Ex Libris Book Reviews

I was doubtful when i picked up wicked. I wasn't expecting much. Boy was I suprised. I read the book in four days....I could hardly put it down. It easily worked it's way on to my favorites list.

Hi Jessica,

Thanks for your comment!

I loved the "Wicked" book and wish I had seen theatrical production when it was still in town (San Francisco). Sort of turns the story on its head, doesn't it?

elise

My friend and I are currently reading Wicked aloud to each other, a few chapters (if you can call the sections that) at a time every time we get together. We're about halfway through. We love the book! The plot flows well, and you get the feeling you really know some of the characters. I like this take on things far better than I liked the original movie or original books, simply for the fact that it feels more real and the characters feel more alive.

What a great way to read the story - outloud and to each other. I tend to race through books. But if you read them aloud you can really get a much richer feeling for the pace and the details of the story.

I agree, the characters seem much more real in this book than they do in the Baum books or in the movie.

I loved this book! The writing was fabulous and really engaging. I couldn't put it down. The worst part about it was that I knew from the get go how it had to end. Bravo Mr.Maguire! Well done!

This book was outstanding. I related so to the central characater, Elphaba. However, I was so disappointed by the musical. Why? They turned Elphaba into a one-dimensional character, and the musical took on a happy Disneyfied tone. We always have to "American Dream" everything. It is not a book for children. Why did the play have to be for children? So disheartened. . . It will be a long time before I see another Broadway musical.

I just finished it, and I feel deeply unsettled. YES, a terrific read. Yes, extremely well-written.

But I am very much emotionally unsatisfied. Did the wizard have to be THAT horrid (Stalin/Big Brother/Al Capone in one)? Did our heroine need to be so miserable, always? I don't need a HAPPY ending, but this had no vindication, no amelioration, no hope. I don't think I'll read his other works.

Comments?

Yes I guess it is rather cynical and depressing, but in a way it acts as a counter to the original story. The ultimate moral of Wicked is in that contrast itself - that there is more to everything than superficial camps of good and evil. Even though Wicked is a tragedy, it seems so much more real to me than The Wizard of Oz (a favorite book).

i thought the book was disgusting! i saw the musical and i loved it.. then i read the book and was digusted! children go to see that play and then see the book on sale and want to buy it... what would mothers say if they foundout they bought their kids that book because the play was so good, and then found out it talked about sex and gave graphic details... i would want my kids reading it!

I have both read the book and seen the musical. Here's the thing I have to say. If a parent willingly lets their child buy a book (an adult book) without knowing its contents, the parent is to blame for their child learning the information. The musical was a complete abomination of the book, which did, in fact come first. Why do we have to complicate things even further? Glinda engaged to Fieyero? Then, how did Elphaba come to reside in the West? Nessarose connected romantically with Boq? Sounds a little soap-opera-ie to me. And it is over the top soap-opera. In the book, one could relate to the emotions every character was feeling, and it was real. There were no charactures and gerneralizations, just the plight that we all deal with as humans. Sex is a part of adult life, whether one accepts it or not. An adult book is not for children!

I found the book to be amazing. It is easy to read, and deals with a subject that we all must face, what is evil? (and I mean evil as a noun). Skip the musical, read the book.

Wicked was absolutely "wicked good"! The characters were so deeply drawn and multifaceted. I love the coherence of the story line and of the Oz-ian universe, and the way pearls dropped from the beginning are strung together at the end, such as the Lion being the cub Elphaba spoke up for as a student, the Wizard recognizing the green elixer bottle, Elphaba seeking shelter in the Clock in which she was born, and so on. I was trying to think if Elphaba really did anything wicked - even when she went to kill the school principal, she ended up only striking a corpse. She killed the soldier tacked to the windmill to put him out of his pain. She didn't realize she killed the boy by staring at the icicle. I was most uncomfortable with the mean way she treated Lur and Nor. In the end she was so crazed with despair that the bucket of water was a welcomed escape from her misery, and I do think her soul was redeemed at the moment of her death. She was such a sympathetic character - I don't think I'll ever be able to look at Baum's book or the Judy Garland movie again! (And I have NO desire to see the Broadway show. Why mess with perfection?)

I personally believed that Wicked was very entrancing and forces the reader to take a deeper look at how the line between good and evil is finer then some like to admit. It had parts that were immensly boring, but over all it was very excellent. The musical adaptation does not ring close to the book, which is a plus due to content. I would reccomend it to anyone interested in learning more about who the Wicked Witch really was.

