I was very pleasantly surprised by this odd, irreverent, and in some parts even uncomfortable novel.

It truly captivated me with its witty story about Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West, who is the villain from The Wizard of Oz. However, this is by no means a children's book.

The setting is indeed the world of Oz, but the topics it approaches are entirely adult. It prompts a great deal of questioning, reflection, and excellent discussions about the most transcendent matters of life.

It makes you look at the familiar story of Oz from a completely different perspective and forces you to consider the complexity of characters and the moral dilemmas they face.

The author has done a remarkable job of creating a rich and engaging world that keeps you hooked from beginning to end.

Overall, it's a unique and thought-provoking read that I would highly recommend to anyone looking for something different.

“Wicked” is a very interesting book. There are many aspects to like and dislike, but overall, I truly enjoyed it. I was definitely eager to keep reading and found a great deal to think about. What really struck me the most was the story of Elphaba alone. She begins her life as an outcast due to various reasons and really never recovers. Despite being bright, determined, brave, a good friend, a caring family member, and in some ways sensitive, though self-involved, she still faces numerous hardships. The book seems to depict her as someone with great promise despite her rough start in life. She is a star pupil and an activist, and seemingly a woman who can attract intelligent and powerful men. However, her lover's death shatters her, and she never really gets over it. She spends years in seclusion from the world and then searches out her lover's widow seeking forgiveness, which she never fully receives in a way she can understand. She is followed by a little boy who appears to be her son, with her dead lover as the father. But I'm not sure what the author is trying to convey by making the son so much less than the sum of his parents. From this point on, Elphaba seems to deteriorate mentally. She becomes obsessed with recovering the ruby slippers and wishes only to retire from life after obtaining them. She really doesn't achieve much in her life, which I found very sad. She pushes all her friends away, and most of her family members die before her. So why is she considered wicked? Is it because she doesn't follow the conventional path that Glinda does? I have an odd feeling that Maguire sort of punished Elphaba for having a happy sexual life with her lover. Elphaba's mother is portrayed as a woman with loose sexual morals, and look at what happens to her - her children are born deformed in various ways, her husband mostly ignores her, her lover dies, she lives in squalor, and dies in childbirth! Ouch!

There's a lot of interesting background information about Oz, including its politics, sociology, and religions. I would have liked some of this to be more clearly presented in the book. A lot of it felt rather sketchy, which makes it seem less interesting. I think Maguire could have created a more fully realized fantasy world. It feels like he holds back by only providing bits and pieces. There's a discussion of the nature of good and evil that is a bit overly academic, but when he shows "good" and "evil" through Glinda and Elphaba, that's much more interesting because their portrayals reflect the relative nature of these concepts. Is Glinda good because she makes something of herself by marrying well, having money and social position, and giving to good causes? Is Elphaba wicked because she's not interested in those things? Or is she wicked because she doesn't manage to accomplish anything "good"? Are the fates of these women pre-determined in a classic fairy tale style because one is ugly and the other beautiful? What about Elphaba's sister, the other "wicked witch"? Is she wicked because she is self-righteous and wants to push her religious agenda? What does it mean that she's beautiful but literally armless? It's all very thought-provoking.

On the other hand, the book is quite uneven. It is really well-written in some parts and then poorly written in others. The pacing is uneven, so that some parts feel very slow while other parts seem rushed. Some details are very clear and sometimes overly emphasized, while other details are completely left out, leaving you wondering what happened! Characters who are very important in one part of the book end up becoming minor players, and vice versa. While I understand that this may be an attempt to reflect real life, I have to admit that I usually prefer some "tying up of loose ends" when I'm reading. There's an implication that Elphaba's father may have been The Wizard, but that's all we learn about that - this is just one example of a loose end, and there are many others throughout the book.

Like Elphaba, this book is beautiful in its own way and oddly fascinating, but it is also flawed and unfinished. However, I'm very glad I read it, and I'll probably read it again to pick up on things I missed.

Just finished re-reading this as a sort of guilty-pleasure getaway between all my thesis readings.

