Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:31:48 -0800 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Wow, it's Dec. 4 already and time to discuss Wicked. I would say I hope you all enjoyed it as much as I did, but Robin has already said she hated, hated, hated it. Amazing. I don't see anything here to hate. Usually I don't read books by men, but this was one that for the most part I don't think you could tell was written by a man. The only clue was that childbirth was handled, or not handled, in a very masculine fashion. Elphaba's mother chews some pinlobble leaves, goes to sleep and the baby slides out. Elphaba goes into a convent and comes out with a child having no memory of having birthed him. I don't think a woman would have written either of births, but she could have written everything else. She certainly have written of an activist woman with no maternal feelings. It seemed quite in character for Elphaba not to express personal feelings after her lover is probably tortured and killed because of her activism. I hate books in which all the good women are beautiful and you can tell the bad ones by their lack of beauty, but I also hate books in which the bad women are good and the beautiful ones are bad or at least dumb. Glinda the beauty started out a pampered social climber but grew morally and intellectually from her association with Elphaba, she had potential. Yes she went back to the pursuit of status after Elphaba's departure, but was that because of Madame Morrible's curse? I liked the ambiguity of the book, that we never know why Elphaba is green, that we can never pin down the symbolism of the Animals - animals (at least I could see them in a few different ways), her father and his great whatever religion. I liked that her father and mother both loved Turtle Heart though they didn't seem to be able to love Elphaba. I liked the fact that Elphaba seemed to think of herself as unlovable and didn't care about that but that she was able to share love with Fiyero. I liked the mysticism of the Clock of the Time Dragon - could it tell the future? Was it the personification of evil? I guess if it was supposed to be Satan then it would make sense for it to be able to foretell the future and have all it's little machine minions to do its dirty deeds. Dorothy was made to be Elphaba's enemy, but Elphaba saw her as another version of herself. Was there a Kumbric Witch? What happened to the Ozmina? Should Fiyero's determinedly self deluded wife have had all the power and prestige while her more intellectual sisters in law were dependent upon her hospitality? This was not a black and white book. People, and Animals, picked a direction and went that way, but we're never sure if it's the right way. Here's a quote: "To the grim poor there need be no pour quoi tale about where evil arises; it just arises; it always is. One never learns how the witch became wicked, or whether that was the right choice for her -- is it ever the right choice? Does the devil ever struggle to be good again, or if so is he not a devil? It is at the very least a question of definitions." Elphaba was so obviously a hero, but not to most of the characters in the book. She was briefly happy though conflicted even at that time. Her whole life was a struggle, and the book even hesitates to say she fought the good fight. I saw Billy Elliot today. In it minors are on strike and sacrificing a great deal for their good fight, but non minors look at them and know it's a lost cause. Elphaba was Oz's Mother Jones out to face the boss's big guns. This is a fairy tale I can welcome into my yellow dog democrat union house. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:02:51 -0500 From: Rose Reith Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I too really enjoyed reading _Wicked_. I was surprised because I had been led to believe that it wouldn't be an enjoyable read by a good friend who shares much of my taste in books. I wonder if the greatest difference between us is that she has read and loved all of the original Oz books - so much so that she doesn't like the movie version because it doesn't always concur with the book. I haven't read the Oz books at all so I only know about the story from the movie and from bits and pieces I have read that refer to the differences between the book and the movie. Anyway I found this exploration of how become the three women of the story become the three witches thought provoking and funny. I thought it was a very sympathetic portrayal of someone who previously has been portrayed as a terrible individual. I like Elphaba as a character, and for the most part I understood her feelings and motivations. A question for others who may have read the Oz books also. Does _Wicked_ actually work as a prequel/precursor to that story ? How much extra detail did Maguire create to describe Oz? Does what he created actually conflict with the original story? Elphaba is an interesting character because she insists on forging her own path in her world rather than conforming to her world's expectations for her, and perhaps the reason she works so hard for Animal rights is because she identifies more with them because like herself they are "other". I am puzzled by the idea that the Wizard is her father though. Why would that have made her green? And why was she allergic to water? Maybe I need to reread it? Rose ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:30:40 -0800 From: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hello Bookwomen! Long time no posting. I've been up to my eyeballs with life and haven't been able to really be a part of the discussions for a while. I first discovered "Wicked: The Life and Time of The Wicked Witch of The West" over a year ago when I was waiting for some keys to be made for my former employer's new office. I decided to kill some time by browsing the neighbouring book store. Sitting on the shelf with a little recommend read card next to it was McGuire's book. I read the back cover flap and the first couple of pages and bought it immediately. I gobbled this book up. It so rich and full and original. I love how no one is really evil or good or right or wrong. I love the whole new take on the tale and the twists and turns along the way. I was thrilled to read it again. I'm not really big on reading male authors. Except for a select few. Robertson Davies comes to mind, still I felt that despite the book being written by a man it was very much a feminist book. If anything I would say that because it was written by a man it might have a certain kind of bite that a female perspective may not have had. It may have even helped with the otherworldliness of many of the characters found within Wicked's pages. I definitely give McGuire Kudos for writing several interesting and multifaceted female characters. There are far too many male writers who royally suck in that department. (For example I just read Hannibal, the sequel to Silence of The Lambs, and I don't know what Harris was smoking when he wrote it, but Clarice was done a real disservice.) So some guys get it, others get and lose it, and more just don't get it and never will. What was perhaps the most fun was the cultural and religious histories that McGuire creates for the people of OZ. One of my pet peeves are sci-fi and fantasy books/shows/films where everyone has the same beliefs. A whole planet that all believe in the same God and practice the same faith. That's a rather Utopian ideal (Star Trek is notorious for that.). In OZ - that happy land over the rainbow - there is sexism, oppression, classism, racism, religious differences, and wars and all those other conflicts and prejudices that make up any society (unfortunately). It helped to make the place real and gritty and tangible. > Elphaba's mother chews some pinlobble leaves, goes > to sleep and the baby slides out. Elphaba goes into > a convent and comes out with a child having no > memory of having birthed him. I never noticed that particular nuance until you pointed it out. I too found Elphaba not knowing for sure if she had a baby or not a little hard to swallow, but then I tried to believe she was so deeply mired in depression that she was only half alive. I really enjoyed Wicked. It gave all the characters from OZ some flesh and bone and soul, despite Elphaba's belief that she didn't have one. Everyone rose above caricature and became whole. I'd like to hear from some people who disliked the book. It's far more interesting to read criticism rather than praise. I would like to hear why some people didn't like it. LL&P Lyla ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:25:53 -0600 From: Robin Reid Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Re OZ/WICKET At 11:02 AM 12/05/2000 -0500, Rose Reith wrote: >I wonder if the greatest >difference between us is that she has read and loved all of the >original Oz books - so much so that she doesn't like the movie >version because it doesn't always concur with the book. > >A question for others who may have read the Oz books also. Does >_Wicked_ actually work as a prequel/precursor to that story ? How >much extra detail did Maguire create to describe Oz? Does what he >created actually conflict with the original story? In fact, I think my knowledge of and feelings for the original Oz novels (written by different writers after Baum stopped) is the reason why I dislike WICKED. I'd probably have enjoyed it OK if it hadn't done the OZ revision: in fact, there's no way I can see Maguire's novel as a prequel; it's