_Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West_, by Gregory Maguire

[semperfiona]

Last library visit, I checked out an audio book of Wicked. I've listened to it on my daily commute for two weeks now, all seventeen discs of it (no exaggeration here, although seventeen is one of my favorite "undefined large number" substitutions) and finished it this morning.

I can't honestly say I liked it. I'm not sure I can say I disliked it, either, in the overall. But I just couldn't seem to buy into it, for a number of reasons. Kept listening mostly because the alternative was Pledge Week on NPR.

• The purple prose
  The author seemed to refuse to use a five-cent word when a fifty-cent one would do, and refused to use a penny word when a nickel one could be found. On top of that, there were an excess of similes and metaphors and overly flowery description that did nothing but invoke eye-rolling on my part.
• The redefinition of Oz
  I had a hard time with his inventions of an evil dictator, worker's strikes, droughts, religious conflicts (or even the three or four invented religions, for that matter), and so on. Somehow there was too much disconnect between the bouncy happy place we all remember from L. Frank Baum's books and the Judy Garland movie, and the oppressive environment Maguire paints. It is true that it's been many years since I read any of the original Oz books, and I remember next to nothing about any of them, so maybe I'm basing this whole objection on the movie, but nonetheless, I couldn't buy it.
  On the other hand, I had much less difficulty with the Wizard as a politically powerhungry but personally pusillanimous old man. It seemed to fit the whole "man behind the curtain" idea.
• Character non-development
  "She's not bad, she's just drawn that way." The whole point of this book is to show us the story from the witch's perspective, and Maguire shows us all along that she's really not that bad, she's trying to right injustices, but then she is bestowed this horrid reputation and immediately goes out of her way to enhance it? I know he was trying to stay within the defined parameters of the story, but there's no motivation established for the odd horrific things she suddenly starts doing--while at the same time behaving the rest of the time like a crotchety-but-loving grandmother.

I know a lot of people who loved the musical. I'm wondering whether any or all of my objections are alleviated by the different format. Anyone out there both seen the musical and read the book who'd like to weigh in?

Comments

[lcohen]

i have read the book and seen the musical in that order. and i love the book. to me _wicked_ is a brilliant example of how history is written by the winners. _the wizard of oz_ is positioned as the history as written by the people who won the war--how did the people on the other side feel about it? i do think there's support for people going "if you're going to hate me anyway, i might as well actually DO some of the crap you accuse me of" though i haven't read it recently enough to recall if i felt that way at the time. to me the whole animal rights story line was an excellent metaphor for the struggles for gay rights. so, um, yeah, i liked it. and i can imagine that it reads better than it listens, but i do know other people who fall on both sides in terms of liking it.

the musical--i liked but i had to do my "this is something completely different" trick with it. and then it was.

[lintra.livejournal.com]

Hated the book, *love* the musical. Taking Fiona to see it this summer. Highly recommend you take Rosa to the musical.

[egwenna.livejournal.com]

I was not so fond of the book either. :-p Makes me reluctant to pick up anything else he's written when I have so much else in the queue.

[maiabee8.livejournal.com]

I liked the first half of the book and then the second half/three fourths was just pretty boring.

The musical is not at all true to the book. The musical does a much better job of illustrating the book's point, though, about perceptions and as an above commenter mentioned, how history is written by the winners.

The musical is worth seeing.

[eghost.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed the book, but not enough to run right out and buy his other stuff. Not even on sale. The musical on the other hand was spectacular, and I listen to it often. J and I went to chicago to see it performed, and I can't remember the last time I had so much fun at a show. Overall--book OK, musical FTW!

[jilly-bear.livejournal.com]

I didn't like the book either but did enjoy the musical. But then the musical ended differently and they did change some stuff around so it was more palatable.

BTW, do you have my copy of Wicked? I lent it out to someone a few years back but don't remember who.

[semperfiona]

I'm not sure. I know we did borrow it, but I thought we had returned it. It's not listed in librarything, so either it's in the basement among the books I haven't thinged yet, or we don't have it anymore. I will look tonight.

[tempesttea.livejournal.com]

I have never seen the musical, but I did find the book interesting. The main character intrigued me. She was a woman who chose not to be beautiful and of course she was a lovely shade of green, a woman I could admire. I thought the author's narrative structure unigue. A significant amount of the action in the story is reported after the event and the reader is left to fill in the missing scenes. I have read "Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister" and "Mirror, Mirror" both a waste of time. If you did not like this book don't bother with the rest.

[bbwoof.livejournal.com]

I've seen the musical three times (fabulous each time, too bad about the over-orchestration), but haven't been able to finish the book. I've tried the print version AND the book-on-17-CDs, and can't finish either one.

It's kind of like S. Morgenstern's The Princess Bride, in that the performance art version distills the basic premises out of "too many words". Elphaba's childhood reads like Morgenstern's 4-page description of an irrelevant character's hat collection. Except longer.

I owned all 14 of Baum's Oz books when I was a teenager, but only remember high points from some of them. On the other hand, I appreciated the almost sly way that the stage version of Wicked interfaced with the events of The Wizard of Oz, reminiscent of Tom Stoppard's treatment of Hamlet in Rosenkrantz and Morgenstern are Dead. I particularly enjoyed the treatment of The Scarecrow, and his development from a grasshopper into a real (simulated) human being.

I loved them both

[(Anonymous)]

I loved the book and the musical. However, I didn't realize going into the musical that it would be so substantially different. I really didn't like it at first, then by intermission I was getting used to the idea that it just wasn't the same story. Looking back I would love to see the musical again.

The book has a darker feel to it. I like the first comment about history being written by the winners. It really put a different spin on the story and made me feel sorry for Elphaba. In the book she's very much a victim of society and circumstance. Her attitude isn't one she's born with, it comes from years of bad things happening and the way she's treated.

The musical is just so different that it really was hard to watch until I was able to accept the fact that it wasn't the same story. There were characters missing, characters doing things that were just not matching the book, and 99.9% of the story in the musical had been changed.

I would like to see the book done as a movie with more of a Harry Potter feel to it, not a remake of the musical. A darker movie that holds true to the story and character lines in the book. That would be a really good move (and movie) in my opinion. I've read more of his work now and enjoy it too. Son of a Witch is a nice continuation of the story, of sorts.

- Barry (used to be freddyferret on StL Bloggers)