David's Reviews > Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West
Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West (The Wicked Years, #1)
by
by

I have a confession: I wanted to read this book because I saw the Broadway show, and the idea of a Broadway show based on a book based on a movie based on a political satire intrigued me. I heard the book and the show were quite different, so I wanted to see the difference.
The biggest difference is that the show is good, and the book is not. I don't want to be mean to the poor author (Gregory Maguire), who has made a fortune and franchise from this book and ones like it, but it's absolutely terrible. It's a fantastic idea, mind you, but the execution is... embarrassingly bad.
Oftentimes, I read a book and see ways I could never be a writer: the word choice, the cadence, the picture and world and emotions the author paints with language -- the distance between my ability to write a little song and, oh, Mozart.
This book, however, had me thinking differently. It had me thinking, "um, dude, I could totally do that." The characters are flat and stereotypical, the plot is jumpy and contrived, the dialogue is ridiculous, the tone is wildly inconsistent... when it tries to be funny it winks too much, when it tries to be a political tale it's too obvious, and... I could go on and on about its badness.
Take this passage, for example. Not only does it read like the author is framing each paragraph around a $5 word, but also the construction is, well, a little juvenile:
"Journalists, armed with the thesaurus and apocalyptic scriptures, fumbled and were defeated by it. 'A gulfy deliquescence of deranged and harnessed air'... 'a volcano of the invisible, darkly construed'...
聽聽聽聽聽To the pleasure faithers with tiktok affections, it was the sound of clockworks uncoling their springs and running down at a terrible speed. It was the release of vengeful energy.
聽聽聽聽聽To the essentialists, it seemed as if the world had suddenly found itself too crammed with life, with cells splitting by the billions, molecules uncoupling to annihilation, atoms shuddering and juggernauting in their casings.
聽聽聽聽聽To the superstitious it was the collapsing of time. It was the oozing of the ills of the world into one crepuscular muscle, intent on stabbing the world to its core for once and for all.
聽聽聽聽聽To the more traditionally religious it was the blitzkrieg of vengeful angel armies, the awful name of the Unnamed God sounding itself at last--surprise--and the evaporation of all hopes for mercy.
聽聽聽聽聽One or two pretended to think it was squadrons of flying dragons overhead, trained for attack, breaking the sky from its moorings by the thrash of tripartite wings.
聽聽聽聽聽In the wake of the destruction it caused, no one had the hubrir or courage (or the prior existence) to lie and claim to have known the act of terror for what it was: a wind twisted up in a vortical braid.
聽聽聽聽聽In short: a tornado."
I mean, dear god! This is what trying too hard reads like.
The thing that really hurts about this book is that it's such a great IDEA. It *could have been* really really good. I think I finished it because I wanted to see if it ever got good. [It didn't.]
What it did do, however, was make the Broadway show that much more remarkable. First of all, the show changes some crucial details to make it, well, better (and shorter), but more importantly, it demonstrates that the musical theater folks saw something through Maguire's dreadful storytelling -- they saw that the crispy, chocolatey center was worth exploring. So they're already better musicians than me. Given the arc of the Broadway show, they're better writers than Maguire.
I put this book down when I was finished, a bit disappointed in myself for persevering. I picked up Rushdie's The Ground Beneath Her Feet and read the first page. That first page was, by itself, better written than the entirety of Wicked.
If you have any interest in this book, watch the original movie, read the book, then immediately go see the Broadway show with the original cast. That's right, the only decent way to experience this book is with time travel. Good luck.
The biggest difference is that the show is good, and the book is not. I don't want to be mean to the poor author (Gregory Maguire), who has made a fortune and franchise from this book and ones like it, but it's absolutely terrible. It's a fantastic idea, mind you, but the execution is... embarrassingly bad.
Oftentimes, I read a book and see ways I could never be a writer: the word choice, the cadence, the picture and world and emotions the author paints with language -- the distance between my ability to write a little song and, oh, Mozart.
This book, however, had me thinking differently. It had me thinking, "um, dude, I could totally do that." The characters are flat and stereotypical, the plot is jumpy and contrived, the dialogue is ridiculous, the tone is wildly inconsistent... when it tries to be funny it winks too much, when it tries to be a political tale it's too obvious, and... I could go on and on about its badness.
Take this passage, for example. Not only does it read like the author is framing each paragraph around a $5 word, but also the construction is, well, a little juvenile:
"Journalists, armed with the thesaurus and apocalyptic scriptures, fumbled and were defeated by it. 'A gulfy deliquescence of deranged and harnessed air'... 'a volcano of the invisible, darkly construed'...
聽聽聽聽聽To the pleasure faithers with tiktok affections, it was the sound of clockworks uncoling their springs and running down at a terrible speed. It was the release of vengeful energy.
聽聽聽聽聽To the essentialists, it seemed as if the world had suddenly found itself too crammed with life, with cells splitting by the billions, molecules uncoupling to annihilation, atoms shuddering and juggernauting in their casings.
聽聽聽聽聽To the superstitious it was the collapsing of time. It was the oozing of the ills of the world into one crepuscular muscle, intent on stabbing the world to its core for once and for all.
聽聽聽聽聽To the more traditionally religious it was the blitzkrieg of vengeful angel armies, the awful name of the Unnamed God sounding itself at last--surprise--and the evaporation of all hopes for mercy.
聽聽聽聽聽One or two pretended to think it was squadrons of flying dragons overhead, trained for attack, breaking the sky from its moorings by the thrash of tripartite wings.
聽聽聽聽聽In the wake of the destruction it caused, no one had the hubrir or courage (or the prior existence) to lie and claim to have known the act of terror for what it was: a wind twisted up in a vortical braid.
聽聽聽聽聽In short: a tornado."
I mean, dear god! This is what trying too hard reads like.
The thing that really hurts about this book is that it's such a great IDEA. It *could have been* really really good. I think I finished it because I wanted to see if it ever got good. [It didn't.]
What it did do, however, was make the Broadway show that much more remarkable. First of all, the show changes some crucial details to make it, well, better (and shorter), but more importantly, it demonstrates that the musical theater folks saw something through Maguire's dreadful storytelling -- they saw that the crispy, chocolatey center was worth exploring. So they're already better musicians than me. Given the arc of the Broadway show, they're better writers than Maguire.
I put this book down when I was finished, a bit disappointed in myself for persevering. I picked up Rushdie's The Ground Beneath Her Feet and read the first page. That first page was, by itself, better written than the entirety of Wicked.
If you have any interest in this book, watch the original movie, read the book, then immediately go see the Broadway show with the original cast. That's right, the only decent way to experience this book is with time travel. Good luck.
1573 likes · Like
鈭�
flag
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
Wicked.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
December 26, 2007
– Shelved
Started Reading
April 26, 2008
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 181 (181 new)
message 1:
by
Krystal Erin
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jul 17, 2008 01:46PM

