the part where they're at school but then as soon as Elphaba leaves there's only a brief and decidedly unsatisfying interaction with him as Elphaba is hunting Dorothy. If he had ended up with Nessa, like in the musical, it would have been so much cooler. Even if he decided to join the witch hunters (um which also weren't in the book) at least he'd have gotten some closure. Nanny is amusing but also constant througout. And Liir? What the hell was up with him? You sort of felt sorry for him, but he was pretty lame, so yeah. That one didn't do much for me either.
3.) Story line: So it wasn't that it was bad, but I feel like the writing style and lack of character development made me less enthralled. The one in the musical is so soap-opera-y and very psychological, emphasis on interpersonal relationships and whatnot. The one in the book was, well, sort of a spastic catalogue of events in the life of Elphaba, with references to obscure religions that tried too hard to sound deep. There was no strong connection between characters, or at least not positive ones, so when bad things happened to characters nobody, including me, really seemed to care. Plus, the author, I feel, made a huge mistake by skipping over Elphaba's experience of Fiyero's disappearance. That was his chance to really grab the reader by the heart-strings and he botched it by cutting to seven years later and never even mentioned it. Just a single scene of her shock/horror upon arriving at her appartment or whatever, that would have been enough. But he missed it and from then on she was even more cold, caustic, and distant than she had been before, and she was psychologically abusing her own child. Not so cool. I feel like Elphaba's complete lack of ability to connect with anyone (including me) made the story more of a sequence of events than a true story. Plus there was none of Glinda's turmoil at Fiyero leaving her, and nothing about a plot to kill Nessa, which would have been pretty cool. Plus that would have been an excuse for killing Morrible. Instead in the book Elphie completely randomly "murders" her even though she hadn't done anything all that bad. The story lines that seemed to be cool, like Dr. Dillamond's research, were not pursued. What does sewing wings on monkeys have to do with Animals anyway? All of the threads of the story just seemed to unravel along with the degeneration of the characters. Why does the wizard randomly decide to have Elphaba killed? Was the "murder" of morrible that threatening? I feel like he wouldn't really have cared about that. Plus the writer never talks about what organisation Elphie was working for in that Fiyero section, and if she was really just a small cog in the machinery why would she be sent to kill Morrible, who would certainly have recognized her? Also, why is she allergic to water? When they say that Frex loved Turtle Heart, was that platonic or not so much? And for a preacher, Frex seemed pretty lax about his wife cheating on him with reckless abandon. Why did they have some obscure Yackle character? It was too obviously an attempt to be deep and thought-provoking. Haha, speaking of which, who thinks those discussion questions at the back of the book are hilarious? Comparing Wicked to Shakespearian and Greek tragedies, my ass.
Anyway, now that I've ripped apart the book, I should say that I did enjoy it. Like, it was interesting and I really liked some parts. But because I knew the story of the musical first and liked that a lot (even if it is admittedly shallow) I feel like I was predisposed to not like the book as well. Perhaps after I see the musical and/or read the book again I'll change my mind. But yeah, there's my book analysis for the moment. Gotta go to my thesis meeting now! Woot.
Ok, so this whole post is about Wicked, so don't bother reading it unless you a) like Wicked, and b) want spoilers. Basically now I have read the book and am obsessed with the musical (although currently Waa Mu is the musical of choice, but whatever . . . ). Interestingly I like the story of the musical better than that of the book. I did enjoy the book, especially certain scenes and lines, like all the jokes people make about the house falling on Nessa or when Nanny tries to welcome Dorothy to the castle, and I did like certain characters better in the book, well, character - Boq. However, on the whole I did not like the writing style, the character development, or the story line of the book as well as the musical. Perhaps this will change when I see the musical and it turns out to be trite drivel, but yeah, for the moment that's where I stand.
1) Writing style: I'm sorry but if you use phrases such as "took a leak" and "cock" in sentences without joking or being part of a verbatim dialogue, I don't buy it. It automatically turns me off. And yeah, the book used both of them. It makes it sound like a trashy romance novel, which is not really my style (not that I've ever read one. I suppose I should) and also even if it was my style it's not what I expected from "Wicked." Just the writing in general seemed decidedly low-brow. Yes, I did just read Les Mis, but I also read Good Omens and am re-reading the fourth Harry Potter and it seemed even less well-written than those. I don't know, it didn't have that punch that made me feel like I was a part of the story.
