Wicked by Gregory Maguire

The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West

When Dorothy triumphed over the Wicked Witch of the West in L. Frank Baum's classic tale, we heard only her side of the story. But what about her arch-nemesis, the mysterious witch? Where did she come from? How did she become so wicked? And what is the true nature of evil?

Gregory Maguire creates a fantasy world so rich and vivid that we will never look at Oz the same way again. Wicked is about a land where animals talk and strive to be treated like first-class citizens, Munchkinlanders seek the comfort of middle-class stability and the Tin Man becomes a victim of domestic violence. And then there is the little green-skinned girl named Elphaba, who will grow up to be the infamous Wicked Witch of the West, a smart, prickly and misunderstood creature who challenges all our preconceived notions about the nature of good and evil.

"I never use the words 'humanist' or 'humanitarian', as it seems to me that to be human is to be capable of the most heinous crimes in nature." - Elphaba

A longtime lover of the Broadway musical, I obviously had to see the 2024 major motion picture adaption when it came out. And then, obviously, I had to do a re-read of the written canon. I believe the first time I picked this novel up was sometime back in high school, and with my memory being the way it is...a great deal of things went either forgotten or completely unnoticed by me that first time around.

While the basic premise is consistent between the book and the Broadway/movie adaptations, a reader who goes in expecting a similar story will be in for quite a rude awakening. The adaptations contain a general feeling of hope and possibility that the book lacks, in my opinion. There was really no point in the story that I thought things would ever turn out well for Elphaba, even when removing the fate we are all aware she eventually faces. And while the adaptations twist this fate to be a result of Elphaba being misunderstood and disrespected for political gain, the book does not suggest such clear-cut unfairness. The exploration of good vs evil is convoluted, extensive, and at the end of the day...unresolved. As it will always be.

The Characters

(mainly just Elphaba)

Elphaba's character is a discussion of where evil comes from. Is her green tone representative of an inborn wickedness? Or was she molded into it by her decisions and the decisions of those around her? Several characters near the end of the book pose their own thoughts on the matter:

"Evil isn't doing bad things. It's feeling bad about them afterward."

"It's an absence of good, that's all. The nature of the world is to be calm, and enhance and support life, and evil is an absence of the inclination of matter to be at peace."

"Evil is an early or primitive stage of moral development. All children are fiends by nature. The criminals among us are only those who didn't progress."

"Evil is an act, not an appetite. How many haven't wanted to slash the throat of some boor across the dining room table? Everyone has an appetite. If you give in to it, that act is evil."

And yet, even Elphaba herself cannot provide clarity on her own wicked disposition. When asked why she killed Madame Morrible, she simply shrugs and says, "For fun? Maybe evil is an art form."

The truth is grey and murky, especially because I found Elphaba's character to be greatly unlikable in most cases. Of course, it's easy to pity her when seeing the horrendous treatment she receives from her parents and most of her classmates at Shiz, but as she ages, she gains quite a close group of friends who deeply care about her, and I feel she has to actively go out of her way to hurt them in the way that she does. In her crusade for Animal rights, she abandons her education, her friends, and even her family at the drop of a hat to join some underground rebel organization (whose goals and accomplishments are never explained). All this despite the fact that many of those friends worked tirelessly beside her on the same exact crusade. Over the many years that she's in hiding, her actual accomplishments in saving Animals seem to be non-existent. If she actually is making an impact, Maguire doesn't say so, and therefore I'm inclined to believe she isn't. Her selfish behavior ultimately results in Fiyero's death, and her character becomes pretty unsufferable after that point. She completely abandons her crusade to end the Animal plight, and her new crusade becomes...atoning for her adulteress sins so she can go die in the woods somewhere with a clear conscience. Her way of doing that? Squatting in Fiyero's wife's castle for years to harass the woman into forgiving her.

Elphaba isn't supposed to be likable or good (obviously) so these aren't criticisms of the book, but more a comment on the way Maguire is choosing to show the battle of good vs evil. Elphaba repeatedly makes decisions throughout her life that are technically good (searching for the truth behind Dr. Dillamond's murder, protecting Animal rights, apologizing to the woman whose husband she killed, refusing to be a political pawn for a tyrant) but the way she goes about doing these things can hardly be considered "good". The downfall of her character into wickedness can most clearly be seen in her switch from protecting Animals to experimenting on them by the end of the novel.

