The Source of Wicked — Page 2

When I heard it was going to be made into a Broadway show, I got the book and read it. I thought it was fairly good, not the best writing in the world, but an interesting story that kept me involved. It made me completely hate the Musical, because they took all the darkness out of it, made it trite and fluffy, and the lyrics are some of the worst ever written. Though I didn't completely love the book, I'll take it over the show any day.

---

I think they were both fascinating and worked equally well, but on two entirely different levels. They are not the same, and I'm totally happy with that.

---

my thoughts are the same as best 12, though at first I was pissed off at the producers for "disneyfying" the show for broadway, but what are you gonna do?

---

I think it helps to think of the book as a companion to Wizard of Oz the book and the musical as a companion piece to the movie. The book differs from the movie a great deal in both plot and tone (The Wizard explicitly says he sent Dorothy off to the Witch hoping she'd be killed).

---

i would try finishing the book if i were you. it took me so long to finish it but i did and it does leave you with a sense of accomplishment, plus the end section is worth reading the rest of the book for. i'm sure that most people found the begining difficult to read. i feel your pain. :)

---

Roscoe sums up the book perfectly! BRAVO!

I love this book. I think the writing style is a non stop riot. Like everyone, childhood is a major influence on how they grow up and I think if he were to skip over it, it would be a horrible book.

I started reading LOST, but couldn't get into it, but I really enjoyed Confessions and Mirror, Mirror.

But for those who have read SON, what the hell happened in the end? Did he find Fiyero's daughter? Either I missed that part, or he left it out.

elmore3003---I completely agree.

But I also agree with producer Marc Platt's decision to transform it (fairly drastically) for the musical stage show. Lengthy discussions about political and religious agendas and theories would land like a lead balloon in a theatre. The show would have closed by intermission, IMO. And rightfully so. These are fascinating to read in a book, but not to see "talked about endlessly" on a stage.

I was very pleased with the (loose) adaptation and the new direction they took with the musical. While others bashed Holzman and Schwartz's approach, I think they rose to the occasion beautifully, even if they took a completely different road to get to Maguire's "point."

---

"I was very pleased with the (loose) adaptation and the new direction they took with the musical. While others bashed Holzman and Schwartz's approach, I think they rose to the occasion beautifully, even if they took a completely different road to get to Maguire's 'point.'"

I think they missed the point completely.

I'm surprised no one's been like "SEARCH FOR IT!" I thought one or two posters would have already bashed this thread for being a repeated discussion.

I just wish they wouldn't have changed SO much of the story.

Captain_Obvious---If you disagree and think the show missed the point completely, I'm curious as to what you think "the point" of Wicked is?

By the way, Maguire, the author, doesn't think they missed the point of his book.

---

Wait, that doesn't make any sense. Are you saying the point of the book is to tell the story of Elphaba? I think the novel is much more complex than that. The point of the musical is to put a spin on The Wizard of Oz and make young girls feel good about themselves. But it's a 2 hour stage show. They couldn't get into the story much. Besides, isn't Winnie Holzman's only other writing credit doing scripts for some preteen soap opera ala Degrassi? The fault for not finding depth lies mostly on Stephen Schwartz's shoulders, since that is what lyrics are for.

I disagree with most that Maguire is a poor writer. I think he's inconsistent, but often reaches moments of greatness that make it all worthwhile, and he has a quirky sense of humor that not everyone will notice. Ayn Rand is much denser than Gregory Maguire :P

Best12bars said:

"Lengthy discussions about political and religious agendas and theories would land like a lead balloon in a theatre. The show would have closed by intermission, IMO. And rightfully so. These are fascinating to read in a book, but not to see "talked about endlessly" on a stage. "

There's a whole lot of theater that does those sorts of things, and good writers know how to imply their themes. Stephen Schwartz does take steps to address the political themes in the story. They are juvenile, but it is a show meant for juveniles. Lucky for us they write plays and musicals for adults too!

---

I liked both, for the reason cited by best12bars and others.

I thought the music could be a bit more complex, but they were not going after the adult, thoughtful market (IMO). They targeted a specific market, and did so very well.

Who cares how long a book is? Do you read at the rate of a grade school student? Judging your prose, I'm going to take your criticisms with a grain of salt. Although I always do that with anybody.

---

"Judging your prose, I'm going to take your criticisms with a grain
of salt"

Hmmm... last I checked I'm a high school student, not a professional writer, and McGuire is a best selling author. So I think his standard should be set a little higher than mine.

---