I guess it's been a couple of years since the last time I read it, because there was quite a bit I'd forgotten, and quite a bit that seems less dazzling to me than when I read it for the first, second, and even third time over the years.

I'm not going to agree with a lot of reviewers here that the book is a piece of shit, that Maguire is a hack, and that the novel should be on the Worst Literature of All Time lists. I love the novel in the way you can only love best-sellers and beach reads. If you go in expecting high literature, then you're pretty darned pretentious, if you ask me. Maguire may have some lofty ambitions in the book, but the fact remains that he rewrote The Wizard of Oz from the witch's perspective.

Both this novel and the original Oz series have some political, moral, and satirical undertones. But not with either of them did I go in expecting to feel like I was sifting my way through Faulkner or Joyce or Woolf. I think that's why it's frustrating to read the reviews on here, which seem to place labels and expectations on the book that the book never set out to fill.

Sure, I definitely felt at some points that I could have written some of the prose better. Yes, a lot of the characters are a bit one-dimensional. And yes, there are some frustrating plot gaps. But it's still a thrilling read, and I love the premise behind the book so much that I feel a bit more lenient on other problems I might have with it.

And some things are so innovative that Maguire actually deserves some credit. For example, I think it's fabulous that he takes something as minor as the odd markings on the soldiers at the Witch's palace and creates a backstory with a love interest. And then the whole animal/Animal distinction, and how that's perhaps an explanation for the Cowardly Lion. Nessarose's armlessness, and the power of the ruby slippers to help her stand on her own two feet. There are problems with the novel, but I think the wonder and magic of it all outweigh the downfalls. Definitely worth it if you still have a glimmer of that child that watched The Wizard of Oz hundreds of times in youth.

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'...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think I need to process this book in list form - in order of how it affected me.

First of all, I initially thought this couldn't be a book written for children. But I was wrong. Although Maguire claims to be a children's literature writer in his author bio and the book's afterword, he has clearly stated that this is not a children's book. The stage adaptation might be suitable for kids, but it's a tricky situation. After seeing the movie and stage adaptation, kids who like to read might want to pick up the book. However, I would strongly caution parents against allowing their children to read it. There are several aspects of this book that are not appropriate for children. There is explicit random sexual wording, the syntax is beyond what a child can understand, the pace is slow, there is plentiful philosophical language, heavy political themes, and small amounts of graphic violence. It is obvious that this book is not for children, and it actually scares me to think that Maguire had the best interests of a childhood reader in mind.

Secondly, this book is significantly different from the stage production or movie. This is not completely unusual. The outline is mostly there, but the book contrasts the stage version like Grimm fairytales vs. Disney's editions. I wasn't sad about this fact. Instead, I was intrigued by the differences and understood why certain parts of the story needed to be changed for a 2 1/2 hour stage adaptation. God bless Stephen Schwartz for his magical musical touch.

Thirdly, this book read like a classic. Maguire is a brilliant writer. However, there are disturbing, awkward, and twisted phrases inserted that made me feel an immediate sense of disgust for the writer in those moments.

Fourthly, the world building and character arcs in this book are astonishing. They are incredibly brilliant. I truly believe Maguire is too smart for me as a reader. He is indeed an amazing author. But I just needed a dictionary next to me at all times. His content discretion is not so great, nor is it well-timed.

Fifthly, I love love love the map of Oz. I was constantly referring to it. We need more maps in well-told stories.

Finally, I probably won't be reading the others in this series.

Jar of Death Pick #38

I finally completed it!

I initiated this book way back in 2020, but I rapidly recognized that I wasn't in the appropriate mood for it, so I did a soft DNF. I desired to pick it up numerous times between then and when I actually finished it, yet I knew I wasn't in the right frame of mind as of yet. For me, timing is of utmost importance.

Wicked is the "true story" of the life and times of the late great Wicked Witch of the West. As I perused this over the past week or so, I became aware of something....I truly relish stories set in the world of The Wizard of Oz. I've read and watched several such pieces of media....and yet I've never perused the original book series.

