How Did the Broadway Musical of this Book Compare to the Book's Message

[[deleted user]]

The message of how and what and where evil is and forgiveness and if good intentions with bad results is the same as bad intentions with bad results is conveyed through the writing style, the stories and the interactions between the characters. With the transition between book into musical, with many themes or aspects blurred or omitted, how did the theme change, if at all?

[Kirstyn]

The theme is still there but not as prevalent.

[Cate]

The Broadway Musical isn't even close. Use the same characters and similar premise for the story line, but the ending is completely wrong. I adore this book and I loved the music and sets in the musical, but the ending really disappointed me-too Hollywood, no MacGuire in sight.

[Diana]

I have a general policy of not seeing a film or theater production of any book I really like...

[Amy]

I saw the play several times before reading the book. I love the play. The book is much much deeper and darker. After I read the book and was seeing the play again, I thought the book might ruin the goodness of the play but it didn't. I just felt like I knew each of the characters so much deeper. The play does not begin to address the depths of the book but it is still awesome and I can not wait to see it again!

[Kimberly]

Cate wrote: "The Broadway Musical isn't even close. Use the same characters and similar premise for the story line, but the ending is completely wrong. I adore this book and I loved the music and sets in the ..."

I totally agree, its as though they are two separate tellings of a story. The idea of what makes evil, evil, and what good intentions can lead too, was clearly there in the musical. But the darkness of the book that was so excellent was clearly toned down for a family type audience. The music is beautiful and the show is lovely. But if you try to consider it based on the book you'll just get mad. General rule of thumb, think of it as a different telling of the same lore. Just like different versions of Cinderella exist, so too can different "versions" of Wicked.

[Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship]

Kimberly wrote: "Just like different versions of Cinderella exist, so too can different "versions" of Wicked."

Agree. I really feel like The Wizard of Oz is a fairy tale and all retellings are like fairy tale retellings--no, they're not consistent with one another, but half the fun is seeing how each new writer/producer decides to change them!

For me the themes of the two versions seemed very different (and I am a huge fan of both regardless!). The musical deals with the danger of propaganda and how power and popularity can go to one's head. There's a lot about why the Wizard does what he does, why Glinda sells out, and how the people of Oz wind up thinking Elphaba's wicked even though she isn't. It could be seen as a cautionary tale about not believing anyone's publicity (your own included).

While the book maybe has a little of that, it has a very different focus. There's a lot of criticism of society for being oblivious to all the terrible things going on in the world. People aren't presented with neat moral choices (do you sell out or not?)--it asks instead whether you take a moral stance at all or just stand by apathetically and go on with your life. And of course Elphaba is wickeder in the book and it goes into why that is.

Anyway, that's my take--the conversations in the book about good and evil seemed very uninspired to me; mostly I was struck by the fact that they just sat around talking about it rather than doing anything. Especially when (view spoiler)[Elphaba showed up at Avaric's house announcing that she'd just murdered Morrible, (hide spoiler)] and everybody responded by wanting to have this wine-soaked intellectual discussion about the nature of evil, and at the end she told them they should have called the police. The point is that nobody much cared if she was wicked at all; they couldn't be bothered to get involved and were incapable of making a moral judgment of the situation. Yeah, I can see why that didn't make it into the musical.

[Karen]

The ending of the musical opens up so many more possibilities.. and makes you wonder if the witch really did melt or if it was an illusion from the Grimmerie. We know she was allergic to water which was not addressed in the play... but still it makes you wonder. Although we know she did not leave with Fiyiero, it makes you wonder...

[Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship]

In the play she isn't allergic to water--it's just superstition. That's how she goes out in the rain.

[Maytal]

The musical is classic Broadway- making something upbeat and lighter that the original (example:Oliver). It deals with the perception of good and evil and the nature of choices that we make. Elphaba chose to live her idealistic life as a feared outcast while Glinda chose to live a lie but as a loved, influential person who actually had the power to change things in Oz. Which is better? Hated idealistic martyr or loved realistic leader?
In the book Elphaba is not as feared or notorious as in the play. Glinda is not as popular or as politically connected (untill the second book). This exaggeration is typical Broadway dramatizations. The true nature of evil then comes into the question, not the PERCEPTION. Popularity is not one of the themes since we don't have the contrasting extremes like in the play.

[Leesa]

I saw the play first and about a year later I read the book and asked myself the exact same question. I think that even though the musical stays true to the theme it portrays it in a happier light.

[Jeannette]

I totally agree- such a disappointment!
Especially when people watch the play first and can not get into the book because of how different it is, they miss out on such a great read because of the shocking contrast.