I thought that the book was wonderful. It showed how the story would be if it were in a real life experience. That the witch was really not a witch. That people just assumed she was an evil witch. That she really had some good in her; I really saw no evil in her, just frustration and missunderstanding.

I had never heard of the book until after the Broadway stage production. I was immediatly interested in the story as I was quite a childhood fan of 'The Wizard of Oz'. After listening to the recording of Broadways "Wicked", I flew to NY specifically to see it. IT. WAS. AMAZING!
After that I read the book. VERY VERY DIFFERENT. I can see how fans of the book might not enjoy the stage production. However, I am able to seperate the two and see them as different things. The book is great. So captivating, and different. And because its a story we're all familiar with, just completely in a way we would never had expected, its just brilliant.
I give an A+ to the book, an A+ to the show, and an A+++ to the wonderful and talented Idina Menzel and Kristen Chenoweth.

Can anyone explain to me some of the deeper parts of the book? I enjoyed it so much, but I had trouble making connections and often felt like there was some parallel, something the author was parodying or commenting on, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

Who was Yackle? A consistent figure in the shadows, a "guardian angel" as the dwarf put it? And who was the Dwarf, supposedly from our world, just like the Grimmerie (what was THAT?)? What was the Dwarf's connection to the tiktok Time Dragon? And the mystical St. Aelphaba was the Birth of Good, Elphaba was the Birth of Evil - isn't that against the point? Is Elphie's aversion to water a link to the waterfall that St. Aelphaba hides behind and does not return from, a barrier across which Elphie dies, redeems her soul, finds Fiyero? There is a lot of sad, sudden death and mistreatment in this book.

Any other resources out there - or a way to ask the author directly - would be much appreciated. Finally, was anyone else disappointed in the way that the story ended at her death? I expected an epilogue.

I wondered about Yackle, as well. She appeared in SO MANY instances, and throughout time, as well. Providing the bottle for Nanny, being the Philosophy club usher, giving the broom to Elhpaba in the ministry. Is she a foil to something? I would have to say yes, on that one.

To whom? Well, the entire book seems really a parallel to government in its worst incarnation--that of slanderous cover-ups and power-grubbing monarchs. It would require an entire other book to dissect Wicked, but if I could, I would propose that Yackle is simply an extension of Oz itself. If the folklore were to be believed, Oz itself has some form of conciousness, whether it's provided by the Lurline goddess or the Ozma family. But it seems that Yackle consistently worked to bring about the downfall of the Wizard, providing weapons and abilities at every turn.

So as to being a specific person, I don't think that applies to Yackle. She's more of an incarnation of the "immune system" of Oz--appearing in order to systematically eliminate the foreign agent of infection (i.e., the Wizard humself).

All speculation, of course. Only Maguire could say, and I'm sure he wouldn't.

By far, a fantastic book. But it sure leaves me depressed when I finish. I have to reread the section where Elphaba and the Prince enjoy life in order for me to have some semblance of worth when I finish. That way, I get to remember Elphaba HAD a good life for a moment, and that's what seems important to me. Her bitterness is somewhat redeemed, when I can remember that she did love for once, and that's enough to remember the tone of the book fondly. Call me sentimental.

Wow this book was great! there were things i liked and things i didn't. really the only two things i ddin't like was that some of the things you were expecting to happen didn't and that the flow was a little wierd. She's born she's one two three and then seventeen! just a little jumpy for me. I wouldn't want to read 10 chapters of boring life but i wouldn't want to skip that much. I loved how it turned everything you thought you knew into what you never thought about. Gregory... what can i say... i don't know how you think up this stuff but as long as you're writing i'll be reading!

I would like to make a comment more about the commentary about Wicked than about the book itself. First, I do agree the work is most honorable. Please be aware, however, that it is a fable - a fairy tale. To wonder what the author meant with regard to this or that is inqusitive but rather like Glinda - skin deep. What is most important, and also makes the work so great, is it's ability to make the reader THINK. To flat out ask an author to explain certain parts or indeed all of his/her ideas or characters would make the novel read like a biology book. Relate the characters and events in the story to your own world and I think you will find that the Land of Oz IS our world and we are right smack dab in the middle of it!

I agree. I just finished the book and was hoping to "find some answers" on the web, but like you said- it's up to me to THINK. I found that I didn't have one coherent response to any of the discussion questions posed at the end of the book- and I consider myself somewhat capable of interpreting author's ideas! Yikes!!
I found myself going back and forth telling my husband "I really like it" - "It's silly" then after reading the final section thinking "Wow! This is incredibly creative, insightful, and so well-written!
Thanks for the heads up about the musical- I'd still like to see it just b/c the music is fantastic!
P.S. any thoughts about who the scarecrow represents and whether or not it's worth while to go back and read The Wizard of Oz?