How is it that I've watched 3 distinct silent movie versions of Oz but I've never read the original???

I've even watched that dreadful movie Oz the Great and Powerful (I think that's the name but I don't care enough to verify) but I've never read the original book???

Anyway, back to Wicked.

I think I would have savored this more if I hadn't witnessed the musical. That musical is sheer perfection and the book simply pales in comparison. Not to imply that this isn't a good book because it is. It's just not the musical.

I also believe that part of my issue with the book is that I don't really resonate with Gregory Maguire's writing style. I can't precisely identify what troubles me about it, but something does. I possess another book by him, Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister, and I think I'll read that to further clarify my thoughts.

Overall, I did like this book. Elphaba was such an intriguing and cool character. Depending on how I feel after reading that other Maguire novel, I might pick up the other book in this series.

I went into this book with ZERO expectations. I wanted to see the movie, but of course, I had to read the book first. By 40 pages in, I knew I would love both the book and the movie! It had me hooked, mostly because it is so different from anything I have read. Also, I fell in love with the characters and the setting from the very beginning.

I was entranced from start to finish. This story is truly whimsical and enchanting ✨. It is a classic tale of good and evil. It is the prequel to the life of the Dorothy we know and love. Instead, it is the story of a little girl born with emerald green skin in the land of Oz - Elphaba. She has been blessed with a brilliant mind and an extraordinary talent for magic. She grows up lonely and different. But, arriving at university, Elphie dares to believe she might finally fit in.

However, Oz isn't the haven she'd dreamed of. Some of its citizens are in grave danger, and Elphaba is determined to protect them from the Wizard's power. When the world declares her a witch, Elphaba takes matters into her own hands...

I have seen nothing but bad reviews for this book and I honestly have no idea why! It was such a vivid and entertaining read. I admit, there were a few spots in the middle of the book that I felt were a bit long winded (hence the minus of 1

Dostoyevsky meets Frank Baum.

This encounter was not quite as enjoyable as that in "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". Perhaps it's because this work leans more towards being revisionist rather than a simple mash-up, parody, or spoof.

Strangely enough, this is actually a very mature piece set in the world of Oz and told from the perspective of Elpheba, the wicked witch. It was, however, amusing, entertaining, thought-provoking, and at times, left one scratching their head.

Published two years before "Harry Potter" and four years before "Phantom Menace", its influence on both series is quite apparent. While I didn't love it, it was still a fun book, and I might consider reading more from the author.

Wizard of Oz = Awesome
This book = Horrible

Oh, wow... so creative.

I'm going to rewrite a classic story from a different point of view.

Oh, and I am going to make it political and make sure that nothing ever happens in the book that makes it worth reading.

If I am lucky, they will make a musical about it and then I'll be rich because of my groundbreaking idea.

You see, the original "Wizard of Oz" is truly an awesome piece of literature. It has captured the hearts of generations with its magical world and endearing characters.

But this new book I'm planning to write is going to be completely different.

I'll take a classic story and twist it in a way that no one has ever done before.

By making it political, I'll inject a whole new layer of meaning and controversy into the narrative.

And I'll be sure to avoid any elements that might make the book enjoyable or engaging.

Who knows, maybe my crazy idea will pay off and they'll turn it into a musical.

Then I'll be famous and rich, all because of my unique approach to rewriting a classic.

I don't even know where to start. This book - actually, the concept of this book - had so much promise. It could've been a great revisionist retelling of the Wizard of Oz. Yes, it fleshed out Oz itself - what a rich land, populated by various creatures: humans, animals and everything in between. The political and religious strata of Oz was well-thought out.

However, I couldn't connect to any of the characters, especially the main character of Elphaba. I felt that none of them were fully developed. None of them were likable, either in a positive or negative way. Sometimes, you're drawn to characters who are so evil because they're interesting. You become interested in their back story (and there is always one) and what makes them tick. Of course, almost everyone is drawn to the hero of the story, be they good or flawed, regardless of whether they're the hero-type or the underdog. But in my mind, while Elphaba was the center of the story, there was just nothing about her that drew me in, nothing that made me want to know her better. Nothing tugged at my heart strings or made me go "Grrr...I can't stand her!"