reply
|
flag




Great review!


It's like Maguire is trying too hard to be a good writer and it just doesn't come off sounding natural or believable. I'm so glad I'm not the only one!


So he makes a lot of references to history. That hardly makes it a good story.


Well, actually I did catch those references, but at best that makes him a good poli-sci major or history buff. (and personally, I find many of his references very simplistic and completely skewed toward his obvious personal beliefs, but that is besides the point) It is his terrible writing that makes him a terrible author.


Maguire is particularly adept at the artful turn of phrase and memorable lines can often be found in his works but I have been deeply disappointed by pretty much all of his other books- some, like "Lost" have been real wall-bangers. None of the follow-ups to Wicked even come close to the original but at least each sequel shows us a bit more about that world and its history, bringing back or filling us in on old characters & viewing past events from different perspectives.
I found Wicked to be a feast of delicious language and imagery, mythic in content; a book that pulls me into a well designed world and fills me with anticipation and longing as I read. Any book that engenders that much emotion in this cynical old soul is a pretty damn good book.

Sadly though, I didn't realize the play had been changed all that much from the book, so when it was brought up to see the play I didn't want to go since I didn't like the book. I figured it would hate the play too.

The grubby, random nature of the story never quite gels with it's occupants (The Philosophy Club anyone?), and the truly interesting parts are left undeveloped, such as Glinda and Elphaba's friendship. Instead, we are left with a turgid last third set in a boring landscape with new, unlikeable characters, which deflates the whole thing.
There are touches of ingenuity, such as the working in of Oz lore (silver slippers, Dorothy), but it sounds to me as if Stephen Schwartz had the right idea by condensing down the story to its interesting elements, not choosing Mr. Maguire's path, namely to indulge in literary masturbation for the sake of it.


David, awesome review, nice way of saying what most of us think.


And as a final note, I loved the music for the musical, but that's it. The storyline was ABSOLUTELY horrible. I came out of that and was glad that I saw it at a discounted student rate, but still felt cheated out of my money. The play lacks so many details. It's like someone read the back of the book and said "Hehe, that sounds cute; think I will make a play." Your rating of the book on a fifth grade level leads me to believe that you read below that and just couldn't understand all the big concepts.

Does anyone even know what satire is, anymore?












I have heard the music from the show & found it boring, but then I am not a fan of Broadway musicals.
Would consider seeing the musical just to learn how it is different from the book.




The only difference I have is in the recommendation you make at the end. If you are interested in this book, save yourself the trouble and just don't. Just don't.

The musical sounds interesting.


Gregory Maguire has stumbled upon the basest of American pleasure centers: that little bell in the brain that goes "ding!" every time we see something we recognize from childhood. It is only getting worse as we segregate ourselves from personal contact and rely solely on memory to keep us connected to the human race.
Yes, you remember the Wizard of Oz. Yes, you remember the Wicked Witch of the West. Unfortunately, this book tried way too hard to say something meaningful, and ended up putting a thick layer of dull, pretentious icing on a reasonably tasty cupcake. Not out-of-this-world tasty. Not something to change your life, or alert Martha Stewart about. Just, mildly tasty for a summer afternoon.