a major REVISION, a turning over, a deconstructing, a re/vision. Intellectually, I can see that yes, bringing class issues in and telling the story from the "bottom" up MIGHT be a good idea (although the same strategy would have worked for just about any fantasy which, as critics and scholars have pointed out, uncritically presents a class system in which the noble/elite are always good/beautiful, etc. I loved Mary Gentle's _Grunts_ which did a similar sort of bottoms/up revision to Tolkien (and I loved Tolkien's LOTR as well, but not as much as Oz). When I started first grade (unfortunately at age 5 and far too socially immature), I almost immediately got into trouble because I was reading at a 4th grade level and I'd learned through word recognition (being read to, memorizing my favorite stories, learning to puzzle out what the words meant by "reading" over the stories on my own, at about age three). Unfortunately, phonics and the post-war demand for being average or the same was in full fledge in Idaho in 1960, and the teachers at the school got very upset with me for reading wrong. So I stopped reading. What saved me was my best friend introducing me to an Oz book; it was so cool I had to start reading again. (A second thing that saved me was my father being a university professor who could, oh, shame, pull gender privilege and professional status over female elementary teachers!) Cody, my friend, and I read all the Oz books (I still remember them, big fat books, bound in green, with gold letters on the covers) for years and years and years -- we probably had them memorized-- and yes, I don't much like the movies either. Growing up in a male-dominated conservative environment (northern Idaho in the fifties and sixties), those books provided a major escape for me and a vision of a life and literature that implied one didn't have to get married (Ozma and Dorothy didn't!), and a sense of empowerment (which would horrify some feminists, I know!). Those books are tied up in a major way and are, for me, sacred texts in a way I cannot defend rationally, only emotionally......and as a result I hated Maguire (I also hated Piers Anthony's novel _Barn Burners in Oz_ that had a stunt pilot, adult male, end up in Oz and have sex with Glinda!). Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 14:16:32 -0800 From: Saille Warner Norton Subject: [*FSF-L*] Wicked news To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Well, since Wicked is the current discussion, thought this might be of interest. **** http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2000-12/05/11.00.tv Moore Mulled For Witch Demi Moore is under consideration to star in a four-hour ABC miniseries based on Gregory Maguire's fantasy novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, based on the character created by The Wizard of Oz author L. Frank Baum, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Alliance Atlantis will produce the miniseries. The novel tells the life story of the witch of Oz, while also examining the effects of evil, the trade paper reported. Moore and her producing partner Suzanne Todd originally held the option for the book, but those rights lapsed. Alliance is interested in talking to Moore about starring in the miniseries, though she is reportedly more interested in producing the project as a feature rather than starring in it, the trade paper reported. **** A brief intro from me. I've been lurking for a couple of weeks now. I've been a fan of feminist SF lit ever since I can remember, but I've never had anyone to discuss what I've been reading before. I'm ashamed to admit that I've fallen out of practice. I couldn't find the book list anywhere, though. Would appreciate it if someone could send it to me privately. Anyway, I read Wicked when it was first published, and enjoyed it so much. I haven't read any of the Baum books, but it seemed to my uneducated self that Wicked was in keeping with those books, insofar as the use of characters as symbols for societal elements go. For those of you who didn't like Wicked because of its differences to Baum, I'm curious. I've always thought of the Oz books as social commentary on the industrial age, rather than children's books. Is not Wicked along these same lines? Saille ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:55:49 -0800 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I feel so much better, Robin, to find that you hated Wicked only because you liked the Oz books so much. I was afraid there were some glaring literary errors that completely went over my head. I didn't think Wicked had much to do with the original Oz. I know the story only from the movie, but I really liked this alternate view of it. I like the alternate views of fairy tales that the list has read: The Snow Queen and Kissing the Witch. We get accustomed to reading the same old good = beautiful, submissive and obedient, bad = ugly, headstrong, and unsatisfied that it's refreshing to me to see a more accurate or healthier version of human potential. I think that's a major component of feminist literature, to show characters who react to the status quo by questioning who benefits from the rules, who is harmed, who has choices and who is supposed to be content merely to be "good". From the movie it appeared that Dorothy was such a character, but what other female got to be both self directed and a positive character? Oh, you said Ozma did, but she didn't figure at all in the movie, so I missed that emphasis. I recently read that Baum based his feminism on his activist, feminist mother in law. He was both a feminist and a racist (as far as Native Americans were concerned). You wouldn't think the two world views could coincide, but I guess they can. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 05:21:22 -0800 From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Did anyone else find WICKED hard going because of the language/author's voice/whatever? I gave up not too far in because while I was interested in the concept, the writing wasn't holding my attention. Also, has anyone read WAS by Geoff Ryman? How did it compare to WICKED? Maryelizabeth -- ******************************************************************* Mysterious Galaxy Books Local Phone: 858.268.4747 7051 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Suite 302 Fax: 858.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com General Email: mgbooks@mystgalaxy.com ******************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:21:57 EST From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 12/6/00 6:59:43 AM, hoop5@LVCM.COM writes: << I didn't think Wicked had much to do with the original Oz. I know the story only from the movie, but I really liked this alternate view of it. >> I read this when it first came out. It was recommended by a book-seller who watched me browse with a frown. My strongest memory of it was that at the end, I started slowing down my reading as the juggernaut that was Dorothy came ever nearer to Elphaba. I didn't want her destroyed. best, phoebe w ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:53:01 -0500 From: Rose Reith Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hi, Wow, I didn't have any trouble reading _Wicked_ at all, actually I had trouble putting it down! There was something about it, I guess because I kept looking for places where it went with the bits and pieces of the story I remember from the movie, but also because I really liked Elphaba despite the fact that she was definitely a prickly person. It's funny too because I guess we all know the ending since it had to match the existing story, but I was still disappointed when it finally came, for I knew that that meant we wouldn't be able to find out more about the parts of the story that hadn't already told. I guess I really enjoyed that alternative perspective. Six or so years a go I read _The Child Garden_ by Geoff Ryman and really enjoyed it, but I've never seen anything else by him. Is _Was_ also about OZ? It also must be newer than _The Child Garden_ because it's not mentioned in the endpapers. Rose >Did anyone else find WICKED hard going because of the language/author's >voice/whatever? I gave up not too far in because while I was interested >in the concept, the writing wasn't holding my attention. > >Also, has anyone read WAS by Geoff Ryman? How did it compare to WICKED? > >Maryelizabeth ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:54:27 -0500 From: Rose Reith Subject: Re: BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Also, has anyone read WAS by Geoff Ryman? How did it compare to WICKED? > >Maryelizabeth I just went out to Amazon to find a description of _Was_. I am really surprised after reading the review from Kirkus that the folks who wrote recommendations all seemed to agree that they liked the book. They all use the word "haunting", and I'll agree that it certainly sounded haunting, only to me the description made it seem as if it would be disturbing. Yet everyone who commented seemed to say that it was memorable in a good way. Thanks for mentioning it, Maryelizabeth, perhaps I'll try to find a copy at a library - I am not sure that it is one I would want to own. Rose ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:35:15 -0800 From: Margaret McBride Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Maryelizabeth wrote: >Did anyone else find WICKED hard going because of the language/author's >voice/whatever? When I thought of questions I might ask about WICKED, my first reaction was to ask about the voice. I can't quite decide how to label what seems slightly off to me about the voice--some sort of ironic, distancing tone that bothers me. The way Elphaba's parents are described and Glinda at first puts a little too much emphasis on their foibles? >Also, has anyone read WAS by Geoff Ryman? How did it compare to WICKED? I put WAS on my "read again because there's a lot going on here that I've missed on first reading" list. Rereading WICKED may be the impetus to pull WAS off the shelf again. I quite liked it but it's very different. It has three threads: the real Dorothy who is an abused school girl taught by Baum, Judy Garland's childhood, and a man dying of AIDS who is intrigued by Judy and the Wizard of Oz story and is going to Kansas to see if he can find the real Dorothy still alive. Margaret M. