Wicked

The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West
Gregory Maguire
1996

rating: meh

plot: The life story of the Wicked Witch of the West, who spent most of her years as an advocate for societal change but at the end degraded into the evil villain we find in The Wizard of Oz.



I just want to point out that I read Wicked before it was cool. I read this book when it first came out. My gentle reader will remember that I was an avid reader of the Oz books as a child, so when I saw this new release back in 1996, my interested was certainly piqued. I remember liking it. I was 17 years old.

An incredibly intriguing concept. Take the Wicked Witch of the West, who we all know to be a cackling harpy, and make her into a protagonist we care about. How did this drastic fall from grace occur? I think Maguire has a fabulous story here. Elphaba, the witch, begins her life as, if not lovable, then endearing. Her gradual change into the creature who meets Dorothy is heart-wrenching and dramatic, but well-explained.

This book is not intended as a prequel or companion to the Oz books. This is not a book for children. Or people who like the musical Wicked. Maguire describes Oz as a country on the brink of race-war, torn by politics. He spends most of the book outlining long philosophical arguments regarding good/evil and human/animal rights and gosh knows what else. It can frankly get dull.

I would have rated this book “good” if the only problem were a few boring, ranting passages.

OK. So we have two Ozes. The first is the movie, The Wizard of Oz. The second is the book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The differences between the book and the movie are unimportant in general conversation, but vitally important when one is writing a book based on one of them. And this is my problem with Wicked. Maguire didn’t decide. He used both. In one passage he will talk about Ozma of Oz (a character only mentioned in the book). In another passage he notes that the magic slippers are ruby. (They are ruby only I the movie; in the book they are silver.) I won’t bore you with the nerdy list of back and forth references, but the book is full of them.

My point is, you can’t base the book on BOTH the movie and the book. It makes no sense. I am a world class suspender of disbelief, but this was just befuddling. “But,” you might say, “didn’t Maguire just write this book for the casual audience who only saw the movie?” But then why include all those inside references to the Oz books?! Why include those references to only then throw them out the window when the storyline intersected with the movie? Why?

My brain hurts.

(I previously mentioned my feelings about the musical Wicked. I won’t repeat them here.)