Claire Greene'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 hated this book. Maybe it was because I was expecting so much with all the hype, maybe because I thought the original idea was so great, whatever. End result, I freaking hated this book. This is a book that makes you want to sit down and re-write it yourself because it is such a shame that such a great idea was so mishandled. I loved the idea of delving into the witches and their past and seeing them from a different view point. I loved the idea of the politics of the different realms of OZ. There was so much source material to interpret in so many ways. But no - the biggest thing I hated was the timeline. It would start with the witches childhood and get really in depth into it - chapters of the family and their day to day lives and the family dynamic. And then it was like the author realized that if they continued on this way, the book would have to be a series and every book in it a tome. So the next thing you know, abruptly, he jumps forward in time. And the explanation of what happened in that gap is only briefly described - if that! It is so jarring. I also felt that the characters were fleshed out during those brief times, but after the jump, And then it would seem almost like they were different characters. Or a variation of the character you had come to know. If there were life altering events during the gap that changed the character's personality, you can't just skip it! Don't spend that much time making the reader get to know the character and then change them without showing how and why! I hated the way the author would spend enormous amounts of time describing certain places or characters or situations in a way that gave the reader the idea that it would be significant and play into the main story. Nope. Which makes you feel so unsatisfied. Imagine an entire chapter (and a long wordy one at that) devoted to a certain character or group of people and then then just drop out of the story completely. Where did they go? What happened to them? Why spend so much time on them to just go no where with it??
Also, after awhile, it really seemed like the author had a definite AGENDA and he spent so much time forcing the characters and the plot to fit that agenda, that it disrupted the flow and felt forced. I often felt like the characters wouldn't have acted that way - given his own description of them! I don't like being preached to. If you want to really write a political book with obvious leanings, then do so. But don't package it like this. And this book could have been a great vehicle for a basic statement on many different things - animal rights, our ideas of "others", our treatment of people different from ourselves, a broad idea of what is good and evil as opposed to what people often label good and evil - but didn't have to be so skewed to the author's personal beliefs. (Animal Farm, 1984, and many others come to mind - I really believe that this story COULD have had the potential to be a classic, had it not been so mishandled.) So many of these concepts were brought up and then abandoned. Or they were brought up and dealt with in a talky soliloquy, and without any real opposing view or anything. It was like the author was determined to present every possible political view he had and, one way or the other, force it into the story. But as he got writing and trying to actually write a STORY as opposed to an editorial opinion piece, he lost track of what he was saying or the point he was trying to make.
So many themes and ideas were a complete mess. Not explained fully, explained too fully, so vague and complicated they were impossible to understand, or more often than not, forgotten altogether. I would have appreciated ANY resolution - even skewed to the author's opinions - rather than what he often offered, which is nothing. It also felt so smug and superior - it seemed like he referenced things for the sake of feeling smart or proving he was informed- like a college student mentioning Nietzsche in conversation, not because he really wants to discuss the ideas or whatever, but because it sounds smart and proves he's beyond such things as keggers.
I just didn't like anything about this book. I stuck with it to the end, hoping that maybe things would change, or maybe things would come together in a way I didn't expect - but nope. I can only assume that it was so popular because of the interesting concept of the book or the fear to admit that they didn't get it or the broadway play - which I have heard is great and might better explain of the popularity of the book. (People loved the musical and bought the book thinking they would like that too.) Anyway, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone.
Also, after awhile, it really seemed like the author had a definite AGENDA and he spent so much time forcing the characters and the plot to fit that agenda, that it disrupted the flow and felt forced. I often felt like the characters wouldn't have acted that way - given his own description of them! I don't like being preached to. If you want to really write a political book with obvious leanings, then do so. But don't package it like this. And this book could have been a great vehicle for a basic statement on many different things - animal rights, our ideas of "others", our treatment of people different from ourselves, a broad idea of what is good and evil as opposed to what people often label good and evil - but didn't have to be so skewed to the author's personal beliefs. (Animal Farm, 1984, and many others come to mind - I really believe that this story COULD have had the potential to be a classic, had it not been so mishandled.) So many of these concepts were brought up and then abandoned. Or they were brought up and dealt with in a talky soliloquy, and without any real opposing view or anything. It was like the author was determined to present every possible political view he had and, one way or the other, force it into the story. But as he got writing and trying to actually write a STORY as opposed to an editorial opinion piece, he lost track of what he was saying or the point he was trying to make.
So many themes and ideas were a complete mess. Not explained fully, explained too fully, so vague and complicated they were impossible to understand, or more often than not, forgotten altogether. I would have appreciated ANY resolution - even skewed to the author's opinions - rather than what he often offered, which is nothing. It also felt so smug and superior - it seemed like he referenced things for the sake of feeling smart or proving he was informed- like a college student mentioning Nietzsche in conversation, not because he really wants to discuss the ideas or whatever, but because it sounds smart and proves he's beyond such things as keggers.
I just didn't like anything about this book. I stuck with it to the end, hoping that maybe things would change, or maybe things would come together in a way I didn't expect - but nope. I can only assume that it was so popular because of the interesting concept of the book or the fear to admit that they didn't get it or the broadway play - which I have heard is great and might better explain of the popularity of the book. (People loved the musical and bought the book thinking they would like that too.) Anyway, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone.
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
Wicked.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
Started Reading
January 1, 2005
–
Finished Reading
January 25, 2008
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-50 of 75 (75 new)
message 1:
by
Roberto
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Jun 20, 2008 02:36PM

reply
|
flag






Thanks for the comments - I was bitterly disappointed with this book, mainly because of what it could have been. But I have heard that the musical/play is amazing and really works, despite the flaws of the source material. Apparently, they had some amazing writers involved and really took the book and twisted and turned it into something great - complete with song. If given the chance, I will go see it despite my strong dislike for the book.



my mother,who recommended Wicked to me, said that it was very Wicked-esk

i work at a bookstore and every time someone asks me if this book is any good, i say no but unfortunately i cannot back it up with a coherent reason why. Now i have one. it's what i have been trying to say but never been able. I usually just say it's frustrating and can't explain why. your a genius! You summed up my thoughts in one sentence.


well, why did you hate it?




watch the musical then


No one likes to read through a wall of text. I learned to indent in 2nd grade.