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:38:48 -0800 From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Rose: Seems like it's been forever since I read WAS, and I'm not likely to reread it, but it definitely stuck with me, especially its combination of Oz characters and "real" people who helped create the Oz that is part of our cultural consciousness. Pax, Maryelizabeth -- ******************************************************************* Mysterious Galaxy Books Local Phone: 858.268.4747 7051 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Suite 302 Fax: 858.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com General Email: mgbooks@mystgalaxy.com ******************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 12:07:13 -0600 From: Robin Reid Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 03:55 AM 12/06/2000 -0800, Joyce Jones wrote: >I feel so much better, Robin, to find that you hated Wicked only because you >liked the Oz books so much. I was afraid there were some glaring literary >errors that completely went over my head. Nope! It's just that issue of reader response, how much we as readers respond to a text based on our own history. I teach creative writing, and this term a student asked me what she could do to make absolutely sure her readers understood her intent. I told her, nothing! Since the students workshop in groups, they soon find out that different readers see very different things. >I recently read that Baum based his >feminism on his activist, feminist mother in law. He was both a feminist >and a racist (as far as Native Americans were concerned). You wouldn't >think the two world views could coincide, but I guess they can. I've heard that too -- Matilda Gage? I've forgotten her name, but yes. Unfortunately, the 19th and 20th century show that white feminists, as products of their society, are quite capable of being racist (and homophobic). After African American men were granted the vote, white suffragists campaigned for white women to receive the vote with explicitly racist propaganda (claiming that white women's votes were needed to offset the black male vote); 19th century white women's groups specifically excluded black women as members; and, in the 20th century, a large number of books by women of color published in the 1980's pointed out racist assumptions on the part of white middle class feminists. Suffering oppression does not necessarily mean one cannot be bigoted or inflict oppression, or be a part of institutionalized oppression. A really good book to read is "invisible privilege: a memoir about race, class & gender" by paula rothenberg (lack of capitals in the title and name on the book). This memoir is rothenberg's deconstruction of her own white and class privilege; I plan to use it in my graduate seminar on multicultural literature this summer. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:58:47 -0000 From: Kate Dall Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Unfortunately, I couldn't find _Wicked_ at my local SF bookshop, so I can't make any comparisons, but _Was_ is terrific. I certainly found it haunting, and disturbing - it's one of those books that stays with you for a long time. I do recommend buying a copy - I'll certainly be reading mine again. In fact, I might nominate it for a future BDG discussion, since it deals with a whole lot of really interesting ideas. It's a very difficult book to describe in any way that does it justice, but I really love the way it treats the intertwining of the Baum novels, the Judy Garland movie and "real people" into an Oz mythology. It embodies a lot of ideas within literary and cultural theory about how stories interact with each other and how they are created by and impact on various people in very different ways. All three strands of the novel are powerful - Ryman's writing is deeply emotionally affective, without ever lapsing into sentimental manipulation of the reader. I recommend it highly. Changing threads, on the topic of the interlinking of feminism and racism, Kathleen M. Blee's _Women of the Klan_ is definitely worth a look. Surprised - and disturbed - the hell out of me with the information that the KKK was a major campaigner for votes for women. Not to mention a lot of other very weird stuff. Kate. Rose wrote: >I just went out to Amazon to find a description of _Was_. I am really >surprised after reading the review from Kirkus that the folks who >wrote recommendations all seemed to agree that they liked the book. >They all use the word "haunting", and I'll agree that it certainly >sounded haunting, only to me the description made it seem as if it >would be disturbing. Yet everyone who commented seemed to say that it >was memorable in a good way. > >Thanks for mentioning it, Maryelizabeth, perhaps I'll try to find a >copy at a library - I am not sure that it is one I would want to own. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 05:34:52 EST From: Maire Shanahan Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hi- I also enjoyed Wicked. I have read the original Oz book by Baum, and seen the movie. In relation to whether Wicked could be a prequel / whether it contradicts Baum etc, I would say that while, in a manner of speaking I guess it could be a prequel, and nothing DOES contradict Baum, they are such completely different books, with very different purposes, that the question is really beside the point. Maguire has turned a children's story into an adults' basically, which means including a lot of info as to the whys and wherefores. Anyway, as I said I very much enjoyed the book. I loved the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as a child, and I think Wicked kind of evoked a similar response in me- just the richness and imagination of the setting. Quibbles- there was a lot of discussion as to the meaning of evil etc, which I had to stop myself sliding past. I couldn't quite see the point of it- it didn't seem to be intended to be taken seriously, but wasn't funny- and one thing's for sure, it didn't enlighten this reader any as to the nature of evil. That is, apart from the main message of the book, anyway- which you pretty much get from reading the title- i.e that there are 2 sides to every story- a history or tale with an evil character may have had a very different reality. Women in particular are vulnerable to the evil witch syndrome, which is why I loved mists of Avalon by MZB. I loved the way she retold the Arthurian story from the perspective of one traditionally considered the villain of the piece, and was both sympathetic and convincing, and so when I saw Wicked, I immediately loved the concept. (As for WAS by Geoff Ryman, I believe it is a sort of 'realism- based' retelling of Oz, from the point of view of a woman in an insane asylum- I THINK! That's based on my hazy recollection of reviews of it anyway.) I loved the idea of the motivations and thought processes of one whose actions are considered evil being revealed. So we can see the chain of events leading up to the fateful decision, the incidents that formed the character etc. I suppose the most influential event in Elphaba's life was the death of her lover- in such a way that she would have felt responsible- and perhaps the juxtaposition of Dr Dillamond and Madame Morrible- Dr Dillamond, the Animal activist on the side of good, contrasting with the sinister Madame Morrible- as well as the effect of their respective fates- his violent demise, whilst Madame Morrible became increasingly powerful- rather disillusioning to the youthful Elphaba. As someone commented, it would have been nice to know what Elphaba WAS exactly. i.e. why was she green. Why was she important to the Clock, the dwarf, Yackle, etc. But, as to the greenness, I think that mystery really helped to understand Oz's atmosphere. or society. A world where a human girl could be born green, and it would be bizarre, it would be remarked upon, and certainly a social disadvantage- but it COULD happen and people would ultimately accept it. Something I found interesting was the suggestion that, had not Elphaba abandoned her friends at Oz and gone underground, they would perhaps have turned out rather better. i.e. that it was the devastating effect of her abandoning them that was responsible for Glinda's regression into superficial social climber, Nessarose's into fanatical and cruel religion etc Something else I found mildly irritating was the sort of boarding school 'chummy', 'Jenning's School Days' tone in the period Elphaba was at university- i.e. 