"Wicked": Novel vs. Stage Production

[L.A. Design Girl]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 2:00am

Dear fellow Broadway lovers,

I have just recently finished Gregory Maguire's novel and have heard the buzzing about a sit-down production of the musical here where I live in 2007. I am curious to see it, but would like to know your opinion...will the show "spoil" the novel for me in any way? I did enjoy the book because the story was so cleverly crafted--every element had its place. How different is the show from the novel?

Carrie

[C is for Company]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 2:03am

this should help

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=75722#76054

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 8:42am

They are VERY different, actually. Both are incredible on their own with different things to offer. Trying to compare them is like rying to compare oranges and apples.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 9:22am

I agree with EponineAmneris.

The two are very different works. Many people will respond in this thread and call the musical a bastardization of the novel, saying it butchered it. I disagree. The novel is much, much darker than the show is. Schwartz and co. took elements of the novel (and certain plot points) and adapted them for the stage. Many elements of the novel would not have (IMO) translated well to the musical stage.

The biggest difference, I think, is the ending. I won't spoil it for you, but the musical has a completely different ending than the book did.

I read the novel first, then saw the show. I enjoyed both for what they were. You'll enjoy the show a lot more if you don't go in expecting a page by page stage translation of the novel.

[elphaba432]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 9:30am

They are very different. G(a)linda has a larger part in the musical. Avrick, as you may remember is not in the musical and Fieyro takes his personality.

[mominator]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 9:32am

Personally I liked the novel better, but with that being said I also enjoyed the show very much.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 10:45am

L.A. Design Girl---I like them both equally as well. But I see them as two completely different works.

If you go into the theatre with any sort of "purist" attitudes about seeing the novel on stage, you are bound to be disappointed. If you understand that the basic premise of the book is still there, and most of the characters, but many things (including major plot points and emphasis) have changed... you'll probably enjoy it quite a lot, as I did.

There is still a universal truth that it taps into, which I believe is the reason for the widespread success of both the novel and the stage show.

That "universal truth" was captured beautifully in both.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 12:39pm

No. The reason is that they are nothing alike. When you see Wicked, you hardly think of the novel at all because there are a few of the same characters (which do none of the same things) and maybe a couple of the same plot ideas. You must think of them as two different things.

[peach]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 12:45pm

Agree with most already. Loved them both, but they are different. Enjoy each one for what it is.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 12:48pm

These debates go on and on.

Carrie, just curious, but have you heard the Wicked recording? That should tell you something.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 12:52pm

I feel they are almost completely different in every aspect. I wouldn't go as far as to say the show "bastardized" the novel, because I really think they are so different that they have to be judged on their own accord (so different, in fact, that I would have prefered the musical being credited as "insipred by" the novel instead of "based upon.")

[rosekwbp]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 12:54pm

Yeah the novel and the musical are different. I could not read the novel no matter how many times I tried but I really enjoyed the musical.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 12:56pm

The novel is much darker and more political. The musical is the fluffed up version of the book, really. A lot of the things in the book wouldn't really translate well and make a good musical, so I suppose all of the change is understandable, but just know that they are two very, very dfferent things. I like the novel a lot better.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 12:57pm

A little off topic, but a friend who works at the Pantages has confirmed that an open-ended run is coming to the Pantages in early 2007. No news on casting, but it an open ended sit down production.

And, the book and musical are very, very different. Some of the basic themes are the same, but the book is much more detailed, much darker, and not quite the same sugary concoction that the musical is. I liked the musical, but loved the book.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 12:58pm

We might have some insight into the casting for the LA sitdown already...

Megan Hilty told fans at the stage door after her last show that the producers had started talking to her about opening the LA company and that, most likely, she will indeed be doing it.

Updated On: 7/5/06 at 12:58 PM

[HeartandMusic]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 1:06pm

Peach: "Agree with most already. Loved them both, but they are different. Enjoy each one for what it is."

I agree with Peach.

Also, I recommend that you read "Son of a Witch", the sequel to "Wicked". I actually enjoyed reading it more than I did "Wicked", Mr. Maquire takes some very interesting twists and turns. Plus, the ending is highly enjoyable, there's a great pay off.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 1:12pm

I prefer WICKED to SON OF A WITCH. I've read both many times, and I feel that Maguire wrote Liir's book because he knew he'd make some money. (That's just my opinion though.)

The character of Elphaba is more complex than Liir. I also think they have two completely different tones. WICKED is more satirical, and Liir is pretty much a coming-of-age.

Too bad they kicked Liir out of the musical.

[bohemianxsunshine]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 1:48pm

In my opinion, the novel is much more adult. The novel is almost more complex but you will find some relation, not complete relation. It looks like Stephen Schwartz striped the novel to its bare essentials and then remixed them to make the context suitable to all ages, young and old.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 1:53pm

I don't like to think of them as the same story. I process them as two seperate entities. The show is a watered down version, yet I prefer it over the novel.

[Flahooley]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 3:14pm

The aspect of the novel that is missing - and that I miss most in the musical - is Elphaba's unpleasantness.

She is much nastier, smater and more flawed in the novel. She isn't the young misunderstood girl with big ideals as in the musical. She is much more irritating. I wish the musical had been just a little bolder in allowing Elphaba to be bit more unlikeable.

[Katie2]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 3:18pm

The musical is sooooooo incredibly different from the book. I personally prefer the show more but that's just my opinion. I don't think the musical will "spoil" the book for you. Go into it with and open mind and you should enjoy it.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 3:57pm

She's already read the book.

[SirLiir]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 4:08pm

I enjoyed Liir's transformation in SoW and I seriously hope Maguire has a third book in him because he left way too many plot points unresolved.

As for the OP's question, both are just so different. Reading or seeing one will not hamper your enjoyment of the other.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 8:09pm

I love that people want a sequel to Wicked (the musical) because there is a sequel to the book. Umm... the sequel of the book is about a character that's not even in the musical.

I process them as two seperate entities.
Exactly. That's how you have to see it.

[matt schneider]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 8:13pm

The novel isn't going to spoil book, but you have to expect huge diffrences.