Does anybody else think the book is very very very slow to get into? The start is so slow and horrible.

Mr. Maguire is a talented writer, no doubt. He is incredibly intelligent, knows how to craft a story in the tradition of Shakespeare's Tragedies. He makes compelling and complex 3-Dimensional characters and explores deep philosophical quandaries. Quite existential. And the parts of the book where things are actually relatively happy for Elphaba are very poignant in their contrast to the rest of the book. Before I go any further, I should state that I'm often guilty of fanatical purist tendencies. What I'm wondering is, of the people who've read Wicked, how many of those people have read the original Oz books? Not just the original "Wonderful Wizard of Oz", but the sequels, because Maguire makes many references to the other books in the series. A number of the references don't really work chronologically or logically from what I remember of the books. A number of people have said that they felt this book was superior to the original book and film because it was more 'real.' This, to me, seems unfair because of the intent of the original material that Maguire is using as a premise. I might almost call "Wicked" science fiction in that it is a hypothetical situation (i.e. 'what if everything you knew, etc.')--albeit from a philosophical or moral perspective--which is a farcry from the original book. Not a good thing or a bad thing, but definitely something to consider. I was surprised that I wasn't more angry at the end of the book, mostly just very very disheartened. Sorry for the long-windedness, but it's something I've been thinking about a great deal and I wanted to be able to convey my views to people who've read the book.

"Does anybody else think the book is very very very slow to get into? The start is so slow and horrible."

A little slow. There's another book I'm reading by Robin McKinley that I'm about 100+ pages into and it's still very very slow.

I am halfway through "Wicked" and at 3:45am wanting some help with framework or structure to understand the author's intent. I feel I am missing so much in whatever country or political viewpoint or social situation in today's world this represents. I rented the original "Wizard of Oz" this week to refresh my understanding but am no closer to wrapping my mind around this story.

Could you be a little more specific, Joan? I've heard a number of interpretations of the political and religious systems in this book but I honestly wasn't looking for that very much when I read it. Is there something in particular you're not clear about?

Does anyone remember the part of the book when Elphie and Fiyero where having an affair and he got up in the middle of the night to use the restroom and saw a scar on her 'region' and then she woke up.

What was that scar/tattoo/whatever that was.

-Stephanie

I just finished reading WICKED this evening. I was fairly familiar with all the OZ books from years ago, when my mother read them to us as children, so the basic scenario, characters, etc. were pretty easily accessible to me. I found the book very well-written, fascinating in some of the ideas it considers, full of multi-dimensional characters -- one of my pet peeves with so many male authors is the shallowness of their female characters (you know all about what color hair they have, what kind of breasts, what they're wearing, whether they're slim or "fleshy", whether they have long legs, things like that, but little about what goes on in their souls), and this was refreshingly absent in this book; Maguire drew all his characters, female and male, with remarkable depth and compassion. I was transfixed through much of the book, and had a hard time putting it down.

Still, I found the ending deeply troubling and full of unanswered questions and a sort of nihilistic feeling that nothing really matters anyway. I just finished it about half an hour ago, and sat there totally depressed for some time, then came and found this site to post these feelings. In reading other postings, I see that a number of other readers were left with a similar impression. I guess I had expected the author to come up with a more cohesive conclusion, rather than leave us with all these open-ended questions that seem to lead off into a kind of nothingness.

Anybody???

Cathy in Montana

I though the book was fantastic. i had to read it for school, and it turned out to be one of the best books i've read. I like how he makes you think about different situations by not filling you in completely so you can use your own imagination. When i read the other comments about the play being completely different, i was shocked. Why would you want to completely change a novel like this and give people the wrong idea about it? It shouldnt have been adapted so that children could go see it because its not a childrens book.

I love the novel, but it leaves me feeling like i am missing something important, there are loose ends that make no sense to me. Am I just not used to thinking in a non-literal sense? help me:)

I am currently listening to the unabridged version of the audiobook of Wicked. It is fascinating and I'm hooked, but because I am listening, as opposed to reading, I'm having a bit of trouble discerning some of the finer points. For instance, there is a theme of classism and racism running through the book, partucularly in the part I'm on now, which is Elfie and Galinda at college with Dr. Dillamonde. Can someone please explain: they often make a distinction between "ANIMALS" and what sounds like "ANIMALS". Are they spelled different in the book? (ie, is it ANIMALS and AMINALS?). It's hard to discern by listening and I feel I'm missing a great point. Help!

