web
counter
 

Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire

By Teabelly | Posted Under Book Reviews | Comments (35)



wickedad.jpg

Author Gregory Maguire gave himself a pretty difficult task, taking a well-known figure from literature and film, a well-known allegedly evil figure at that, and giving her a background before the tornado and the house landing on her sister. And not just that, but a background that would possibly make us feel sympathetic towards her. Can you really feel sorry for a woman who screams “I’ll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!?” Well yes, and no.

The novel starts with the witch’s parents, Melena and Frex, about to have their first child. We get some history of their families and how Melena has somewhat married down. They’re not expecting anything unusual with their kid, and get a nasty surprise when she is born green. And with rather sharp teeth. They name her Elphaba. The first part of the novel focuses on Elphaba’s first couple of years, as her mother tries to love her and her father, a unionist minister, is often absent due to his preaching. The second part is set during her time at Shiz University, and her meeting Galinda (later to become Glinda). Due to a misunderstanding, Elphaba and Galinda are forced to be roommates. Galinda is seemingly superficial, obsessed with her looks and dress and ignoring the fact that she has a brain. She initially cannot bear being Elphaba’s roommate and the possible butt of jokes by others. Later it is shown that she can indeed think for herself, something Elphaba brings out in her and appreciates, and they become friendly.

Having become involved in the work of Doctor Dillamond, an Animal whose rights are slowly being taken away by the mysterious and powerful Wizard of Oz, Elphaba becomes outraged by his treatment and goes to the Emerald City to plead for Animal rights to be restored. Getting nowhere, she leaves the university for a secret life away from all her friends, working against the Wizard. But here she falls in love with a former classmate, and after things go wrong ends up in a sort of nunnery for years. Overcoming her grief, she leaves to make amends with the wife of her former lover, staying some time as a guest, becoming more and more paranoid and dabbling with witchcraft. And then there’s that damn tornado …

This is probably a terrible synopsis but there’s so much going on here that it’s difficult to condense it and have it make any sense. I started off really loving the book. I loved the writing and the imagination that had gone into building her story and this world. I will say I have never read any of the Oz books and have only seen the film and its sequel, so I don’t know how much Maguire takes from official Oz history and how much he has made up to support his idea of Oz. The first half completely had me; it was funny and intriguing and I followed Elphaba’s journey happily, swept up in wondering how she would become the witch we know her to be. And then it all fell apart somewhere in the middle. I was fine up until she sought her lover’s wife and ended up trapped there. I could even deal with her animal-rights activism of the part before, but this unfortunately became bogged down and boring and my attention wandered severely. I stopped caring about Elphaba on any level, and that’s a shame. I think it became too twisted towards the end, too caught up in politics with the Wizard, and focused less on her and how she was feeling. It stopped being believable, which is funny when you consider its genre. But I had been on Elphaba’s side mostly, or at least I understood her motivations. I couldn’t say the same as the book neared its end. I’m not saying I necessarily liked her, as I don’t think that’s the point, but I did sympathize with her initially, and then she lost me.

I also couldn’t shake my previous knowledge of Oz, no matter how limited. I thought the story would fit into what we already knew, but there’s so much more that is added on top that I stopped being able to see this book and the originals as having taken place in the same world. Take the character of the Wizard, for instance. I have only ever known him as this bumbling fool who hides his real self behind a curtain and then is thrilled to be able to finally go home. And yet here he’s this sadistic, vindictive man determined to rule over all of Oz. He’s the real villain, and Elphaba is caught up in trying to destroy him. I just couldn’t come to grips with it.

I was really disappointed with this, because I had so enjoyed the beginning, and then became reluctant to even finish it. I do however still very much want to see the musical, and hopefully that won’t disappoint, as I know they’ve changed some things for the stage.

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. For more of Teabelly’s reviews, check out her blog.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Pajiba Love 02/15/10 | The Alienist by Caleb Carr









Comments

I truly love this novel and was actually fascinated by the politics in the land of Oz. Maguire created a complete world on the superstructure of a well-known tale and makes L. Frank Baum's characters (and those created for this novel) very real.
I highly recommend it.

