Last week I finally finished reading Gregory Maguire's "Wicked." I also happened to finally watch the film adaptation of Broadway’s Wicked, and it got me thinking. Whenever I read a book and then watch a movie or view its theatrical adaptation, things always change. In this case, what I found by reading Maguire’s “Wicked” wasn't just a retelling of The Wizard of Oz; it was a profound exploration of morality, power, and the very nature of good and evil.

Throughout the book, I was surprised by the commentary provided by the author on these themes.

When the book made the leap to Broadway, "Wicked" transformed, not abandoning its core themes, but refracting them through a different ideological prism. While both the book and the musical share the same source material and central characters, their approaches, tone, and ultimate impact seem to diverge significantly. After reading the book and watching the play and part one of the movie, I thought it would be worthwhile to explore how "Wicked" evolved from a complex literary tapestry to a dazzling theatrical production and then into a cinematic spectacle featuring pop icon, Ariana Grande.

A Tale of Two Worlds

The most apparent difference between the book and the musical lies in their respective undertones. Maguire's "Wicked" is a dark, often cynical, and deeply philosophical work. It grapples with complex political machination, explores the nuances of moral ambiguity, and doesn't shy away from the darker aspects of human nature (or animal nature, for that matter, in the context of Oz).

The musical, on the other hand, adopts a lighter, more whimsical approach. While it retains some of the book's political undertones, it primarily focuses on the emotional journey of Elphaba and Glinda—emphasizing their friendship, their struggles with identity, and their eventual acceptance of their fated destinies. The musical is ultimately a story of hope and redemption. It has a strong emphasis on the power of love and acceptance. This shift in tone makes the musical more accessible to a wider audience I’m sure, but it also means that some of the book's more complex and unsettling themes are softened or omitted altogether. In that sense, it loses what it could have been and suffers what is.

A Wicked Shift

The book "Wicked" is a sprawling epic, encompassing a vast timeline and a multitude of interconnected storylines. It delves into Elphaba's childhood by exploring her complex relationship with her family (including her unconventional, traveling preacher father and her disabled sister, Nessa Rose. It also explores the political landscape of the world of Oz in intricate detail, revealing the corruption and manipulation that underpin the seemingly idyllic world. What surprised me the most in the book was the Wizard’s corruption, much more than the original film adaptation seemed to indicate. Maguire introduces a host of characters and subplots that are completely absent from the musical.

The musical, constrained by the limitations of the stage, necessarily streamlines the narrative. It focuses primarily on the relationship between Elphaba and Glinda and condenses the timeline, simplifying many of the plot points. While the musical retains the core narrative arc of Elphaba's transformation from a misunderstood student to the infamous "Wicked Witch of the West," it omits many of the book's more intricate details and subplots. This oversimplification makes the story more manageable for a theatrical production, but it also means that some of the book's richness and depth are inevitably lost in translation. This happens for every book to movie and/or theater adaptation, but still. I was a bit disappointed.

Characters Reimagined

The characters in "Wicked" also undergo significant transformations in the transition from the page to the stage. In the book, Elphaba is deeply flawed and can be a very unlikeable character. She is driven by a fierce sense of justice and a deep-seated anger at the injustices she perceives in the world. Her actions are often morally ambiguous, and she is not always sympathetic to the reader.

The musical, however, presents a more sympathetic Elphaba. While she retains her rebellious spirit and her commitment to justice for the animals, she is also portrayed as a more vulnerable and relatable character. Her struggles with acceptance and her longing for connection resonate with the audience, making her a more compelling and ultimately more likable protagonist. This "softening" of Elphaba's character makes her more palatable to a theatrical audience, but it also diminishes some of the complexity and moral ambiguity that make her a fascinating, multifactied character in the book.

Similarly, Glinda's (or “Ga-linda” before she changes her name) character is also oversimplified in the musical. In the book, Glinda is a more complex and manipulative figure, driven by her own ambitions and insecurities. The musical, however, portrays her as a more genuinely good character, albeit one who is initially somewhat shallow and self-absorbed. Her eventual transformation into “Glinda the Good Witch” is more straightforward and less nuanced than in the book.

Several key differences mark the transition of "Wicked" from the page to the stage. Elphaba's father who is a minister in the book and who embodies a religious authority, becomes the Governor of Munchkinland in the musical. This is a shift that underscores the story's political undercurrents. Nessa Rose's disability also changes. She is born without arms in the book and this profoundly shapes her identity, while her paralysis from the waist down in the musical, though still significant has a less visually arresting and arguably less impactful presence. The fate of Dr. Dillamond, the erudite goat, takes a dramatically different turn. His murder in the book is a chilling consequence of prejudice. In the musical and movie, this is replaced by the less violent, more easily digestible dismissal from his position. He is simply “let go,” not murdered.

Fiyero, a complex and enigmatic figure in the novel, whose relationship with Elphaba is fraught with passion and turmoil, is reimagined in the musical as a more conventional romantic hero. His transformation into the Scarecrow which is less rooted in the book's intricate Oz mythology becomes a more symbolic gesture. Finally, the endings diverge significantly. The book concludes ambiguously, leaving readers to ponder unanswered questions, while the musical offers a more resolved and satisfying resolution, neatly tying up loose ends and providing a sense of closure. There is a happily ever after given in the musical and movie, whereas the book leaves you hanging.

The Power of Adaptation

Ultimately, the differences between "Wicked," the book, and "Wicked," the musical/film, are a testament to the power of adaptation. Each version tells the same basic story but they do so in different ways, emphasizing different themes and appealing to different audiences. The book is a complex and challenging work of literature that explores the darker side of human nature and the ambiguities of morality. The musical is a dazzling and entertaining spectacle that celebrates the power of friendship, acceptance, and the triumph of good over evil. Love conquers all, blah blah blah.

Neither version is inherently better than the other, although I prefer the book to the others. They are simply different, each offering a unique and valuable perspective on the story of "The Wicked Witch of the West." The book invites readers to delve into the depths of Elphaba's psyche and grapple with complex philosophical questions. The musical invites audiences to escape into a world of magic and wonder, while still offering a powerful message about the importance of empathy and understanding. Both versions, in their own respective ways, contribute to the rich and enduring legacy of The Wizard of Oz.

Speaking of Oz, I need to rewatch the movie now…