Maguire proselytized. Ad nauseum. To the point where I saw no point in going further with the book. While I can see that this work would appeal to some people who revel in exposition and live and breathe religious and political polemic (there are die-hard Wicked fans out there - of the book, I mean, which is significantly different from the musical, and that has a large fan base as well), but sad to say, I am not one of them (a fan of the book). I think there's a place for everything, and when I pick up a book that purports to be about the life and times of the Wicked Witch of the West, I expect a fantastical backstory about her.

And that's the thing. I know very little about her. She's green, but why is she green? She's got normal parents, but how did she become this freakish green baby with shark teeth? You know about her parents' dalliances, their religious fervor, their sexual proclivities, their societal vagaries. But you don't see how this shaped Elphaba. There are so many holes in the story, so many unanswered questions, and whenever I expected to find an answer, there were one or two vague, often nebulous, non-answers.

The story meandered all over the place, dropping characters here and there into the narrative - characters that (one hopes) will enrich the characterization of Elphaba's life. Sometimes they did; most times, they didn't.

About a quarter of the way through, I wondered where this was all heading. About halfway through, I wanted to rip my hair out and beg for something - anything - to happen that would make me feel connected to our heroine or the story. But there was nothing. Not even a clock dragon to crawl into.

This novel could've done so much. It held so much promise. So much. But it failed to deliver, and at least for me, it was a supreme letdown.

I watched the movie with my mum and brother, and it was truly phenomenal. The acting and singing were superb, instantly making it one of my all-time favorite movies. The movie achieved what the book aspired to but couldn't.

I'm relieved that this book is over. It was a struggle to get through at times, and about 90 percent of it was extremely boring. I disliked all the characters as they were annoying and cruel. There were numerous occasions when I considered giving up on it. Additionally, the politics in this book were baffling, and I found the entire story confusing. Characters would vanish from the narrative, and I later learned they were dead with hardly any explanation. The only redeeming parts were the ones related to The Wizard of Oz. I would suggest skipping the book and watching the movie and the musical instead (apparently, the adaptations are not even similar to the book anyway).

I'm going to watch the movie of this tomorrow, so there's no better time to review the book than now. I despised it. I'm still confused by it, and it's been almost a month since I read it. The plot of this book is so disjointed and makes no sense, so I'm not sure how I'll describe it in my review (also, Glitch reads aka Goodreads has rated every single book I've read lately 5 stars when they had different ratings. Some of them were even one and two-star reads, so please ignore that if you see it). Anyway, back to Wicked. This novel tells the story of Elphaba, also known as the Wicked Witch of the West, whom we all know from The Wizard of Oz (I've read the book twice, and the movie is one of my absolute favorites, along with the Harry Potter movies). Elphaba's parents are human, but she is born with green skin. They are horrified and initially want to kill her. However, they don't go through with it. Melena, Elphaba's mother, is terrible. She's annoying and self-absorbed (she grew up in a wealthy family and expects everything to be handed to her). She and her husband (I forgot his name) have a strange relationship with a turtle-like guy (I think his name is Turtlehead) that makes no sense. Eventually, Melena becomes pregnant with Elphaba's sister before disappearing from the story entirely. It is revealed about a hundred pages later that she died after giving birth to her third child, which is not Elphaba's sister. Also, apparently, Elphaba's father loves Elphaba's sister because she may be Turtlehead's daughter and not his (this still doesn't make sense to me). Anyway, Elphaba goes to school and meets Galinda, also known as Glinda, the Good Witch of the South. They become friends, although Galinda doesn't really like Elphaba and is only with her because she is forced to be her roommate at school. They meet Borq, a munchkin who quickly falls in love with Galinda (this part was so cringe-worthy to read). Galinda rejects him in Elphaba's presence, who comments on the entire situation, but Borq and Elphaba end up becoming friends. Moving on to the politics in this book, I still don't understand it, but apparently, it's an allegory for antisemitism, which is the horrific treatment of Jews simply because of their ethnicity and which grew rapidly during Hitler's rule of the Third Reich, also known as the Nazi regime (I'm a long-time modern history student who has lost count of how many times I've studied World War II). I can sort of see that because animals are being mistreated and brutally killed just for being animals. Going back to Elphaba and Galinda, who now goes by Glinda, they are now friends, but Elphaba abandons Glinda after their visit to the Emerald City (which was a complete waste of time as they achieved nothing in the mission they were sent on by one of their teachers). Years pass, and Elphaba has a sexual relationship with a former classmate despite the fact that he is married and has three children with his wife. However, her lover soon disappears from the narrative, and it turns out he is dead, having been brutally murdered for a political reason that isn't fully explained (Elphaba blames herself for his death, and I still don't know if she caused it or not). Anyway, I wouldn't recommend this book, but you can give it a try if you're curious or want to read it before the movie (I read it because I wanted to read it before seeing the movie). I'll let you all know what I think of the movie after I've seen it.

