"Wicked": Novel vs. Stage Production- Page 2

[missyrose87]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 11:12pm

I would not read Wicked to a five year old, he wouldnt understand it and would be bored. I would take him to see the show, because he would still be entertained.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 11:36pm

Well, I have about fifty pages to go before I finish the book, and I was going to start a thread about this myself, but it looks like I was beaten to the punch!

Although I'm sure the last section of the book is critical and perhaps might change my opinion slightly, I would say that the musical is definitely an improvement over the book. And this is coming from someone who doesn't even LIKE the musical very much (save a few songs).

"Wicked" was Gregory Maguire's first novel and you can tell. That man was in sore need of a good editor when writing that thing. Although it is about 400 pages in length, it feels like twice that amount, as the events are spelled out at such a snails pace with such little dramatic action. May I propose that the entire "In the Vinkus" section (which is about a quarter of the book) should have been cut out altogether? I mean damn...that entire section could have been summarized in about two chapters.

Although the musical is really more "inspired by" the book rather than an adaptation of it, I think that the musical, despite it's flaws, did a better job of getting across Maguire's ideas than he did himself. There are some great concepts in there (political and otherwise), but so much of it gets lost in the heap.

[mathewbrock]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 11:51pm

I read the book before seeing the musical because I had a strange hunch that I wouldn't like the book much if I experienced them the other way around. To this day, I still think I made the best choice.

While WICKED: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST is definitely NOT a book for everyone, those who have the capacity to enjoy it will probably do so much better if they read it before being exposed to the musical. (Although not being exposed to this musical these days is like living under a rock.)

The musical did an excellent job of taking the ideas, themes, and overall story of the Maguire novel and making them work on the stage at a mainstream level. What I mean is this: they made a universally likeable production out of a book that only some were meant to enjoy. And they were very smart to do so. THE WIZARD OF OZ is one of the most popular stories of American culture. Even now, over 100 years after the original story was penned, and almost 70 years after the movie was made, people everywhere still LOVE this story. To adapt Maguire's novel literally would have prevented WICKED from becoming the huge success that it is.

I just feel bad for all the thirteen-year-old girls who try to read the book after having seen the musical. They're going to HATE it!
Updated On: 7/5/06 at 11:51 PM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 12:34am

Yeah, it's a tough read. Even as an adult with a degree in English Literature, I still had trouble getting through this thing.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 2:15am

TDB, I disagree with you %100. I believe Maguire recreated the Wicked Witch of the West from a very flat character (While I love Margaret's performance, and I've read the original book, the character has no depth) into a complex, sourful, strong, passionate woman. Bravo to him! I wish I thought about it.

As a writer, it's our choice which words we want to choose, and how we emphasize events. Maguire chose what he wanted to choose, and I think they're correct ones.

Her life as the Wicked Witch of the West is what finally makes her into who she is. If any of her history was cut out, I don't think I'd enjoy it as much.

I first bought the book when I heard about the musical, and while I haven't seen the musical yet, I still think the book better than what I've seen and heard.

The stage Elphaba is so watered down. Maybe her dialogue is different, but besides "Something Bad", you never really get to know the Elphaba in the book.

I really hope that WICKED: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST is never adapted again. I don't want to see it as a movie (especailly a movie musical) or a cartoon, or even a comic strip. It's a deep, beautifully written, novel, and that's the way I like it.

SON OF A WITCH is another story...

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 2:22am

Well, what can I say...that's the nature of art, everyone's going to react differently. I didn't hate the book; parts of it I enjoyed very much. I just feel that a good deal of it is quite dull.

But that's just my opinion. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Since you do like it so much, I suggest you avoid the musical!

[brandonm]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 10:09am

I dont know why, but I couldn't seem to get into the book. It took me a year to read because i kept on getting board (I read it when i was 12, so that might be why i didnt like it), but I was able to follow and understand the musical much easier.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 12:29pm

The musical is much more simplistic. It spells it out more for you. The book is complex and dark and much harder to follow.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 12:48pm

I think calling the musical a "watered down" version of the novel is being rather kind. To me, watered down would mean that it at least keeps the story--for the most part--in tact (for example: Les Misérables the musical is sort of a watered down version of the novel).

