As I’ve mentioned previously, I have quite a few problems with “Wicked”. This isn’t to say that I don’t like the show – I enjoyed it immensely when I saw it in London, Kerry Ellis is one of my favourite stage actresses, I have the CD of the Broadway recording, Defying Gravity is one of my favourite songs of all time and I promote it fiercely to everyone I know. I’m fascinated and enraptured by “Wicked”, because I’ve been an Oz fan since I was little and I pounce on any new derivative media eagerly. (Speaking of which, I hope to post something about about Tin Man soon.)

At the same time, I have quite a few problems with the choices made by the makers of “Wicked”. Normally I’d brush these little things off and enjoy the show as it is (just as I enjoyed “Mamma Mia!” and “Les Miserables” despite my problems with those shows), but the thing about “Wicked” is that it has a huge fanbase, giving me plenty of fan material and discussions to read, and it boggles my mind that of all those fans, none of them appear to see the problems that I do.

Due to the sheer number of enthusiastic fans who only see the good in the show, I feel that I have to point out the flaws that bother me, if only to keep the balance.

Just to make it clear, none of the problems I have with the “Wicked” musical are because of the changes made from Gregory Maguire’s book. Changes are necessary to make the show smoother and watchable for the audience, and I get that.

My biggest problem, which is the sum of all the small problems put together, is the claim that “Wicked” is the REAL story of what happened in Oz. Because, no matter how you swing it, it isn’t. I’ve seen fans throw this statement around like it validates “Wicked” above all other material depicting the Wicked Witch of the West, and yes, that bugs me. A lot.

“Wicked” can’t be the real story of what happened in Oz because it contradicts things that are known about Oz. Instead of starting on how the characters are interpreted, I’ll use two simple, unarguable facts.

This following contains spoilers for the ending of the “Wicked” musical.

Read at your own risk.

1. In L. Frank Baum’s “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” there are TWO good witches: the Good Witch of the North who greeted Dorothy when she arrived in Oz, and Glinda the Good Witch of the South, who helped Dorothy return to Kansas at the end. “Wicked”, both the book and musical, do away with the second witch and keep only one: Glinda.

2. “Wicked” the musical ends on the note that Elphaba survived and ran off with Fiyero, who has become the Scarecrow. This is impossible, because at the end of “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz”, the Scarecrow is crowned King of Oz, and remains in the Emerald City until Dorothy’s return in the next book, upon which they had further adventures together.

For both of these statements, you could start to argue that the “Wicked” musical is based on the MGM musical movie, not the books, but that’s incorrect for the very simple reason that the slippers in the show are silver (like in the books), not ruby (like in the movie).

To put it forward, “Wicked” is just another piece of derivative work inspired by Baum’s books, just like the MGM musical, “The Whiz”, and the dozens of other interpretations. It’s not definitive, and neither is it the end-all and be-all.

It’s not the story.

It’s a version.

A fascinating and wonderful version, but just a version. It’s certainly not The True Story of The Witches of Oz, that’s for sure.

I’ll elaborate on other elements I had problems with in my next post.

Post title from Wicked: the musical.