#1
Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:20pm
is it really different? what are some notable changes? if you've read it, which do you prefer?
#2
Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:24pm
From what I know of the musical, there are HUGE differences. Since I haven't seen the musical, I can't say which is better, but the book is amazing.
#3
Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:26pm
To me, the book is extraordinary, devoid of camp, full of fascinating detail about Oz, making it a very real, very dark place. Unlike the musical, there is no Harry Potter-esque stuff about training for sorcery. Shiz merely offers that as one discipline--it's not Hogwarts-like. One fascinating anthropological thread is the evolution of religion in this strange country, from pagan practice through a whole Christic-imagery based holiday ritual. But it's not dry -- it's got really developed characters and narrative drive. The story is the birth-to-death tale of Elphaba. She dominates; Glinda disappears for nearly 100 pages. The focus is on this outcast, her lineage, her discovery of a personal voice and sense of mission, her brief but life-changing romance ... and then ... well, read it. It's very rewarding. I'm not drawn to fantasy at all, but found this book powerful and thought-provoking.
But in defense of the show -- which I liked -- putting Maguire's opus on stage might result in something LES MIZ-like. The show lifts many of the novel's details, much reworked, but then replots it to create a tight, musical-comedy take on Maguire's vision.
But in defense of the show -- which I liked -- putting Maguire's opus on stage might result in something LES MIZ-like. The show lifts many of the novel's details, much reworked, but then replots it to create a tight, musical-comedy take on Maguire's vision.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 11/25/03 at 01:26 PM
#4
Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:31pm
yes i am reading it :). that's why i asked. and i did think some part were Harry Potter"Esque"
#5
Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:38pm
Sorry to sound so didactic. You're right. Morrible has some Hogwarts stuff. I guess it's the difference in tone, which seemed less whimsical. I found Maguire's book without whimsy.
But I hope you'll share many more of your thoughts on the book. There's a lot to chew on, no? The book surprised me. I resisted it, especially after the sort of arch prologue when Elphaba hears the WIZARD characters speaking psychobabble to analyze her. But the book is much different from that startling start. Ironically, though, now I much appreciate the way he gets us in to it...
But I hope you'll share many more of your thoughts on the book. There's a lot to chew on, no? The book surprised me. I resisted it, especially after the sort of arch prologue when Elphaba hears the WIZARD characters speaking psychobabble to analyze her. But the book is much different from that startling start. Ironically, though, now I much appreciate the way he gets us in to it...
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 11/25/03 at 01:38 PM
#6
Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:43pm
Having not read the book, but planning to, is the end the same as the musical? I'm sensing it probably isn't...
#7
Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:48pm
When you compare the two, the novel points out what happens when you make dramatic choices that are mostly right and true. The musical is a series of blown opportunities. It's a betrayal of the source material. And before people tell me "it's only BASED on the novel," maybe they should have changed the title. Or gone ahead and added the exclamation point you know they must have considered. "Wicked!"
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#8
Posted: 11/25/03 at 2:16pm
I too have read the book and loved it, yet have not seen the musical. I found the book to be wonderful, yet it was much darker and graphic than I had imagined. It is in no way a book that I would recommend for anyone under the age of 14 or so. It is slow in some parts but the best parts are when G(a)linda and Elphaba are at college, those were the most "magical."
#9
Posted: 11/25/03 at 4:25pm
As well, I found the book pretty 'awemazing'(is that proper spelling, Namo?) but have been less than bewitched by what I have seen/heard/read media-wise regarding the show (I will not see it until the beginning of the year). Though I will save full assessment till I see it in full, it seems like the creators have robbed the source material for concept, but left behind all the meat and potatos..thus forgoing any of the conflict and satire that made the novel so engrossing.
Maybe, 'Like, Wicked!' would be an even better title.
After watching that David Letterman clip, my bets are the Elphaba I met on page would probably like to get her fangs and claws around the throat of her 'simpering, whimpering' stage counterpart.
Maybe, 'Like, Wicked!' would be an even better title.
After watching that David Letterman clip, my bets are the Elphaba I met on page would probably like to get her fangs and claws around the throat of her 'simpering, whimpering' stage counterpart.
Me fail English? That's unpossible! - Ralph Wiggum
#10
Posted: 11/25/03 at 4:50pm
Interesting comment about the Letterman clip, Samba since I find the entire "Defying Gravity" sequence one chunk of the musical most reminiscent of the spirit of the novel's heroine.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
#11
Posted: 11/25/03 at 5:09pm
I found the book to be an occasionally amusing but ultimately dull book, the literary equivalent of a 'chick flick.' I liked that the book went places that musical didn't go. The musical spends a lot of time being cutesy and clever in ways that the novel doesn't.
