I’m rereading WICKED: The life and times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire, a book I read several years ago for a book discussion that never happened. I need help!
What’s up with Yackle? Is she Evil, or just Fate? What is Madam Morrible’s relationship with her? Is Yackle the “higher power” that Morrible claims to serve? Is Yackle the Kumbric Witch?
Elphaba seems to have sucessfully resisted the spell put on the three girls by Morrible - at least, she never becomes the Adept of Munckinland. Are we to assume that the other two succumb to the spell? Is it Elphie’s attempt to resist the spell that leads to her moral deterioration? Is the author saying that even if we resist evil, we still become evil? Or that it’s impossible to resist?
The “political concerns” of the first half of the book seem to get forgotten in the second half - I mean the campaign for Animal Rights. Why? Are Morrible and the Wizard in cahoots, or are they both being manipulated/serving Yackle?
Or, am I reading too much into this book? Is it just an adult retelling of The Wizard of Oz, without any deeper meaning?
I’m not completely sure that I buy this argument, but how about the idea that Yackle and Morrible are in fact one and the same?
To quote Neo: “Whoa!” That’s a lot to tackle. Who’s to say that she hasn’t succumbed to it and that maybe Morrible got it wrong (so Elphie ends up ruling the Vinkus instead)? As to her “moral deterioration,” I’d lay that more at the feet of the society around her. A lifetime of being told that you’re evil tends to reinforce the idea that you are–see Frankenstein. You’re last two questions are very interesting and really cut to the heart of the novel. Is there a philosopher in the house?
The politics are still there: we have imperialism in Quadling country (as a kind of parallel with Native Americans) and the uprisings in Munchkinland (first against the Wizard, then against Nessarose).
I’d say that you most certainly are NOT reading too much into this, as it does in fact have a deeper meaning. It’s an exploration into the nature (and definition) of evil.
Thanks, Manatee , I’m encouraged that at least one other person thinks this book’s worth discussing.
I wondered about Morrible and Yackle being one and the same, but on the second go-round they seem to be very distinct characters. I just got to the part where Elphaba comes with blood on her to the convent - and it’s Yackle who takes her in!!! What’s with that? She stays there 7 years, then is almost a vegetable when she leaves. So at first I thought maybe Yackle “got to her” during tha time. But when she meets the Elephant princess Namoya, Namoya says “You and I have the same enemy”. So Elphaba is still “good” at this point, it would seem.
At some point on the trip to the Vinkus a character opines that in folk tales and the really oldest stories, evil is always earlier than good. In part this is stating the reason for the book - how did the Wicked Witch become wicked? But maybe it’s also the truth about Oz - evil is fundamental, good is only accidental and transient?
Here’s another thought - Elphie’s father was an idealist but his idealism interfered with his ability to do real good. Is Elphie in the same boat - her idealism is what brings her down?
FriendRob, I guess we’re the only ones who have read this (or read it and liked it, I guess). All you lurkers: go read this book!
I’d push that a bit further and say that she’s actually good throughout.
That’s what the Unionist sermons that Elphie reads at Shiz seem to suggest; that becomes her argument as well. See the dinner at Avaric’s after Madame Morrible’s death.
I’d certainly buy that. Too many people in Maguire’s Oz seem to have no ideals at all, like the vapid Galinda. The fact that Elphaba is willing (and able) to hold true to her ideals is what causes her downfall. In that regard, she’s actually not too different from Nessarose. Good or Evil, inflexibility will getcha every time.
Terrific book. At first I was put off by the idea of a modern writer (Maguire) using a famous fantasy world created by another writer (Baum) a hundred years ago. But he added an entirely different dimension. I was glad to find that I wasn’t the only one who, upon first reading The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, thought the Wizard was a despotic sociopath.
I have a problem with “she’s actually good throughout”.
She (perhaps unintentionally) sets the bees on the cook, killing him.
She (apparently intentionally) melts an icicle that kills Manek.
She is, at this very moment (p.334), torturing snow monkeys in order to turn them into flying monkeys. This is at least a major departure form her earlier vegetarianism.
It seems to me that her guilt over Fiyero’s death, and Sarima’s unwillingness to forgive her for it, are what eventually turn her “wicked”.
I haven’t gotten to Morrible’s death yet, but I found this (p.326):
For who was in thrall to whom? And could it ever be known? Each agent working in collusion and antagonism - like the cold and the sun alike creating a deadly spea of ice…
And Madame Morrible? And Yackle? Was there any connection? Were they the same person, were they harsh divinities, avatars of a power of darkness, were they poisonous flitches struck from the evil body of the Kumbric Witch? …
(I like that “poisonous flitches” particularly…)
So it seems these characters/forces are intentionally ambiguous.
Baldwin , I had the same reaction when this book was suggested for our club. I hope others give it a try - it’s a wonderful creative acheivement, but at the same time it doesn’t detract from Baum’s Wizard in any way, IMO.
Well, she has good intententions throughout (I know, I know, the road to Hell and all of that…). There’s also her rescue of Chistery, which from Elphaba’s point of view could have lead to her own destruction (what with her hydrophobia and all).