Posted by: Spender at February 15, 2010 2:12 PM

I've never attempted "Wicked" but I did try to read his other book "Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister" and I could not finish it (and I'm a book finisher) for this exact reason. I got into it a little at the beginning and then he just lost me after that. The limited amount of character and plot development made me bow out after about 60 pages.

The play, however, I've seen twice (two different cities) and it is incredible. Totally lives up to the hype.

Posted by: Danna at February 15, 2010 2:18 PM

I severely did not like this book and found it difficult to care right from the beginning, but because I hate to abandon a book, I decided to read at least a third of it and see how I felt then. I passed the first third of the book and still did not enjoy it, and it became one of the few books I put down. I'll admit I'm a bit baffled when people LOVELOVELOVE it.

I imagine I'd enjoy the musical more, and I did read the original books as a kid and remember enjoying them.

Posted by: Sara at February 15, 2010 2:19 PM

I have yet to read the novel, as I have heard very mixed reviews. The musical is unendingly delightful, and very worth a listen. The stage show is staggering in beauty and fun. Be prepared to hum it for the rest of your life.

Posted by: Patty O'Green at February 15, 2010 2:22 PM

I think your description of "her animal rights activism" might lead to a mis-understanding about this section of the book. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we know as animal rights today. It's a metaphor for the Nazi regime and the marginalization/criminalization of beings who the authorities tell us are less than we are.
This is a quite a good book that unfortunately has been overshadowed by the Broadway musical based on it that became beloved by teenage mutant mall rats.

Posted by: PaddyDog at February 15, 2010 2:29 PM

I hated this book. Maybe because I am completely unfamiliar with The Wizard of Oz books and movies (yes, I have never seen the movie) or maybe because it was simply a bad story.

I loved Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister however.

Posted by: Scully at February 15, 2010 2:41 PM

And then it all fell apart somewhere in the middle.

I agree. I gave up though and didn't finish - it was all too disappointing given how fun the beginning was.

It's hard for me to imagine what connection between the politics in the book and a Broadway production of singing and dancing.

Posted by: Sbrown at February 15, 2010 3:06 PM

The book IS a bit dense in the middle, but I was fascinated by the politics. From what I hear, the musical completely waters down the serious content of the novel. I came into the novel, thinking, "Fun! Delight! Musical!" But when I realized that Gregory Maguire's agenda was different, I settled down and actually enjoyed the novel for what it was.

Posted by: bonnie at February 15, 2010 3:37 PM

I think Greg Maguire did a really amazing thing with these books (Wicked and its two sequels) especially when you take into account that the original Oz books were allegorical political satire. Seriously, when you look it up (if you care to) you'll be amazed.

So Maguire basically took that, ran with it, and created a world around it. That's pretty awesome when you think about it.

That said, it's obvious he's more interested in the world building in places (and the Ozzian politics) instead of the unfolding story. Which is a little sad, but to be expected. I put it down for a few months, came back to it to finish the rest, and loved it.

Posted by: Ava at February 15, 2010 3:39 PM

I'm pretty sure I commented on this on your blog (deja vu for me here), but I did enjoy this book quite a bit because of the Animals and political bits. I just thought it was all really clever.

From what I hear, the musical completely waters down the serious content of the novel. I came into the novel, thinking, "Fun! Delight! Musical!"

Bonnie I read the book before I knew there was a musical, and when I saw it being advertised, I was just sooo confused with the Fun!Delight!Musical! pull quotes that came with the ads. And then I wiki'ed it and realized that they took out all the political stuff. And there I was, scratching my head wondering if I missed the point of it haha

Posted by: dene at February 15, 2010 3:49 PM

This is one of my desert island books. Wicked is one of those books that people either love it or hate it. I'm a big fan of Maguire and it started with Wicked. Elphaba is one of the best realized characters I think I have ever read. So much so that the ending is truly heartbreaking, even when you know how it is going to end up the whole time. Brilliant book.