I enjoyed the way Maguire showed the reader that wickedness is often a lack of consideration for others in our actions, not necessarily a lack of goodness in our intentions.

I adored Galinda's character and was extremely frustrated when she basically disappeared from the book completely after Elphaba ran away from Shiz. I think the play and movie adaptations focus more on Galinda's story in parallel to Elphaba's, and I wish the book had done this as well. It's difficult to assess her character after part two ends because we only get glimpses of her in her chance meeting with Fiyero and then her final run-in with Elphaba.

Fiyero is my favorite character, but it has nothing to do with him being a well-developed character. Really, it's just because he's beautiful and pointless. His only purpose in the story is to fuel Elphaba's downfall (and to give her a horribly mis-treated son I guess). But boy, does he look cool doing absolutely nothing. He has no purpose or drive, he stays in the Emerald City just so he can keep cheating on his wife, and he has no moral feelings about Animals or anything else (clearly), but by god! He has blue diamonds in his skin! So he's lovely. I didn't say it made sense. There aren't a whole lot of likeable characters here. Ok?

The Plot & The World

The world is one most of us know well. Or you may think you do.

Oz is a place full of magic and possibility, beautiful and shining and full of hope...until you read this book. The violence depicted in this book is wildly upsetting, especially if you're coming from the 2024 movie and especially if you're just coming from The Wizard of Oz. Maguire shatters the beauty of the Emerald City. With a large hammer. Repeatedly. People in Oz are downright awful. They shun Elphaba from birth (because apparently a green human is way more horrifying than animated CLOCKS walking around), treat Fiyero like trash because he's from Vinkus, enslave and murder Animals, and...need I go on? Madame Morrible is a main antagonist of the book but I didn't get the feeling she was much worse than any other normal adult in Oz. She just happened to possess powerful sorcery to further the Wizard's agenda.

The story, of course, is the tale of Elphaba's life. The plot follows her from birth until death, and often by her own nature, there are many casualties along the way. The pacing of this story is my largest criticism of the book. I believe it was entirely too long and could've easily been fifty to a hundred pages shorter with little loss. Specifically during the years she spends in the Vinkus with Sarima. It's slow paced, dragging its feet at most points, as if Maguire was just rambling until he figured out where he wanted to go. I really wished it would've been a great deal shorter and the words written contained more intent.

Writing Style

I can understand why Maguire's writing style appeals to some, but unfortunately, I am not one of those people. I appreciate flowery descriptions in small doses. Not 400 pages of non-stop flowery descriptions. It makes my head hurt when I have to read prose the way poetry demands to be read: with an analytical eye hovering over each individual word choice in an attempt to discern meaning and significance. It's too much. I tire easily of it, especially when it takes a literal half-page to describe a tornado. A story shouldn't be such a pain to swallow. A bit of indigestion after it has gone down is fine, healthy even, to unpack value and aftereffects. But swallowing it in the moment shouldn't feel like shoving rocks down your throat.

Even in saying that, I'll admit that this book has some of the most quotable lines I've encountered. Likely due to the heavy moral quandary the book focuses on, but even so, I often found myself raising eyebrows at the many memorable lines Maguire feeds the reader. Quite a few of them were humorous in nature, and I found myself laughing aloud while reading. For example:

"We only have babies when we're young enough not to know how grim life turns out. Once we really get the full measure of it--we're slow learners, we women--we dry up in disgust and sensibly halt production."

---

Despite the few criticisms I have about this book, I enjoyed it. I think it was an interesting expansion on the love I originally had for the Broadway show, even if many things differed. I greatly enjoy retellings, especially from a villain's perspective, as it adds an additional layer of empathy every time you go back to the original work. While I don't like Maguire's writing style or pacing enough to continue this series, I don't regret picking this book up. If nothing else, it's thought-provoking and a great book to spark a moral discussion on the age-old battle of good vs evil.

happy read rotting! xoxo

claudia