2.) Character developmen: Umm there wasn't really any. Elphaba is caustic the whole way through with no appreciable change, even when the author tries to portray her as being neglected and such, it just seems like lip-service on the author's part and not heart-felt. Galinda, although the descriptions of her are great, also is static. It seems like she'll develop but then just sort of doesn't. Fiyero, while I find diamonds really hot, umm did he have a character? If so I pretty much missed it. He just shows up, there is some cute reparte but then suddenly he's wondering if "he loves her" and, well, it just came out of the blue. And then of course he gets bludgeoned to death, so there goes that character. In the musical you get to see Fiyero (who is actually a composite of Fiyero and Avaric, who I actually thought was more amusing than Fiyero in the book) fall for Galinda, but then realize how shallow it all is and switch to rescue Elphie and it's all so dramatic and heart-wrenching. Even Boq, who was the one character I liked better in the book than the musical, and Nanny, who wasn't in the musical at all, don't go anywhere. Boq is fabulous for the part where they're at school but then as soon as Elphaba leaves there's only a brief and decidedly unsatisfying interaction with him as Elphaba is hunting Dorothy. If he had ended up with Nessa, like in the musical, it would have been so much cooler. Even if he decided to join the witch hunters (um which also weren't in the book) at least he'd have gotten some closure. Nanny is amusing but also constant througout. And Liir? What the hell was up with him? You sort of felt sorry for him, but he was pretty lame, so yeah. That one didn't do much for me either.
3.) Story line: So it wasn't that it was bad, but I feel like the writing style and lack of character development made me less enthralled. The one in the musical is so soap-opera-y and very psychological, emphasis on interpersonal relationships and whatnot. The one in the book was, well, sort of a spastic catalogue of events in the life of Elphaba, with references to obscure religions that tried too hard to sound deep. There was no strong connection between characters, or at least not positive ones, so when bad things happened to characters nobody, including me, really seemed to care. Plus, the author, I feel, made a huge mistake by skipping over Elphaba's experience of Fiyero's disappearance. That was his chance to really grab the reader by the heart-strings and he botched it by cutting to seven years later and never even mentioned it. Just a single scene of her shock/horror upon arriving at her appartment or whatever, that would have been enough. But he missed it and from then on she was even more cold, caustic, and distant than she had been before, and she was psychologically abusing her own child. Not so cool. I feel like Elphaba's complete lack of ability to connect with anyone (including me) made the story more of a sequence of events than a true story. Plus there was none of Glinda's turmoil at Fiyero leaving her, and nothing about a plot to kill Nessa, which would have been pretty cool. Plus that would have been an excuse for killing Morrible. Instead in the book Elphie completely randomly "murders" her even though she hadn't done anything all that bad. The story lines that seemed to be cool, like Dr. Dillamond's research, were not pursued. What does sewing wings on monkeys have to do with Animals anyway? All of the threads of the story just seemed to unravel along with the degeneration of the characters. Why does the wizard randomly decide to have Elphaba killed? Was the "murder" of morrible that threatening? I feel like he wouldn't really have cared about that. Plus the writer never talks about what organisation Elphie was working for in that Fiyero section, and if she was really just a small cog in the machinery why would she be sent to kill Morrible, who would certainly have recognized her? Also, why is she allergic to water? When they say that Frex loved Turtle Heart, was that platonic or not so much? And for a preacher, Frex seemed pretty lax about his wife cheating on him with reckless abandon. Why did they have some obscure Yackle character? It was too obviously an attempt to be deep and thought-provoking. Haha, speaking of which, who thinks those discussion questions at the back of the book are hilarious? Comparing Wicked to Shakespearian and Greek tragedies, my ass.
Anyway, now that I've ripped apart the book, I should say that I did enjoy it. Like, it was interesting and I really liked some parts. But because I knew the story of the musical first and liked that a lot (even if it is admittedly shallow) I feel like I was predisposed to not like the book as well. Perhaps after I see the musical and/or read the book again I'll change my mind. But yeah, there's my book analysis for the moment. Gotta go to my thesis meeting now! Woot.