That's really not the case with Wicked. It has the same character names and location names, but the story the musical is telling is more a high-school drama (until the second act) than the darker, more meaningful story the novel attempts to tell.

Bottom line is you can't walk into the musical expecting a musicalized version of the novel, nor can one read the novel expecting a book following the musical. They are two very, very different stories. You have to go into the musical knowing the Elphaba is no longer a sort of dark, tragic hero. Infact, they've...made her a little it of a wimp in the end. The tragedy factor is removed, and the characters are kind of transformed into child-friendly cartoons.
Updated On: 7/6/06 at 12:48 PM

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 2:48pm

When I found out how it ended, I was beyond pissed! Fiyero dies. If he doesn't die, then Elphaba has no reason to be bitter/mad/alone/etc.

And yes, I agree that 12 is a little too young to read that book. Of course you're going to follow the musical better, it's written for kids your age.

[DiamondGirl]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 8:49pm

While there are definite plot point that differ (the Fiyero/Glinda/Elphaba triangle, the ending, etc), I think what stands out most to me is the way the characters were changed. I like Elphaba with a little more bite to her. I like Fiyero as Fiyero, not as Averic with Fiyero's name. I like Boq as Elphaba's friend and serving a constructive purpose.

But then, good characters are, in my opinion, the strongest asset any story can have, and I feel Wicked (the book) has great ones.

Also, I miss Crope and Tibbett.
Updated On: 7/6/06 at 08:49 PM

[ashley0139]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 8:54pm

I think the characters that the show is lacking the most is Fiyero's wife (can't remember her name at the moment) and their children, along with Liir. Those characters, especially the wife, are the driving force behind a lot of Elphaba's actions in the book, and I think you miss a great deal without them in the show. If I were going to adapt the book, it would be unthinkable to leave them out. I don't understand how they did that. But I like the show for what it is.

[achancetofly]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 9:07pm

I totally agree with you, Ashley. So much of what happened to Elphaba at Kiamo Ko is essential to the story, and that includes Sarima and all the sisters and the kids...


Plus, I really really miss the book!Fiyero. I mean, I don't really care about the love triangle created between him, Glinda, and Elphaba in the musical, but I really do miss the way Fiyero was in the book. It is NOTHING like him. It seems like they just put Avaric in the musical and gave him a different name, so the relationship between Elphaba and Fiyero would be more "canon".

...I also really miss Fiyero's tattoos. Because one of my favorite, favorite lines from the book is "They moved together, blue diamonds on a green field." Whee, swoon.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 9:16pm

"They moved together, blue diamonds on a green field."
That is one of the most memorable quotes.

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 7/6/06 at 9:17pm

Very swoon! I did hear that at an early preview, Norbert did have blue diamonds, but they didn't look good from the audience. And there really isn't a triangle in the book. Fiyero is attracted to Elphaba because she's different, and vice versa. But that doesn't work in the musical, for obvious reasons.

Sarima and Sisters 1-6 (7?), plus Nor, Malick, Liir and the other one are so great, they should've been left in, along with Nanny!

Oh well.

[L.A. Design Girl]

Posted: 7/21/06 at 6:03pm

Oh boy, my head is spinning. I didn't expect this kind of response to my question, but now I think I have it...the general consensus seems to be that the novel and the show are two separate and distinct experiences and one shouldn't be compared to the other...almost as if all they have in common is a title and a few characters.

They would certainly have to be two different things, if it's true that Fiyero doesn't die in the show. Um, hello? Pivotal moment in the book!!

I have heard bits and pieces of the music from the show...so far, nothing has thrilled me, but that is part of the reason I am curious to see the show. I really want to know if I will like the music or not!

I agree that the novel is strictly for adults, though...and yes, hard to get through. But it takes a lot to get me to give up on a book, so I managed to finish it in a week or two. I am not too terribly interested in reading any of Maguire's other novels, with the exception of "Lost," but who knows?

Thanks for ALL the information, everyone! It's much appreciated!

CLG