I think the musical had an easier time being cutesy and clever because Stephen Schwartz is more at home writing cutesy and clever than he is writing deep and disturbing. As a result, Glinda gets all the good lines and all the good songs, while Elphaba's songs fall rather flat, except for the remarkable "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished." But it is just one song, and it is soon back to business as usual: light pop ballads that are too insubstantial for even Disney to trot out.
I also think that the musical perpetrates the most shocking cop-out ending I've ever seen. It rivals and recalls the ridiculous ending of Rent. It is a cheat and a lie and a colossal cop-out. I am appalled that Joe Mantello allowed it to happen, and my respect for him has significantly diminished as a result.
I think the musical had an easier time being cutesy and clever because Stephen Schwartz is more at home writing cutesy and clever than he is writing deep and disturbing. As a result, Glinda gets all the good lines and all the good songs, while Elphaba's songs fall rather flat, except for the remarkable "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished." But it is just one song, and it is soon back to business as usual: light pop ballads that are too insubstantial for even Disney to trot out.
I also think that the musical perpetrates the most shocking cop-out ending I've ever seen. It rivals and recalls the ridiculous ending of Rent. It is a cheat and a lie and a colossal cop-out. I am appalled that Joe Mantello allowed it to happen, and my respect for him has significantly diminished as a result.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/
#12
Posted: 11/25/03 at 5:15pm
I have the book but haven't read it yet. Now I am wondering if I should see the show before reading the book, or vice versa. Anyone have any opinions? To read or not to read?
#13
Posted: 11/25/03 at 5:23pm
Reading the book won't give you any particular insight into the musical, except in as much as it will make you see how significantly the authors of the book and score have lightened up the story for the musical stage. The book isn't terribly deep or especially good, but at least it has something like guts, which that musical totally lacks.
That ending. God in heaven, that cop-out phony ending. Ridiculous. I hope they are deeply ashamed of themselves.
That ending. God in heaven, that cop-out phony ending. Ridiculous. I hope they are deeply ashamed of themselves.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/
#14
Posted: 11/25/03 at 8:00pm
i'm sorry i dindt understand. was the Musical ridiculus or the book?
#15
Posted: 11/25/03 at 8:08pm
Bought my wife "Wicked" for Christmas & we see the show in February . She can tell me re the differences.
Poster Emeritus
Updated On: 11/25/03 at 08:08 PM
#16
Posted: 11/25/03 at 8:51pm
Sorry, I didn't make it clear I guess. I hated the ending of the musical. It is bogus and vulgar and a feel-good cheat, a real insult to the intelligence. The ending of the novel is much better.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/
#17
Posted: 11/25/03 at 9:36pm
Well, for one thing, the book makes sense.
"I really liked the show--Wish I saw Boy's Night...Am I allowed as I am not a boy anymore:)"-duffyny1
#18
Posted: 11/25/03 at 9:42pm
And it doesn't insult your intelligence.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#19
Posted: 11/25/03 at 9:48pm
so the show makes it seem like you wont get it? and thats why it seems dumb?
Updated On: 11/25/03 at 09:48 PM
#20
Posted: 11/25/03 at 11:08pm
I agree with Auggie and I will say this...if you haven't seen the show or read the book, then see the show first. I read the book long before I saw the show and I think for some people it would be disapointing to see the show after having the book in your head. It didn't for me because I found the musical to be wonderful. The book is on the dark side and is much more deep than the show. Although I can say that I don't know that the real story in the novel would make a good show. I loved the book because it draws you in and makes you care about the characters. The weird thing is thats what I love about the stage production as well. I know some people say that the show is fluff and not the same ending and that is understandable. All I can say is that when I left the theater I was soooooo HAPPY about what I had just seen. It was that kind of feeling you get that makes you say to yourself "I'm glad I'm alive and able to find such joy in things". It certainly put a large smile on my face, not to mention made me feel good about the 100 dollar ticket I had bought to see it:)
#21
Posted: 11/26/03 at 9:59am
thanks JCR. My inclination was to see the show first; I prefer to not know too much about the storyline. Then I can be surprised all over again when I read the book, if it has a different ending!
#22
Posted: 2/12/08 at 8:24pm
Reading Wicked the Novel was a magical experience.