'the friends sat down and had tea' etc- (the friends, mind you, being as unlikely a group as you could find) And I can only wish that childbearing had left as little mark on me as it did on Elphaba! Even if Elphaba was in a COMA for the period during and after her pregnancy- surely there would have been at least a stretch mark about as a memorial of her 'journey into motherhood'? Maire ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 08:54:33 -0500 From: Rose Reith Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU This is just a facetious reply, but perhaps she had used so much oil to bathe /clean up that she was not subject to stretch marks as the rest of us are. Actually there's a bit of a hitch too in that if she were unconscious during much of that whole time how did she ever manage not to be destroyed much sooner - wouldn't you think that the maunts would have tried to bathe her etc. ? >Even if Elphaba was in a COMA for the period during and after her pregnancy- >surely there would have been at least a stretch mark about as a memorial of >her 'journey into motherhood'? >Maire -- Information is not knowledge. ~Caleb Carr, KILLING TIME ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:13:35 -0500 From: Rose Reith Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hi, Actually, I understand what you mean about the different purposes of the books, but thank you for the comment that "nothing does contradict Baum" - I think that is really what I was seeking to know. Also I seem to recall reading somewhere about the other issues Maguire touched upon and supposedly there are things in his story that are supposed to be able to be read as political commentary about the Nixon era etc. I was looking for that as I read it, but I guess I missed it because I couldn't see anything that was a parody / allegory or whatever related to what I vaguely remember of those years. Was the wizard supposed to represent the president? As I was reading I assumed that it had something to do with silencing the Animals, but I am not sure what that stands for in our world. Also, just to continue playing dumb for a while (since I am still trying to come to terms with a comprehensible, readily-reproducible-in-my-mind meaning of feminism / feminist) , would _Wicked_ be considered feminist, and why? I think it is simply because it offers a perspective on a woman's life that differs from the standard socially acceptable one. Elphaba is a complex character who chooses to try to make a difference in her world. But there is also the issue of her sewing the wings on the monkeys - that makes her more of a monster - except that it also is reminiscent of Mary Shelly and Frankenstein. Somehow I think that all the discussion of evil somehow fits in with these ideas and with her need to know what the relationship is between the acts of the Wizard, Madame Morrible, and the other characters who also do things that we most likely saw as reprehensible. Or is the discussion of evil supposed to be part of what makes the book political commentary? Rose Maire Shanahan wrote: >I also enjoyed Wicked. I have read the original Oz book by Baum, and seen the >movie. In relation to whether Wicked could be a prequel / whether it >contradicts Baum etc, I would say that while, in a manner of speaking I guess >it could be a prequel, and nothing DOES contradict Baum, they are such >completely different books, with very different purposes, that the question >is really besides the point. Maguire has turned a children's story, into an >adults' basically, which means including a lot of info as to the whys and >wherefores. -- Information is not knowledge. ~Caleb Carr, KILLING TIME ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:43:23 -0500 From: "Patricia P. Lillquist" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Wasn't one of the maunts a character that kept popping up in her life? Maybe she knew about the water and also was able to affect her memory of the birth. I found the book impossible to put down, and I had expected not to like it at all, because the whole premise seemed hokey. Rose Reith wrote on 12/07/2000 08:54:33 AM >This is just a facetious reply, but perhaps she had used so much oil >to bathe /clean up that she was not subject to stretch marks as the >rest of us are. Actually there's a bit of a hitch too in that if she >were unconscious during much of that whole time how did she ever >manage not to be destroyed much sooner - wouldn't you think that the >maunts would have tried to bathe her etc. ? -- Information is not knowledge. ~Caleb Carr, KILLING TIME ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:23:01 -0500 From: M McCauley Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Robin writes: "Cody, my friend, and I read all the Oz books (I still remember them, big fat books, bound in green, with gold letters on the covers) for years and years and years -- we probably had them memorized-- " I've seen these editions - lovely, really - but the ones I read growing up were reissues from Ballantine in softcover; they released one every few months and I used to check the book racks at Towers (think Stedmans, Woolco, Target, for those who weren't blessed with a Towers store downtown ;)) religiously, every Saturday, waiting for the next one to arrive. Looking back, I've no idea why I didn't just borrow them from the library but I guess it was more magical to be allowed to spend $2 for my own copy and read and re-read ad nauseam. Or, as Robin said, to memorize my favourite scenes and act them out. Judging by the shape of them now, it seems my favourites were The Emerald City of Oz and Ozma of Oz. Of course my copy of Wicked looks worse than either of these, having picked it up second-hand, so perhaps that's not the best criterion. Lyla writes: "If anything I would say that because it was written by a man it might have a certain kind of bite that a female perspective may not have had." Perhaps; a few times I caught myself snorting at a sentence and thinking that it would be received very differently if the author were female. "Where's my SELF, anyway? Where'd I leave that tired old thing?" "Ah, we're slow learners, Nanny countered. But THEY [men] can't learn at all." Joyce writes: "The only clue was that childbirth was handled, or not handled, in a very masculine fashion. Elphaba's mother chews some pinlobble leaves, goes to sleep and the baby slides out." Maybe the birth would have been described differently, or at greater length; however, at least there was *some* acknowledgement of the pain. I've heard that this is a fairly common request in delivery rooms even outside of Oz, actually. "No, I cannot be moved, thought Melena, and if the peasants find Frex tell them to kill him good and hard for me, for I never knew a pain so extraordinary that it made me see the blood behind my own eyes. Kill him for doing this to me." As for why she was green? Maybe there was something to Nanny's idea about the giggling elves. Melena recalls "...when a tinker with a funny accent gave me a draft of some heady brew from a green glass bottle": the "miracle elixir". However, I'm only in Part Two, so maybe I should keep my mouth shut until I've read further. But given that my copy of Tepper's Fresco has just arrived from the library, I might just have to set Wicked aside briefly with due dates in mind, so I'll pipe up now and then settle back with a cup of tea. Why is it that all the good books arrive at once, just when you have the least amount of time to indulge? Marcie, enjoying the discussion as much as the book ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:01:59 -0800 From: Margaret McBride Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: WICKED To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I finished WICKED this morning and remember why I kept it the first time I read it and also why it didn't go on my "this one is worth rereading" list. I like the complexity of description and the making of a world that is not mono-cultural. I like the revisionism (I'm drawn to and teach a class about older stories in modern retellings). I actually like about some things are hinted at and left fuzzy (I don't want my SF to always explain all the details just as I don't need a contemporary book to explain microwaves and I allow my sf authors to use made-up slang just as I let mundane authors talk about "zapping" or "nuking" food. However (and this is a reader response criticism as Robin described not a more general comment about style, author technique, etc.) the ending doesn't work for me. I don't end with that satisfied sigh. One of the final messages is that we need a belief in some kind of god, soul and afterlife to be happy?? The book is also too deterministic in a way that doesn't add to my understanding of humans. The characters are either so shaped by their relationships with their parents and/or some conniving character/Fate that they seem to lose too much free will. I know that question can be debated ad infinitum but that is my reaction. I think that's part of why the book doesn't fit my typical definition of feminist. I think it's a book that has been shaped by the recent years of feminism--that is, I doubt it would have been written without the recent changes in our society. I think of feminism as being more hopeful somehow--with some hint that activism, that striving can change things. Yes, I know lots of very dark books have been labeled feminist and I accept those labels for dystopian books like Handmaid's Tale, Walk to the End of the World, etc. They seem to be protesting customs by their darkness. WICKED doesn't feel that way to me--the activism to help the Animals, to improve the economics, and environmental problems all come to nothing. I am enjoying the discussion and, yes, I'm another one who read all the OZ books multiple times. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:28:40 -0000 From: Heather Stark Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] [*FSF-L] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Interesting discussion. Two themes I'd like to pick up on: Tone, Determinism & Character Messages & The Lion the Witch & the Wardrobe I haven't read Wicked from cover to cover, instead I've started skipping around, kind of enjoying bits, a bit, but hoping to find something that really engages me and pulls me in and along. No joy. Wondering about WHY - I think I can puzzle an answer out of what people have already said. Margaret McBride: The book is also too deterministic in a way that doesn't add to my understanding of humans. The characters are either so shaped by their relationships with their parents and/or some conniving character/Fate that they seem to lose too much free will. Maryelizabeth Hart: Did anyone else find WICKED hard going because of the language/author's voice/whatever? I gave up not too far in because while I was interested in the concept, the writing wasn't holding my attention. I'm not sure whether it's the tone, or the determinism of the characters, or some combination of both, that I'm reacting to. (More like not reacting to.... ;-). Revisionism can be a wonderful lens (e.g. Flush...). I'd be interested in any recommendations for re-tellings of fairy stories, that have a BDG slant. But here, I'm not sure what I'm seeing with it. Marie Shanahan (who liked the book anyway): I couldn't quite see the point of it- it didn't seem to be intended to be taken seriously, but wasn't funny- and one things for sure, it didn't enlighten this reader any as to the nature of evil. Marie's comparison with The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is thought provoking for me.... With The Lion WW, I've gone through multiple phases, as I've read it every five years or so since I was 8. First time round I was oblivious to the Christian message - next time round it stuck out so I couldn't see the story! I didn't like it and thought 'ugh how *dare* he sneak that in and make me digest it when I was too young to know different...not FAIR'. Subsequent re-readings have got these elements more in balance - and I've come to appreciate the Christian message more than the first time I saw it. But what I really like about the book, when I'm in a phrase where I'm not narked by the emblems, etc, are the characters, and how they play out in plot, and how they relate to the themes of choice and redemption. With Wicked, I'm kind of interested in Elphaba, in a distant kind of way. But I don't turn the page thinking 'what next?', or 'oh, no! say it ain't so!' I'm skipping around in another book right now, Viriconium, which I picked up in a SF Masterworks re-issue. For richness of language, and setting, I've seldom read anything to beat it. But the characters don't reach out to me. So, as with Wicked, I'm skipping around in it, thinking, hm, yeah, that's interesting. But I don't forget I'm reading. cheers, Heather ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:30:13 -0000 From: Jane Fletcher Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] [*FSF-L] BDG Wicked - Tone, Determinism & Character To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Like many others I am currently half way through the book and finding it hard going. I wanted to come in on this thread because I think I know the answer. It's to do with the technical issue of the author's handling of viewpoint. For non-writers on the list, Point-of-View (POV) is something that writers get terribly excited about, and which readers only notice when they find that the story 'isn't working'. Even when writing in third person a writer is wisest to stick with one character per scene. Only the things that character sees are described. Only that character's thoughts are given as quotes. Jumping from character to character (known as head-hopping) is most often seen in the work of novice writers. I've read scenes where the POV changes with each paragraph. It is very bad practice and leaves the reader feeling like a tennis ball. However sometimes a writer needs to give more than one POV. For example if the plot contains a heated argument, and the writer wants to show both sides. One technique for this would be to give the argument from one of the antagonists POV, and then in the next section (with a line space to mark the switch) go to the second character a short while later and have them brooding over what they should have said. There is another option for the writer, and this is what Maguire has done, which is to go for the 'god's eye viewpoint'. The author, Nigel Watts, describes it: "A truly omniscient viewpoint hovers above the story, the reader listening to character's thoughts like a telepathic eavesdropper" He then goes on to say, "The disadvantage of a god's eye view is significant: the reader, like the narrator, can float above the scene, passing through walls like a ghost, never really getting involved. If your intention is to produce a cool, perhaps ironic tone, this distance may be in your favour. If you have an emotional tale to tell you may find the effect is the opposite of intense." Briefly. in the section 'Boq' we were allowed inside Boq's head, and I started to connect with the story. However the POV has drifted outwards again and I am left feeling that the characters are all at the other end of a very long barge-pole. If this is Elphaba's story then I would like it told from her POV. Jane ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:51:53 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I just finished *Wicked* on my lunch break at work. I feel a little sick. I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned how *nasty* this book is! It seemed that every time I turned the page I came across another stomach-turning example of hypocrisy, blinkered prejudice, oppression. That is, when the more obvious lynchings, war crimes and torture weren't taking center stage. I know that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it captures my impression of the book -- a snapshot of life in a despotic and decadent society. I've never read any of the Oz books, but I can easily see why you hated it, Robin. As it is, I'm hovering on the line between queasy and outraged. It's not that I generally object to bad things happening in fiction. But the way that Maguire offhandedly tossed them in, heaping worse upon bad, then never resolved any of the outrage, made me feel as if there was no higher purpose beyond trying to shock. As an example -- why on earth include the scene in the Philosopher's Club? It is mentioned a couple of times later on in the book, but with never an explanation of why it might be significant. Elphaba wasn't even there. But I guess the trashing of Oz wouldn't have been complete without a little live porn thrown in to show just how degenerate these wretches really are. I do have more to say about this book, but I just had to get this off my chest first. Consider me unburdened. ;) ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Coldplay -- Parachutes "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:06:23 -0000 From: Heather Stark Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] [*FSF-L] BDG Wicked - Tone, Determinism & Character To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Re: POV Interesting diagnosis... POV is a bit of a chicken and egg thingy: - what you feel, as a reader, in the waay of empathy/suspense - various stylistic mechanisms for convveying POV - both direct and indirect. and it's also possible to feel a strong POV and yet not feel empathy/immersion. and all this is hard to unscramble... ;-) Heather ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:30:27 -0800 From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: [*FSF-L*] one more on OZ (the original, sorta) To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I recommend OZ: THE HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION to fans of the original. Essays and art by some of the best contemporary children's authors and artists. Maryelizabeth -- ******************************************************************* Mysterious Galaxy Books Local Phone: 858.268.4747 7051 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Suite 302 Fax: 858.