"Son of a Witch" was kind of a stumble, but "A Lion Among Men" brought it back for me. The final 30 pages or so are pretty incredible.

Posted by: TylerDFC at February 15, 2010 3:49 PM

Wicked is one of my favorite musicals (Les Miserables is the gold standard of musicals, though. Just sayin'). The songs are great, and script is funny (if a little cheesy). One of the central plot points of the musical is the friendship between Elphaba and G(a)linda and how that plays out once they find themselves on different sides of the biggest conflict in Oz.

I've seen it three times and enjoyed it every time. I own the soundtrack, too, and know all the songs by heart.

Maguire did a great job looking at a possible other side to the Oz mythology. I agree with teabelly, though, that the character of the Wizard didn't quite fit with my prior perception of the Wizard as a bumbling coward.

I never read the book, but I loved L. Frank Baum's original series about Oz (random trivia: Elphaba's name is derived from L. Frank Baum's initials).

teabelly, you have to see the musical!!

Posted by: Jelinas at February 15, 2010 4:06 PM

I did see the musical a couple of weeks ago, and even though I liked it more than the book, it still didn't rock my world. Which made me a little sad. I did like the ending though, and the changes that were made, and all the cast were excellent. There was just something missing, some magic I can't put my finger on. It may be because I read the book first.

Posted by: Carrie at February 15, 2010 4:13 PM

First off, as a musical connoisseur, Wicked the musical is so good that it makes it a damn shame for it to be so highly overrated.

Secondly, I just read this book back in December and I was pissed. It was so inconsistent. The politics, the religions, the world were all fascinating. But the characters. UGH!

It was as though Maguire needed to figure out how to make them move the world, but couldn't, so he said "Alright, well, it's FATE! Or is it?"

Dun dun dun!

And then he changed his mind and decided no one mattered after all.

Yackle? The old dwarf? Incredibly distracting characters with a massive amount of time devoted to them that never pays off!

Wicked thought it was way more complex than it was, when really it was just kind of complicated unnecessarily and unwieldily. Which makes it so damn sad that it showed so much promise.

Kill your darlings, Maguire.

Posted by: coryo at February 15, 2010 4:37 PM

I already commented on this when it first showed up on the original site but I completely agree with carrie, and coryo makes a good point. I feel like Maguire wrote himself into a corner - he made Elphaba likable but to get her to the point she needed to be in order to be the Wicked Witch, he made her do things and act in ways that were completely out of character, and didn't really seem to work well with the first part of the novel.

I enjoyed all the political statements, and I also loved the musical - I think the changes they made worked very well.

Posted by: Jen K at February 15, 2010 4:45 PM

I'm always a little mortified to see how few people have read the original novel, and the novels preceding it. I've read probably four or five of them and seen about four movie adaptations and two stage versions, but I've never actually seen Wicked, because I tried to read the book and was rather disgusted with the way Maguire stripped Oz of the wonder Baum once embued it with. Yes, it's a 21st century audience, yes it's an amalgimation of our current perceptions of Oz based on filmic and novel versions of the story, but I just couldn't dig the way he took apart something so dear to my heart and created so many unsympathetic, petty little people. It just wasn't true to that world.

Posted by: ClaireAllison at February 15, 2010 5:17 PM

I adored the book, loved it to death and back to life again, and I find something new every time I reread it. I think he does a fantastic job of showing Elphaba's character progression. I think what confuses people is, it's not linear, it's wavy, if you will. She alternately opens out and closes up until events push her over the edge and she just fucking loses it. I was with her every step of the way and I was just destroyed by the end of it.

Yackle and the Dwarf are the most consistent characters throughout the series, coryo, and their part is actually one of the most interesting subplots by the end. I believe there's also a crone and a dwarf in all of Maguire's works. Although, I suppose it's still a matter of opinion, because I thought they were fantastic in Wicked. Totally believable.

Posted by: Ling at February 15, 2010 7:47 PM

I really didn't like this book. And I'm quite sick of "reimaginings", because it's much easier to take someone else's framework and rework it than it is to come up with an original character and story. This, to me, was little more than Oz fanfic.

