Now I've read Wicked by Gregory Maguire, what surprises me the most is not any liberties taken with the source material (primarily Baum's The Wizard of Oz and to some extent the movie version) but how much it differs from the musical Wicked and later film versions of said musical. It's not just the tone, it's the whole thing, plot and characters included. Don't read Wicked if you're a fan of the musical and/or films and are looking to get a fleshed-out version of their story, because this is completely different. One reviewer claimed that basically only the names of their characters are the same, and well... they're not far wrong.
Is the book worth reading for its own sake, then? Yes, I'd say so, albeit hesitantly. Authors aren't normally too pleased when their writing is called "interesting", but this is just that, an interesting novel. I admire Maguire for not going down the easy route when it comes to retelling a story from the villain's point of view. He doesn't make the Wicked Witch (whom he names Elphaba, reputedly after Frank L. Baum) out to be some wronged saint. She is very difficult, and ends up behaving much worse towards Dorothy and Co. – and other characters that get on the wrong side of her – than she needs to. The Wicked Witch isn't so much exhonerated completely as fleshed out as a character, which is what I claim to want from these kind of stories.
Also, props to Maguire for doing his homework properly. Unlike (I strongly suspect) the makers of the Wicked musical and films, he has clearly read up on the original Oz novels instead of just watching the movie. Wicked is full of references to the land Baum created, though that's not to say his Oz is much like Baum's version (I think I can safely say as much after having read only one of the original Oz novels). When Maguire brings part of the movie version of events into his novel, it's a conscious choice rather than a result of ignorance.
For instance, of course Elphaba has to be green-skinned, we'd hardly recognise the Wicked Witch otherwise. She is also two-eyed, for convenience's sake (though there are some oblique references to where the telescopic one-eye idea might have come from), and the Wicked Witch of the East is her sister. I can buy all that, though I don't understand why Maguire cooks up his own back story for the Flying Monkeys (or Winged Monkeys), as they already have one in Baum's The Wizard of Oz. He also keeps the conflating of the two Good Witches of the North and South into one, which is a bit hard on Glinda who (as in the movie, but not the original book) gets to be the one to gift Dorothy the contentious shoes.
To keep to the negative virtues a little longer, we are spared the musical's forced back stories to the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman/Tinman, which were at odds with the original story and saddled Dorothy with the company of a bastard (the Tinman), an ingrate (the Lion) and a double agent (the Scarecrow). Though Dorothy's gang aren't very nicely portrayed in a (rather unnecessary) Prologue scene, they nevertheless keep their original back stories and functions. The Lion does have points in common with the musical version, but mercifully doesn't believe he has a "grievance to repay" towards someone who has shown him nothing but kindness.
The love triangles from the musical/musical films are also absent, thankfully. Believe it or not, Fieyro (not a spoiled public-school brat, no) and Boq are actually likeable in the novel, and neither of them court one girl while yearning for another. Fieyro is never involved with Glinda, and Boq leaves Nessarose (armless rather than in a wheelchair) alone.
So much for what the novel doesn't do, and the pitfalls it avoids. But what kind of story does it tell? Here's where my hesitation comes in. The story is rather oddly constructed into sections with big time jumps in between, while the intervening years' events have to be explained in exposition or flashbacks. The prose is sometimes a bit knotty, especially if you're a non-native speaker. There are questions of a philosophical nature that are, perhaps, given a little too much space at the cost of good old-fashioned storytelling. On the other hand, Maguire takes the time to let his characters talk through political and religious themes which other authors may just have served up to us as black-and-white. For instance, when Elphaba's political activism leans towards terrorism, Fieyro (by then her lover) calls her out on it.
My main three problems with the novel can be summed up as follows: the depiction of Oz, the depiction of the Wizard and, to some extent, the main character herself. Maguire's Oz never feels particularly beguiling or magical. Dorothy's probably far better off in Kansas, quite irrespective of Uncle Henry and Aunt Em. As for the Wizard, of course he's the villain of this version of the story (while Dorothy, you'll be relieved to hear, comes out of it all quite well). I expected that, and indeed the original book gave us little reason to think well of him. But I think Maguire goes too far in casting him as an out-and-out tyrant who doesn't even try to be charming.
In this instance, I feel the musical and its film versions stole a march on Maguire. Yes, I realise the dire state of Oz and the Wizard's oppression are largely his point, but it's a shame that they're so obvious. In the musical, something bad is happening in Oz and the Wizard is a crook, but it happens under the surface. On a surface level, everything is bright and enticing enough to fool visitors like Dorothy, part of the populace and for a time even Elphaba. As for the Wizard, he is given a dangerous folksy charm. That's far more intriguing than everyone knowing he's a wrong'un.
As for Elphaba, I quite liked her in the section of the novel where she goes to University with Galinda/Glinda (the name change is surprisingly even more poorly explained than in the musical and films). After a while, though, her relentless crankiness started to be wearisome. It's easier to warm to the musical version, of whom I'll write more in a future post. Maguire's Elphaba is never disappointed with the Wizard, because she never expected anything good from him. Instead, she takes to the rebel life with gusto – she is more comfortable being against something than for something anyway.
Ultimately, though, she is interesting, as is the novel. But it's not something for girls who enthusiastically dress up as the musical Elphaba for Halloween. Be warned: this Wicked Witch is for adults only.
