Unrest for the Wicked

[spectralbovine]

Since the musical is coming to San Francisco, I thought it was a good time to finally read Wicked, by Gregory Maguire. As everyone knows, it's the story of the Wicked Witch of the West, and the book assumes familiarity with the basic story of The [Wonderful] Wizard of Oz, if not all the details. I've never read the book, but I want to now to see

Comments

[etherealclarity]

I'm not sure I admired OR enjoyed Wicked (the book). I got through the whole thing, which says it wasn't terrible, but I think I got through it more in the hopes that it would get better at some point and pay off, which for me it never really did.

I am definitely interested to see the musical when/if it comes around MD though.

[spectralbovine]

I'm not normally like this, but I sort of liked that there was no big payoff. Because Maguire had a framework for the story, we knew where Elphaba's life was heading. And the subtitle of the book is The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. It's a simple biography, and people's lives don't always come to a narratively convenient climax. They just live, sometimes. Like I said, there was something about the style and tone that made it work for me.

[etherealclarity]

I get your point about the biography. Still, I was... kind of bored. I think it's because while the first half focused on Elphaba as a dynamic character more (which I liked), the second half was more focused on politics and Elphaba kind of became boring after a while. If I cared more about Elphaba I might have been okay with the anti-climatic ending, but at that point I didn't really care as much anymore.

[spectralbovine]

Nope, I completely agree with you there. The second half is much more static, and you are just sort of wanting the damn thing to end. Or at least looking forward to any possible adventures with Dorothy.

[vanessagalore]

I really liked the beginning of "Wicked" (the novel). The premise just floored me. However, it quickly became tiresome and contrived. I was out of the country on a lengthy business trip and had very few books with me, so I persevered. If I had been home, I would not have been able to finish it. That being said, the premise really is quite spectacular. I agree with the above commenter who said they were hoping for a payoff that never came.

[spectralbovine]

I think I may have felt that it was tiresome and contrived sometimes, though that feels harsh. As for the bit about the payoff, read above!

[beeker121]

Having read the book, please do your best to forget it completely before seeing the musical. Admittedly I saw the pre-Broadway SF run so it may have changed, but they took the bare bones of the story from the book and built something different. I enjoyed the book (I read it nearly a decade ago, so I don't really remember specifics anymore) and was sad that the musical was telling such a different story. Once I got past that, I was better able to enjoy the show for what it was.

[spectralbovine]

Wow, is it that different? I will do my best not to expect the story from the book!

[beeker121]

It was. Though, as I said I saw the pre-Broadway engagement, and I know they made some changes. As long as your prepared for that you should be fine. I was not expecting it to be very different and it made me sad.

[carpedi7]

It really is that different from the book. If you look at them as totally seperate things (as well as expecting it to be different from The Wizard of Oz then you will be fine. I liked all three seperately for their different points they brought. The musical is by far my favorite and I grew up LOVING The Wizard of Oz.

[daynr]

The book and musicale are quite different, so don't focus/think about the book. I read the book when I was coming out of college with my lovely politics minor and love it, of course. It's blurry since it's been over 10 years (ouch) and I have no desire to reread it though I should - way to painful of a book bc I like and feel badly for Elphaba.

The book/story is so built now that I'm not sure anyone could love it, but 10 years ago there were a bunch of us sharing it and we all enjoyed it.

Also, don't read anything else by him. They're so not as good, even though I love fairy tales/fables. I haven't read son of a witch, so maybe that one is good.

[spectralbovine]

I've heard from a few people that it's not really not good, actually. I simultaneously do and do not have a strong desire to read his other books. I, too, love fairy tales/fables, and he's obviously doing interesting things with them, but I'm not sure I want to see them all given this treatment, exactly. As I said, it often feels like he's imposing his own ideas on a story that's not designed to hold them.

[glasseseater]

I really loved Wicked when I first read it, but I was like, twelve.
I think on rereading I pretty much would have agreed with everyone else, the first three fifths or so of the book are entertaining, the part where she gets to the tower are strange and kind of irrelevant.
In every successive book he's gotten further and further away from what made Wicked interesting at all (interesting characters, interesting politics) and more into the whole good and evil mystical woo crap. I think Ugly stepsister had four really good paragraphs in the whole book.

[spectralbovine]

I do sort of like the whole good and evil mystical woo crap, but that's two votes for not reading any more of his books, hee. I guess I can live with that. I do have Fables already.