No one likes to read through a wall of..."
Well, Lee. I learned something in kindergarden that really applies here - if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. So feel free to do so.
Also, I thought you should know (as well as any other troll that may be considering posting a similar comment) that I DID include returns and indents in the original post, but the formatting didn't stay when it actually posted. I tried again a few times, but the only formatting that stayed was the "return" and not the indents, regardless of how they were entered - either using the space bar or using the tab. Had you nicely pointed out the difficulty in reading a "wall of text", I would have nicely responded with that information.
Another important consideration is that I wrote a personal review of the book, you were under no obligation to read it or even notice it. If you had valid opinions or critiques to the actual content of the review, that would have been welcome. But taking the time to write a snarky comment that has nothing to do with either the book OR my opinions in the review, makes you a jerk. Which I guess you already knew.
So, basically, how about you keep your ignorant, "witty" comments to yourself?

I realize the formatting on here can screw things up, and I wasn't sure if you were aware of the lack of formatting on this review, since a lot of people don't bother to check their reviews. So I thought the right thing to do would be to bring it to your attention, so you could fix it if you wanted.
in the future type <p> to indent and <br> to cause a paragraph break.
Oh, but that's what ignorant trolls are here for, right?

By the way, you were the one who brought up that 1. I never heard of the enter key (assuming I was an idiot as opposed to the real issue of formatting which you just said you know happens sometimes) and 2. that your second grade education was obviously superior to mine and apparently where you learned to indent.
While I could make nasty or snarky comments about how the second grade was apparently the end of your schooling, or point out more of your trollish behavior, or the fact that maybe the problem isn't my writing style but rather your "weak" eyes or even the fact that there is no correlation between the lack of indents and my actual opinions of the book, but why bother?
It's a shame.. if you weren't acting like a total douche, you almost sound witty and sarcastic - both qualities I admire. And we have quite a few books in common. But as of now, FAIL.
PS - while posting to tell me how to indent, you forgot to indent. D'oh - a double fail!! And wait, what's that? When I tried to follow your advice and add the indents, it didn't work. I believe that is three fails and you're out.


The only reason I'm going to follow this book through the end is because I don't like not finishing a book.

It was ridiculous. If he wanted to write a book with an agenda, he should have just written a non-fiction memoir or book of rants and essays or something. Trying to shoehorn his points into characters that he's already established doesn't fragging work.




By the way, you were the one who brought up that 1. I never heard of the enter key (assuming I was ..."
Wow. Sorry you had to deal with that Claire (I guess some people learned selectively in school... the 'common courtesy' lesson must have happened on an off day). I loved your review; agree with your points, and really wasn't blinded or upset by the "wall of text鈥� (hmmmmmm鈥� should I hit the Enter key at this point, or what? Maybe an indent? Naaaaaawwww). I just could not get through this book 鈥� I wanted to read it because I鈥檓 going to see the play next month. I loved the idea and the premise, and could have ignored some aspects of it, but the writing was just not my cup of tea.

I've seen Wicked in London, fell in love with it and moved on to tackle the book. It is a hard read but i enjoyed it alot. They are different in many ways but the book had to be adapted for stage e.g. In the musical Nessa Rose can't walk but in the book she doesn't have any arms. (if i remember rightly) but for obvious reasons they had to change it. Some things in the book you wouldn't think they put into the musical e.g. Kiamo Ko castle. This is in the play although unless you look more closely you won't realise it. Also in the book Elphaba only believes at first that the scarcrow is Fiyero but in the musical he IS the scarcrow. I like the musical better and they are much different but the smae at the same time and both are worth trying although it's a matter of opinion.


*SPOILER*
also in the book Elphaba dies but in the musical she only pretends to.





The fact is that nothing you said applies to the book. You personally attack the author by saying that he make references or says big words to seem smart. Oh, can you see into the author's mind, now?
The book was about Elphaba, and she is one of the most developed and fourth dimensional characters I've seen in recent literature. Perhaps you could explain why you think Elphaba is under-developed. Yes, the author did have an "AGENDA." That agenda is racial equality and seeing past someone's appearance. You make the statement that he forced the characters to meet that agenda without an example. The fact is Elphaba fits that agenda perfectly, and the whole story is flows into one storyline that's similar to "Beauty and the Beast" except without the happy ending. I believe that the messages portrayed in the book fell completely past you. In fact, there is little to no political leanings in the book at all. The book is simply about the nature of evil, what is evil, and racial equality. The author was trying to make the statement that just because someone is different doesn't mean that they are evil. This book isn't about conservative vs. libertarian. Is racial equality a negative political idea to you?
Everything that needed to be explained in the book was explained, and the things that needed to be explained but weren't were saved for the sequels to this book.
Telling from your personal taste in literature, your failure to understand grammar and the English language and your aggressive, immature and hostile behavior towards other people who disagree with you, I'm determining that your opinion isn't worth squat. You should probably stick to children's literature, because this book is clearly too advanced for you. The musical by the way completely bastardized this novel. Its clear that you were expected a full show of stupidity and nonsense from seeing the Broadway version when you picked up this book, but instead got intelligent allegory about racial and religious problems in modern society. Everyone who agreed with this review is the same, as clear by their lack of understanding the English language to a much higher extend then you.