In the book the only difference is that the ones who can talk and stuff are spelt 'Animals' with a capital "A". The others are spelt animals. Listening to this on tape would be hard, almost impossible to distinguish. Unless they do or dont emphasize the 'A'.

I did not care for this book. I read it only because my book club chose it because the musical is coming here. I already knew that the two were vastly different.

I am not a fan of genres where an author builds on another author's character, so I was probably biased from the start; however, so many people around me loved the book that I thought I would at least find it interesting.

While reading any book, I look forward to the "can't-wait-to-get-back-to-my-book" feeling, but I never got that with Wicked. It felt like a chore to pick it up and get back into the story. I will admit that there were moments of interest but that had more to do with "oh, wonder what's going to happen next" - and I found myself flipping ahead just to find out the next part of the plot rather than enjoying the ride. I read half the book and finally put it aside. It felt slow and way too wordy.

But what do I know... I noticed the cover was filled with positive quotations of reviews from well known authors and newspapers. I guess it's one of those "to each his own."

I don't know that I enjoyed this book in an emotional sense but it was powerful and stimulating reading. Is it theology & philosophy masquerading as literature? What is the nature of the soul and is it real? What do the virtues mean in the context of being human? How do we seek and find forgiveness? Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but I found the witch, in her angst and tribulation, becoming more human, finding her soul in spite of herself (epitomized by a passage near the end, when she stumbles over the word "soldier" and pronounces the word "soul"). The author is a remarkable literary craftsman. He also did an amazing job of introducing characters and objects, and then bringing them together. I was delighted with his exegesis of the shoes, the monkeys, the witch's castle, etc. A thought provoking and troubling book.

Well, yes, the author is very talented with his literary maneuvers; very crafty with words.

But the book lacked clarity and direction. Half way through the book, I still felt as though I didn't really KNOW Elphaba. The relationships never really grew, the characters were interesting but unchanging and undefined, and the plot seemed to wander.

There were a few points where I anticipated new action, but it would fizzle out unresolved before the next chapter. And the sex didn't bother me in the least!!! It was the characterization and plot that bored me.

note to stephanie - many witches are perceived as hermafrodite.
why does a book have to be analysed so much. just enjoy the fiction for what it is.
i saw the musical. enjoyable but fyiaro and elfaba, going off into the sunset took something away from the drama of the story.
k

the scare crow represents prince fiyero, if u heard the song dancing through life on the cd, then u will know he says "life is painless for the brainless" he means HE is brainless and the scarecrow is brainless, lol

I haven't read the book yet, but I saw the ah-mazing musical in Broadway Chicago.It was so great, and everyone was so good at their parts. Many people say that the book is not for children, so it would probably be best, not to read the book if you're under 13, ok? But seriously, everyone of all ages should go see the play.

I read the book first, and then saw the musical. The book was amazing, and the musical was... disappointing. While I appreciate the scores and music very much, I feel that the real emotions and the real... concept of Elphaba's life was poorly presented. I was expecting something much more dark.

Had I never picked up the book, I'd have loved the musical. But... Knowing the way things went... It wasn't a match. Still good, though.

I agree with much that has been said, and I have asked many of these questions myself. Being a theatre person, I just have to say "take the book as a seperate entity from the musical" dont compare, dont contrast, and please dont mention the endings!!!!

Question-if the scarecrow is fiyero, why, in the end of the book, was no one there? there is even a passage that says "There was nothing but straw and air inside the scarecrow's clothes." I think the scarecrow is simply another way to give elphie hope, then take it away.

Did anyone else get caught up in the religious aspects of Wicked? Or the political? those seemed to me to be at the forefront of the novel, even more so than the plot.....

I see who the scarecrow and tin man were and the symbolism but who was the cowardly lion? Was he the professor who lost his nerve when he was mistreated?

I love Wicked! There is so much more to Maguire's version of Oz. You have to get deep into the book in order to enjoy it. I am a teenager and there was some inappropriate stuff, but it is a book meant for adults. NOT FOR CHILDREN! I got passed the inappropriate parts in the book and loved it! Elphaba being born in the Clock of the Time Dragon foretold that evil was going to happen in her life. Yackle was fate for Elphaba, she sort of controlled Elphaba's life. I really thought about the detail while reading Wicked. I am going to start reading Son of a Witch.

I have to write an essay about Wicked for my English ISU. I read the book, and it has absolutely NO plot. Maguire develops characters for a couple chapters, only to have them disappear and never mention them again. I was extremely disappointed with Wicked, and I don't suggest reading it.