So many reviews of either version of the story tends to focus on the transformation of the Witch into a character who was "misunderstood" aka someone who was really good at heart. But that's such a narrow definition of the word: the magic of the novel is that, while the Witch was not completely evil, she was sarcastic, bitter, unable to suffer fools, and somewhat unable to take charge in a crisis moment (Liir's near-drown experience in the well, the assassination attempt on Morrible, etc.)
This is not an easy person to like, but Gregory Maguire draws her so psychologically well that almost every time you read the novel , you can discover something new about her.
Yes, the novel is also deeply flawed: Maguire's prose switches between beautiful and self-conscious (some of the humor is labored because of this), the novel is seriously overwritten (there are some sections that just cry out, "Why am I here?"), and even more. But anyone who has seen the musical needs to read it, if only to discover how different the musical is.
P.S. The flaws of the novel make it an absolute perfect idea for a film adaptation: anyone who can find the focus of the novel and cut out the necessary fat will have a great, great movie on their hands.
So many reviews of either version of the story tends to focus on the transformation of the Witch into a character who was "misunderstood" aka someone who was really good at heart. But that's such a narrow definition of the word: the magic of the novel is that, while the Witch was not completely evil, she was sarcastic, bitter, unable to suffer fools, and somewhat unable to take charge in a crisis moment (Liir's near-drown experience in the well, the assassination attempt on Morrible, etc.)
This is not an easy person to like, but Gregory Maguire draws her so psychologically well that almost every time you read the novel , you can discover something new about her.
Yes, the novel is also deeply flawed: Maguire's prose switches between beautiful and self-conscious (some of the humor is labored because of this), the novel is seriously overwritten (there are some sections that just cry out, "Why am I here?"), and even more. But anyone who has seen the musical needs to read it, if only to discover how different the musical is.
P.S. The flaws of the novel make it an absolute perfect idea for a film adaptation: anyone who can find the focus of the novel and cut out the necessary fat will have a great, great movie on their hands.
"Y'know, I think Bertolt Brecht was rolling in his grave."
-Nellie McKay on the 2006 Broadway production of The Threepenny Opera, in which she played Polly Peachum
-Nellie McKay on the 2006 Broadway production of The Threepenny Opera, in which she played Polly Peachum
Updated On: 2/12/08 at 08:24 PM
#23
Posted: 2/12/08 at 8:58pm
That novel...wow I read it for the first time in the 7th grade. Obviously, I didn't understand much. But it left such an impression on me. The creativity and sheer genius of it is just astonishing. The characters are SO much better developed, and personally...just everything about the novel is 100 times better than the musical. Which got me thinking that they should try making a really good, solid opera based soley on the NOVEL Wicked. That story is just so expressive and unique. Really disturbing and eye-opening.
I still don't understand that club scene. I really don't.
I still don't understand that club scene. I really don't.
I mean, Denzel Washington? Gun to my head..of course.
#24
Posted: 2/12/08 at 9:06pm
I still don't understand that club scene. I really don't.
Neither do I: it's only mentioned once more. Maybe to tie Yackle into everyone's lives again, but that isn't a good enough reason.
There are plenty of scenes, and even characters, who don't need to be there.
Neither do I: it's only mentioned once more. Maybe to tie Yackle into everyone's lives again, but that isn't a good enough reason.
There are plenty of scenes, and even characters, who don't need to be there.
"Y'know, I think Bertolt Brecht was rolling in his grave."
-Nellie McKay on the 2006 Broadway production of The Threepenny Opera, in which she played Polly Peachum
-Nellie McKay on the 2006 Broadway production of The Threepenny Opera, in which she played Polly Peachum
#25
Posted: 2/12/08 at 9:11pm
I absolutely adore both the show and the book. To me, they have become two completely separate entities. I love the fullness of the book, it's dark portrayal of Oz and it's lush characters.
The show is just fun.
I often say that it reminds me of a folk tale that was elaborated on in very separate and very different ways; the bones of the story are basically the same: The characters, the essential plot arch (though yes, at an incredibly basic level), however they're elaborated in two opposite directions.
(And I personally, don't see the book as overwritten and very rarely boring. I was completely drawn into it from the first page.)
The show is just fun.
I often say that it reminds me of a folk tale that was elaborated on in very separate and very different ways; the bones of the story are basically the same: The characters, the essential plot arch (though yes, at an incredibly basic level), however they're elaborated in two opposite directions.
(And I personally, don't see the book as overwritten and very rarely boring. I was completely drawn into it from the first page.)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95