I have had copies of Gregory Maguire's "Wicked" at various times in my life. It has always been on my shelf, and I have given away copies, lost them, and yet somehow always found myself buying more copies of "Wicked", always hoping that I would get around to reading it.

It all started in 2004 when I saw the Broadway musical. By then, it was starring Idina Menzel, who had won the Tony Award for Best Actress, and her co-stars Kristin Chenoweth, Joel Grey, and Norbert Leo Butz had all left the show.

I saw replacement actors Megan Hilty as Galinda (standby for Jennifer Laura Thompson), New Kids on the Block member Joey McIntyre as Fiyero, and the legendary Broadway actor George Hearn as the Wizard, who replaced Joel Grey. I was in my early 20s and was attracted to the production's pyrotechnics and its big, splashy numbers. But I couldn't find a way to get into reading Mr. Maguire's novel.

Almost 20 years later, I finally finished "Wicked". After its 19 years on Broadway, since the book has become a runaway bestseller and cult hit, so much has happened. Idina Menzel has become a household name voicing Elsa in "Frozen", Norbert Leo Butz has become a two-time Tony Award winner, Carole Shelley (Madame Morrible) has passed away, Megan Hilty has found success as a character actress in TV's "Smash" and is currently headlining "Death Becomes Her" on Broadway.

The positives of reading "Wicked" are that it reads a lot like fan fiction. It offers a fun, satirical look at Elphaba being a scapegoat for both racial injustice and leftist politics. It's more relevant than ever because of Trumpism and the rise of a conservative United States filled with anxiety. However, I didn't like how the musical veered off the novel's plot and made it a mishmash and a loose adaptation.

I liked how Elphaba had sex scenes with Fiyero, how Lirr is their son, and how she begrudgingly bonds with Sarima, his widow, and later has catty conflicts with the snooty, cowardly Glinda, the overly zealous Nessarose who becomes the Wicked Witch of the East and is squished by Dorothy's house.

The Wizard is the most stereotypical of villains. He rapes Melena, Elphaba and Nessarose's mother, and the green elixir he gives her is the twist that reveals he's really Elphie's papa. While both are stubborn in their convictions, she is earnest, and he is politically savvy and motivated by a lust for power, assisted by Madame Morrible.

I'm glad that Elphie bashes her head to death in the novel rather than being jailed as in the musical. The novel was delightfully more macabre than the musical and doesn't compromise its vision of both the grotesque and camp.

Overall, my sentiments about "Wicked" are that although this novel was quick-witted and entertaining, I didn't feel much of a connection to it. It left me feeling hollow and having no real feelings towards any of the characters. Perhaps it's because I'm almost 20 years older than when I first discovered the musical, but it does show how much personal tastes can change. I'm glad to have finally read it though.

Note: I did see the newly released "Wicked Part 1" directed by Jon Chu, which is an adaptation of the musical. Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo give solid, if unremarkable performances as Glinda and Elphaba. Jonathan Bailey is cute but super bland as Fiyero, and Michelle Yeoh gives her best Bette Davis impersonation as Madame Morrible.