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com General Email: mgbooks@mystgalaxy.com ******************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:59:39 -0600 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Well, I've recovered from my initial reaction to *Wicked*. Though discussion seems to have died down, I thought I would take some time to respond more thoughtfully to the book. Despite my deep reservations, I didn't have any difficulty maintaining interest in it until the end. The prose was full of life and the imagery was at times very poetic. I will not forget the scene in which Elphaba was brought to the Princess Nastoya across the prairie, "a great flickering surface" of grass that she takes to be the origin of the "myth" of the ocean. I also enjoyed the depiction of student life at Shiz University. Though the students' dialogue was incredibly pretentious and their chumminess was a bit off-putting, this section still captured a sense of the exploration and change that I felt as a college undergraduate. I enjoyed Pamela Dean's *Tam Lin* for the same reason. The "Gillikin" section also gave me the impression that Maguire had been reading up on the Bloomsbury group, which famously sprang from the halls of Cambridge. The homosexuals Crope and Tibbett (from Three *Queens* college -- ha ha) and Elphaba's sister Nessarose, whom she dotes on, call to mind, respectively, the various "buggers" of the group and Virginia Woolf's sister, Vanessa (also nicknamed "Nessa"). Elphaba at times reminded me of Virginia Woolf -- attached to the world, but uncompromising in her evaluation of it. Woolf's great feminist work, *Three Guineas*, was disapproved of, not only by the world at large, but by her closest friends, just as Elphaba's opinions about Animal rights fall on largely deaf ears even amongst her "charmed circle." And, even as the Bloomsbury group loved to talk about the nature of Good and Beauty, so Elphaba's friends discuss the nature of Evil. Sadly, I found these discussions hopelessly abstract and frustrating. If part of Maguire's point was that such talk is reserved for the privileged and bored, and has nothing to do with righting wrongs, all I can say is, not necessarily. Of course, if we take the main characters of *Wicked* as our sample of humanity, morality is simply not an issue. Lyla Miklos commented, "I love how no one is really evil or good or right or wrong." On the contrary, by the end of the book, I felt as if I had seen the ten thousand faces of Evil and had been left with nothing Good. Just because Glinda, Boq, et. al. are not mustache-twirlers like Morrible or the Wizard doesn't mean that their cooperation with the police state is forgivable. There is an obvious parallel here between Oz and Nazi Germany. Even Elphaba, who went so far as to join a resistance cell, lost all ethical credibility for me when her self-absorption kept her from noticing that her son had been missing for *two days*. Regardless of maternal feelings, she was in some way responsible for this child, and her neglect nearly meant his death. Killing Manek afterward hardly made up for it. This sense of pervasive badness, with no workable alternatives offered, was my major problem with the book. Joyce Jones wrote, "I liked the fact that Elphaba seemed to think of herself as unlovable and didn't care about that but that she was able to share love with Fiyero." I think this section of the book was where the "point of view" problem that Jane Fletcher pointed out really began to impinge on me. On the one hand, I appreciated that we got an extended experience of one, fairly sympathetic, person's life. I remember particularly the moment when Fiyero sees the Bear cub smashed on the head in the yard next door and seems to realize for the first time the enormity of the horror in Oz. Though he never gets the chance to involve himself in a resistance movement the way Elphaba does, and perhaps would never choose to, at least he seems to have grown in the course of this section. What I didn't like about it is that we never get to see the relationship from Elphaba's side. This is the center of the book, both physically and emotionally. Its events are shattering enough to make Elphaba seclude herself for *seven years*, and she only comes out of seclusion to travel across Oz and apologize to Fiyero's wife. Since it is so important, I very much wanted to see the events from Elphaba's side, to understand how much Fiyero meant to her, to feel with her. But it never happens. Even in the "Vinkus" and "Murder" sections of the book, which give us Elphaba's viewpoint at last, there are no flashbacks, no real investigation of what makes this woman tick. If she really thought of herself as unlovable, for example, I'm sure she would have experienced some powerfully confused feelings about Fiyero's attraction to her. But all we see is her masochistic and self-involved focus on confessing to Sarima and her later disintegration into what seems to me like madness. How else to explain her mission to sew wings onto monkeys? Well, I guess another obvious explanation is that Maguire wanted to tie her story into the events of *The Wonderful Wizard of Oz* and he was running out of time. In either case, I thought it made no sense in light of Elphaba's previous concern for both Animals and animals. The point of view problem prevents me from viewing the book as feminist. Elphaba is the object of this story, not its subject. It is not enough to give an alternate view of the Wicked Witch of the West if she *still* comes across as a cypher, an "other". Which is how she seemed to me. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:30:29 -0800 From: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Despite my deep reservations, I didn't have any > How else to explain her mission to sew wings onto > monkeys? Well, I guess another obvious explanation > is that Maguire wanted to tie her story into the > events of *The Wonderful Wizard of Oz* and he was > running out of time. In either case, I thought it > made no sense in light of Elphaba's previous concern > for both Animals and animals. I too felt the ending was rushed and didn't fit with the tone and pace of the rest of the book. Elphaba's obsessive need to get her sister's shoes back and the wing thing were all misplaced and out of character from what we had seen before. Now about Elphaba's "son". I never truly believed he was actually her "son". People had commented on someone giving birth and not knowing about it to be highly improbable. I felt he was someone she had projected a lot of stuff on to, but never did I think he was really her kid. Although I've never been a mother, I have been a babysitter and I was the oldest of four kids. When kids go missing you look for them right away. I remember going into an absolute panic when I couldn't find my baby brother in downtown Toronto one summer and that was only for a couple of minutes. You don't wait for days. I guess Elphaba wasn't going to win the mother of the year award. Although it does sound horrible there are people like that around. To be polite, let's call them self-absorbed. The people in Wicked reminded me of people I meet everyday. There are very few people I know who are truly heroes that rise above it all and go against the grain. Most people plod along and follow the norm. There is a reason the Nazis rose to power and most of Germany barely raised an eyebrow at what was going on. Let alone object or rise up against them. Unfortunately I think that reason mostly stems from human nature. Lyla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:54:55 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 06:30 AM 12/18/00 -0800, Lyla Miklos wrote: >Now about Elphaba's "son". I never truly believed he >was actually her "son". People had commented on >someone giving birth and not knowing about it to be >highly improbable. I felt he was someone she had >projected a lot of stuff on to, but never did I think >he was really her kid. Huh... I didn't see any indications that Elphaba wasn't Liir's mother. If she were obsessed with him as a "possible" child of her beloved Fiyero or some such thing I might begin to suspect the same plot twist, but she's completely indifferent to the kid, at least until his brush with death. At that point she becomes slightly more interested, but not enough to make much of an impression. Am I missing something? >The people in Wicked reminded me of people I meet >everyday. There are very few people I know who are >truly heroes that rise above it all and go against the >grain. Most people plod along and follow the norm. >There is a reason the Nazis rose to power and most of >Germany barely raised an eyebrow at what was going on. >Let alone object or rise up against them. >Unfortunately I think that reason mostly stems from >human nature. Oz as dystopia could have been very effective, but where it faltered for me was in the lack of 1) a victim's viewpoint and 2) a credible resistance. None of the (very few) Animal characters get their own point of view section; neither do the Quadlings. It makes the atrocities committed against them feel very distant, almost like a backdrop. Now, it's my feeling that if an author makes so clear an analogy to the Holocaust, he ought to deal with it face on. And Maguire didn't. Elphaba's involvement with the resistance seems, once again, like backdrop material, since we never learn anything about the other people involved, and they are so ineffective as to seem almost a joke. Even the oppressed Cow in the "Vinkus" section responds with weary irony to Elphaba's crusading attitude. The overall feeling I get from the book is that Horrible Things Happen and There's Nothing You Can Do About It. To echo Joyce Jones's comment about *Ash*: what is the point of such a book? ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Coldplay -- Parachutes "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:50:13 -0600 From: Robin Reid Subject: [*FSF-L*] Oz (Was Wicked) To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Marcie wrote: >I've seen these editions - lovely, really - but the ones I read growing >up were reissues from Ballantine in softcover; they released one every >few months and I used to check the book racks at Towers (think Stedmans, >Woolco, Target, for those who weren't blessed with a Towers store >downtown ;)) religiously, every Saturday, waiting for the next one to >arrive. > >Looking back, I've no idea why I didn't just borrow them from the >library but I guess it was more magical to be allowed to spend $2 for my >own copy and read and re-read ad nauseam. Or, as Robin said, to memorize >my favourite scenes and act them out. Judging by the shape of them now, >it seems my favourites were The Emerald City of Oz and Ozma of Oz. Of >course my copy of Wicked looks worse than either of these, having picked >it up second-hand, so perhaps that's not the best criterion. Wow, do you remember what year this was? I know I started reading them in the library editions in 1960 or 61, but it was almost impossible to find them in the bookstores; they were out of print a while. I seem to remember being told and cannot vouch for the authority that librarians and educators did not like them much and they were suspected of being communist during the witch-hunt fifties and dropped from publication. So for some years they weren't available. I wish they'd do new hard back editions! I have filled out my collection with various soft cover, and they have the illos, but it's not the same. I also don't limit myself just to the 14 published by Baum; I also like Ruth Plumley Thompson's as well! I have over 30... so many people think it's just the ONE novel. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:35:41 -0800 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Janice Dawley wrote: "The overall feeling I get from the book is that Horrible Things Happen and There's Nothing You Can Do About It." I do think that's the overwhelming feeling, so why did I like it so much when I didn't like Dawn, by Octavia Butler or Ash? My objections to them were the same, or almost the same. I can't really talk about Ash because it so disgusted me that I could read very little of it. I remember my objection to Dawn was that the main female character was so gifted and interesting yet she stayed subjugated by the "creator" figure in the story. The message seemed to be that she could continue to care for him and work for him in spite of his uncontrollable need to kill. I am not a "love your enemies" kind of person. No, I will not embrace the presidency of George Bush because he's a "likeable" guy and has been handed the election. I don't care if he's all we've got, to me he is not the president. So, I guess the reason I can still like Wicked and still respect Elphaba is that she continued to fight even though we know, and she surmised, that she can't win. Yes, this hopeless fight drove her a little crazy, thus the flying monkeys perhaps, but she continued to fight. Now, I can't get all misty eyed and patriotic when men rush to certain death trying to take another hill in another battle. To me that's just mindless lemurism. Elphaba wasn't trying to take a meaningless hill. She was fighting alone, after becoming lost from her cohorts, for freedom. If she were a French resistance fighter we'd applaud her. Germany eventually lost the war, but that outcome certainly wasn't certain to many of the people who lost their lives fighting them. Winning doesn't make you a hero, fighting does. We never see inside Elphaba. We don't feel her pain and we don't feel her love. She says she doesn't have a soul, maybe that's why we're not allowed in. Does that point of view bother me? Again I have to say, not in this book. Ghandi espoused the love of all humanity, yet he didn't seem to involve himself in the little loves that are so important to most of us. Ralph Nader is a man fighting for all of humanity, yet there seems to be little personal depth to him. You've heard the old joke life is too important to become personally involved? Well, I think some people live it. Elphaba didn't look for the boy who was probably her son for two days. You might call that self absorption or you may call that relating to a larger view of life. I see it as something an actual person might do -- not a run of the mill person, but a believable person nevertheless. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:02:29 -0800 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSF-L*] Dawn - Wild Seed To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I'm sorry, I didn't mean Dawn. I loved the Xenogenesis series. I meant to refer to Wild Seed and the dominant - submissive relationship between Doro and Anyanwu. We discussed the fact that Butler was saying that compromises have to be made for some people to be able to survive. While that is an understandable, and realistic, view, I thought the way it was represented in Wild Seed with Anyanwu being so fascinating yet willingly connected to a being who bred her people like cattle and killed them at will was off-putting to say the least. I found Wild Seed overwhelmingly depressing, but I felt uplifted by Elphaba's struggle in Wicked. Anyanwu lives, Elphaba dies. So it would seem that Anyanwu makes the right choice -- better to fight the system from within. Perhaps it's the romantic in me who can't accept that choice. I honor those who sacrifice, remain true to their ideals and fight overtly, even if they loose. Perhaps the individual sacrifice is more effective in establishing the ideal than the one who allows herself to be used by the system. Perhaps not. Who had the greatest role in ending the Vietnam war, the nuns who immolated themselves or the Young Republicans and Democrats who did everything they could think of to save face politically while devising a way to pull out? Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:34:07 EST From: Maire Shanahan Subject: [*FSF-L*] Dawn - Wild Seed, and further comment on Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hi again, thanks Joyce, for clearing that up. I was intrigued as to which book you actually were referring to! As I read the further comments on Wicked, it spurs me on to develop my own opinion of the book further. People have commented on it seeming rushed at the end, or that some events i.e. Elphaba's operations on the monkeys, and losing her son etc are not in keeping with her character earlier in the book. To me, this was in keeping with the message of the book. Which to my mind, was to examine the motivation of a figure whose actions are clearly evil. I suppose it is a measure of Maguire's success, that the things we would have seen to be clearly evil in a book such as the original Oz book, i.e. sending her animals to kill Dorothy, sewing the wings on to the monkeys, we are able to some degree to excuse her in Wicked. I sort of think that Maguire put those bits in, i.e. Elphaba's operations on the monkeys, so that we would have to realise by the end of the book that her actions were finally evil- just as her public persona is i.e. 'The Wicked Witch of the West'. He wasn't trying to show that Elphaba was not really bad, just misunderstood, he was trying to ask- if someone starts off good, but has terrible things happen to them, and finally, with the best of intentions, commits evil acts, are they themselves evil? I felt that the tone of the book, like the 'finishing too quickly' people spoke of, conveyed the way Elphaba was basically sinking into madness- or bitter and twistedness! She would have felt responsible for her lover's death, and then, when she finally traveled to his wife's to ease her burden of guilt, the wife wouldn't let her confess, and instead gave her a safe haven. However, then Elphaba's presence in the home attracted the military, so she was responsible for their deaths also. After the encounter with Madame Morrible, in which she told the three girls about her plans to place them in powerful positions etc Elphaba struggled to ensure she was not under Madame Morrible's influence- i.e. she ran away to the Animal activist underground etc. However, although this and everything else she did was intended to thwart Madame Morrible, what Madame Morrible had planned did become reality- and in fact- Elphaba's resistance had HELPED Morrible's maneuverings i.e. by Nessarose becoming a religious fanatic after Elphaba left, Glinda regressing into social climber. (By the way- someone said that they didn't believe that the boy (can't remember his name) was Elphaba's son. In fact, Maguire confirms that he is Elphaba's son- he comments somewhere on him being in the house of his father, and on the other children being his siblings.) Anyway, my point is, for someone so idealistic and well-meaning, Elphaba has a lot that she can, albeit indirectly, feel responsible for. After all- the road to hell is lined with good intentions. So after collapsing after her lover's death, she finally makes the big effort to seek out his wife- Then instead of anger etc she is given a home, but is then not only partly responsible for the wife, her sisters and children's sticky ends- she ends up with their home! Everything she attempts, with the best intentions, turns sour- and it is here that she begins to decline into madness - and badness. (In regards to the side plot of Yackle etc- Yackle was one of the maunts at the convent where Elphaba stayed for the years after her lover's death. Also, Elphaba found that amazing book from the other world at the wife's house (sorry I've forgotten all the names) Is there a suggestion that Yackle steered Elphaba towards seeking out the wife?) So, is Elphaba evil? Objectively, her actions at the end of the book are clearly pretty bad. Her neglect of her child. Her vivisection and abuse of the monkeys and birds. Her obsession with Dorothy, attempts to kill her as Dorothy arrives, and careless throwing away of her animals' lives in pursuit of Dorothy's death. But when you've been there from the start, through her childhood as a lonely green child with difficult parents, the blossoming at college, the idealism, the horror at the oppression and prejudice she sees about her, the crushing loss of her only real love- I suppose it is hard to condemn. But... does that mean you wouldn't condemn Hitler if he was your brother- or son? Is it fair to Elphaba's son to excuse her appalling neglect of him? Anyway- thanks very much to anyone who managed to read through all this- it's wonderful how this group makes you think further about your reading. Maire (late at night!) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:41:43 -0600 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On 19 Dec 2000 at 18:35:41 -0800, Joyce Jones wrote: >So, I guess the reason I can still like Wicked and still respect Elphaba is >that she continued to fight even though we know, and she surmised, that she >can't win. Yes, this hopeless fight drove her a little crazy, thus the >flying monkeys perhaps, but she continued to fight. Now, I can't get all >misty eyed and patriotic when men rush to certain death trying to take >another hill in another battle. To me that's just mindless lemurism. >Elphaba wasn't trying to take a meaningless hill. She was fighting alone, >after becoming lost from her cohorts, for freedom. If she were a French >resistance fighter we'd applaud her. Germany eventually lost the war, but >that outcome certainly wasn't certain to many of the people who lost their >lives fighting them. Winning doesn't make you a hero, fighting does. I agree to some extent, but I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making. Leaving Gallipoli aside, I think that military commanders most often have a good reason to "take another hill" that relates to winning the overall war. And though I don't think it's often true, the soldiers who follow their orders often believe that the war is being fought on moral grounds. How is this any different from Elphaba's involvement with the Animal rights cause? I'm not saying that the masterminds of that cause *weren't* acting on moral grounds, but the fact is that Elphaba had very little knowledge of what the other "cells" were doing or how her actions might relate to the overall plan. That sort of structure, it seems to me, invites the making of terrible mistakes, and I can't really view Elphaba's involvement with it as a positive thing, no matter how much I agree with her motives. Now, if she had been part of an Animal "underground railroad" or some other resistance activity that attempted to directly improve the lives of even a few Animals, I might feel differently. But she wasn't, at least as far as I remember. She does rescue Chistery, but the later wing experiments make that act a mockery. In short, I found it very hard to identify with or care about Elphaba, realistic or not. But I'm glad that you were able to get something out of the book that I couldn't, and do enjoy discussing it! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:15:47 -0800 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Maire Shanahan writes: Subject: Dawn - Wild Seed, and further comment on Wicked "As I read the further comments on Wicked, it spurs me on to develop my own opinion of the book further. People have commented on it seeming rushed at the end, or that some events i.e. Elphaba's operations on the monkeys, and losing her son etc are not in keeping with her character earlier in the book. To me, this was in keeping with the message of the book. Which to my mind, was to examine the motivation of a figure whose actions are clearly evil. I suppose it is a measure of Maguire's success, that the things we would have seen to be clearly evil in a book such as the original Oz book, ie sending her animals to kill Dorothy, sewing the wings on to the monkeys; we are able to some degree to excuse her in Wicked. I sort of think that Maguire put those bits in, ie Elphaba's operations on the monkeys, so that we would have to realise by the end of the book, that her actions were finally evil- just as her public persona is ie 'The Wicked Witch of the West'. He wasn't trying to show that Elphaba was not really bad, just misunderstood, he was trying to ask- if someone starts of good, but has terrible things happen to them, and finally, with the best of intentions, commits evil acts, are they themselves evil?" I never at any point thought that Maguire was trying to say that Elphaba had become evil. You go on to compare Elphaba with Hitler saying in effect he also had had a difficult childhood so should he be excused for the evil things he did. Talk about thinking way out of the box, my mind just hadn't stretched so far. Yes, bad things happened around Elphaba, but the book, I believe, was trying to show that the Wizard and Madame Morrible were engaged in evil acts which most of society just didn't see. Would it have been less evil just to let the evil politicians succeed in taking over all the land? I think there is less personal damage, perhaps, to political capitulation. If the citizenry just happily accepted the loss of freedom accorded to themselves then I guess no blood need be shed. People fight, it gets them and their sympathizers, and sometimes just innocent bystanders killed. So you're saying it's evil to fight evil because someone can be hurt? Hitler was evil. He purposefully dehumanized, enslaved and killed people in order to further his political aims. Elphaba made some strange choices. She ran around confused and alone knowing only that it was necessary to stem the tide of oppression from Oz, but not knowing how to do it. How do we stay sane if we know we must fight the inevitable? (Is this an existentialist book?) She knew Dorothy was sent from Oz to get the grimoire. She knew it would somehow aid the Wizard in his oppressive dominance over all. She identified with Dorothy, but knew she had to be stopped. How in the world can you equate her with Hitler? Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:04:36 EST From: Maire Shanahan Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Dear Joyce, I'm sorry, I don't recognise any of my comments in your arguments against them, perhaps you have misunderstood? For example- that I have 'equated' Elphaba with Hitler- I think that you can only have thought that was my intention if you were not only misunderstanding, but doing so deliberately. Maire ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:15:25 -0800 From: Joyce Jones Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Maire Shanahan writes: "Dear Joyce, I'm sorry, I don't recognise any of my comments in your arguments against them, perhaps you have misunderstood? For example- that I have 'equated' Elphaba with Hitler- I think that you can only have thought that was my intention if you were not only misunderstanding, but doing so deliberately. Maire" Well, I may have misunderstood you, but not "deliberately" so. I was referring to the post quoted below. Joyce "Her obsession with Dorothy, attempts to kill her as Dorothy arrives, and careless throwing away of her animals lives in pursuit of Dorothy's death. But when you've been there from the start, through her childhood as a lonely green child with difficult parents, the blossoming at college, the idealism, the horror at the oppression and prejudice she sees about her, the crushing loss of her only real love- I suppose it is hard to condemn. But... does that mean you wouldn't condemn Hitler if he was your brother- or son? Is it fair to Elphaba's son to excuse her appalling neglect of him?" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:50:16 -0500 From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Wicked To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU An interesting interpretation--I read Maire's comment to mean that we are always tempted to excuse inexcusable behavior in the face of horrible suffering (by the badly-behaved person); but that sometimes this compassion is too easy an out, some things really are unforgivable and evil, no matter what. We may disagree as to where that line is drawn, but I expect we all believe that at some point a quantitative difference becomes qualitative. In other words, being "a little worse" goes over some line and becomes inexcusable. For some people, striking another person in anger is too much. For some it's the scale that matters, for others the type of action. Imagine balancing the death of three soldiers against the beating of one child. Three deaths versus one beating? Killers versus an innocent? What if the soldiers are drafted and the child picked the fight? I'm extrapolating now from Maire's words, but this seems like one of the big philosophical questions of Wicked (which I liked for its playfulness, not its philosophy, oh well): how should we think about people who do things that are bad and wrong? Jessie Joyce wrote: >Well, I may have misunderstood you, but not "deliberately" so. I was >referring to the post quoted below. Maire: "Her obsession with Dorothy, attempts to kill her as Dorothy arrives, and careless throwing away of her animals lives in pursuit of Dorothy's death. But when you've been there from the start, through her childhood as a lonely green child with difficult parents, the blossoming at college, the idealism, the horror at the oppression and prejudice she sees about her, the crushing loss of her only real love- I suppose it is hard to condemn. But... does that mean you wouldn't condemn Hitler if he was your brother- or son? Is it fair to Elphaba's son to excuse her appalling neglect of him?"