Posted by: Wednesday at February 15, 2010 8:01 PM

I'm with Wednesday. This book was tedious, after an interesting start that quickly became contrived and boring. I finished it only because I was in a foreign country with limited access to English language books. It was truly painful by the end, and I'm in agreement that reimaginings need to cease and desist. (Hollywood especially.)

Posted by: Dudleys Mom at February 15, 2010 8:35 PM

Fist bump, ClaireAllison. I feel the exact same way. I'm a RABID fan of the original books. I saw the movie when we first moved to the US and absolutely hated it. I saw Return to Oz sometime later and absolutely loved it. That eventually led me to the books, which are by far the coolest of every Oz thing ever.

I can't bring myself to pick up Wicked. I don't need retconned "gritty" Oz - I like Oz the way it is, morally ambiguous in the way only a kid's novel can be. Shoot, I think this makes me wanna re-read L. Frank Baum's books again. I will get to that as soon as I finish House of Leaves.

And I still want to know why Toto is the only animal that can't talk in Oz. Is he retarded?

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at February 15, 2010 9:38 PM

Hey, Nat, I think it's because Toto's not from Oz, he's from Kansas.

Posted by: Livience at February 15, 2010 9:44 PM

Billina, Eureka the kitten, the Wizard's nine piglets, and the horse (Phil? or whatever) are also all from our world, but they gain the ability to talk in Oz, Livience. Toto is the only animal that doesn't.

Logically, outside the world of the books, Baum probably decided to add the talking animals thing AFTER he wrote book 1, but within the world of the books, it's just bizarre and never brought up. Toto just doesn't talk, even though every other animal Dorothy brings to Oz immediately starts in with a lively dialogue.

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at February 15, 2010 10:02 PM

This thread is bumming me out. PaddyDog beat me to the punch on the Fascist commentary, so I'll just say that I'm sorry to hear people have trouble getting through this book. I have read every Baum Oz book (both as a kid and as an adult) and still found Wicked a worthy companion piece, as well as a damn good novel in its own right. It's a bit reductive to dismiss it as "just a reimagining," as if that was a new thing in literature or art. Hell, everything Shakespeare ever wrote could be called a reimagining (save for Midsummer; maybe Tempest - English majors help me out here). Everything else in the canon was based on previous stories or events and reframed for the current events of his time.

Yeah, that Shakespeare. What a hack.

Posted by: Tammy at February 15, 2010 10:47 PM

I couldn't finish the book either. I coudln't take it anymore. I started out good but then I couldn't bare reading anymore towards the middle

Posted by: Candy at February 16, 2010 1:18 AM

This has been sitting on my book shelf for quite sometime now and I think this review is going to move it to the top of my list. I like to give a chance to books that are so divisive, I love reading discussions like this and hearing people's thoughts on what makes their love or hate of the material so strong. Well done review, Teabelly.

On another note, Nat, how are you doing with House of Leaves? I tried to read that book a couple of weeks ago and I just couldn't get past the format (It probably didn't help that I was also reading Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman, which I don't think could be any more opposite in tone and content). I'm just wondering if the story ever pays off or if it remains a jumble of footnotes and side stories.

Posted by: Even Stevens at February 16, 2010 4:59 AM

Add me to the number of those who gave up reading this one half-way in. I just became indifferent to the story and the characters. I don't like to give up on books, but this defeated me.

Posted by: tarn at February 16, 2010 7:02 AM

It's a bit reductive to dismiss it as "just a reimagining," as if that was a new thing in literature or art. Hell, everything Shakespeare ever wrote could be called a reimagining (save for Midsummer; maybe Tempest - English majors help me out here). Everything else in the canon was based on previous stories or events and reframed for the current events of his time.

Sure, but Gregory Maguire is no Shakespeare, to be blunt. I just don't think "reimaginings" are *automatically* cool because they put a new twist on something familiar and beloved. They can be very well done -- I just finished Lindsay Clarke's The War At Troy and it was very, very good. What hasn't been "reimagined" more than classical mythology and the tales of Homer?

If there's nothing new under the sun, and I agree that's true, then yes, it's overly simplistic to say that all reimaginings are stupid. They're not. But THIS one is, and there seems to be a trend -- especially among fantasy writers, in which camp I would not place Maguire -- to take a fairy tale or children's story, throw in some sex and/or overt politics, and run with it. This can be bad -- Wicked -- or it can be good -- Fables springs to mind. I didn't give a rat's ass about any single character in Wicked. None of them elicited any sympathy or commonality of experience from me. It felt forced and very shallow, and I see that as a trend in reimagining.

Posted by: Wednesday at February 16, 2010 9:40 AM

I got through this book. That was the best I could do. I, too, wanted to love it and was hopeful in the beginning, but by the end it felt like a job.

Posted by: Whorish Mouth at February 16, 2010 9:57 AM

After much promising I was finally able to get tickets to take me daughter to see this on Broadway in May. She's familiar with the music and the general story and I know she will adore the show. My question, however, for those who have read this. Is any of the material in the book objectionable for a 12 year old girl? She reads at a high school level, and, while I understand that the themes will be challenging and quite possibly way over her head, are there any graphic descriptions of sex or violence that would disturb someone that age?

Posted by: slower lower at February 16, 2010 10:40 AM

I think it depends on your threshold - I wouldn't say the sex is graphic but it is evocative. I read it first when I was 16, right after it first was released in the 90s, but I was a pretty worldly kid. I might suggest you read it, first. I certainly don't think she would need to read the book to enjoy the play - they don't have all that much in common.

Posted by: Tammy at February 16, 2010 10:47 AM

Even Stevens, I'm chugging through it; some days I can't put it down, some days it's like trudging through tar. The parts directly relating to the records of the house, and the main character's metamorphosis into the terrified keeper of the Zampano record stalked by an unknowable something waiting for an unknown signal to pounce, are delightfully creepy. They're very Lovecraftian in the terror of a nameless dread, and a monster that can't even be named or comprehended, much less explained. I love that part of it.

Some of the other parts, well... they're pretty to look at in an aesthetic format way, but I ultimately just skim them. I don't need to know how many girls he or his friend fucked or what drugs he did or what he ate or all the 500 architects listed in a row as interesting architects... etc. I like the format when it's producing useful information (when the house goes into its final serious action, there are only a few words a page, so it gives the feeling of the action going faster because you're flipping pages as quickly as the characters are reacting), but other times it's just there to add a sense of realism to the proceedings - something I don't need, as I already know the book isn't real.

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at February 16, 2010 11:42 AM

Good to know... I'll probably pick it up again someday when I have more free time and try and get through it. Like you were saying, the parts directly related to the house were really interesting but the rest of it was so distracting from the main story and adding on the whacked out format it was just too much to handle!

Posted by: Even Stevens at February 16, 2010 1:22 PM

The Land of Oz is a fertile ground for adaptation. I grew up on the original series. When I couldn't reconcile the books with the Judy Garland movie, I decided to treat them as separate entities. This attitude served me well with Wicked, too.

What I like best about Maquire is his slightly sour outlook and the strength of his female characters. Elphaba is flawed and ornery, but has a very strong voice that sticks with you.

Haven't seen the musical and it is unlikely that I will. Not because it is yet another adaptation, but because I hate Broadway musicals.

Posted by: masonwasp at February 16, 2010 2:01 PM

I’m impressed, I need to say. Actually not often do I encounter a blog that’s both educative and entertaining, and let me let you know, you've got hit the nail on the head. Your concept is outstanding; the issue is something that not enough persons are speaking intelligently about. I'm very joyful that I stumbled throughout this in my seek for one thing relating to this.

Posted by: Cardigans for Men at March 16, 2011 2:46 PM

What an ineresint text. I am trully happy. Keep writing mate

Posted by: mocneseo at March 20, 2011 10:42 AM