I Read: Wicked

I Read: Wicked

Another book down!  And this one's pretty popular.  Or at least at some point it was. Now with this review, I'm afraid I'll sound like I'm reading books I don't like, but that's not true.  I just happened to find flaws in these first two books. So without further pause I will go over my take on this piece. Be warned, I will make no attempt to avoid plot details or spoilers.
Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire

Illustration: Elphaba
This came highly recommended and I have had a great interest in reading this for some time.  It takes a pre-existing world and turns it on its side.  That world is Oz, and the side it is turned on, is the side of the Infamous Wicked Witch of the West.
Before I talk about the actual book I need to mention expectations.  When I heard the basic premise (a retelling of the Wicked Witch of the West's life from her perspective) I expected the story to be one of a two things: A story built to fit neatly into the already made worlds of the 1939 MGM movie or the L. Frank Baum Novel, and be simply an expansion that would go along with the work, or that it was a new story that created its own tale independent of what existed before.  Honestly, I was expecting the first of these, with a focus on the 39 movie, given the design of the character presented on the cover.  But as I started reading, it proved that the universe of the books was more in use than the movie.  All that it takes from the movie is her look because, I expect, it is so much more recognizable than... well, that not so good looking one.
So, on with the show.  It was OK.  That's about it.  A little disappointing, but a well written disappointment.  I liked the premise of a retelling a famous story from a one-time villain's perspective. But, when he made his revision, he kind of removed what made her so fascinating and powerful in the first place.  As 2 dimensional as she was, she was at least a woman with conviction, power, and presence. What I'm afraid we got in her place is a woman trying to reject every choice and resist every action.
That woman is Elphaba, and for most of the book I liked her.  The story was well written and the prose was enjoyable. But the content of the story wasn't always particularly pertinent to the plot, but still I read it at a decent pace.  I think my motivation for reading came from a desire not to see what was to happen to Elphaba, I already knew that.  I wanted to see how she changed into that bad-ass wicked witch of the west I knew and loved.  But I feel like that desire was never met.  And here's why.
I get that the premise is supposed to tell me that she was justified in her actions, And that she really wasn't Wicked.  I assumed she would do some things that might be seen as such, but if we knew why, we wouldn't see her that way.  Well the truth is she never reall got around to do anything.  When they brought up the Animal/animal rascim thing, I thought that would be her cause, and she would do horrible things in the name of it, but she didn't.  when she signed up with the resistance, I thought she would do horrible things to defy the wizard, but she did nothing that we were made aware of.  And then when she joined up with the culture with an army that hated the wizard, i thought she would mount an offense against him, but she didn't.  I have no clue whay she would have a 'wicked' reputation in this story, or why the wizard would even care about her. She was no threat and didn't seem disposed to make a threat.
And lets talk about the wizard for a minute.  I'm all for adding dimension to a flat villain in Elphaba, but in making her complex, Maguire made the wizard inot the flatest villain possible: Hitler.  He traded one flat villain for another. In any of the source material, he is a bit complex, as he is a charlatan, pretending to be powerful, but he does it to protect himself and he is overall good natured.  In Wicked, he is cruel, violent, evil, and seems to be so without motivation.  And he also seems to have some weird magical agenda, as he is interested in that stupid book Elphaba finds in the castle.  THAT'S why he wants her dead?  Some random book that comes in near the end of the story? What?  Make her a genuine threat! Make her inspiring resistance! Make her something that would make his hitler ass feel compelled to get rid of!  She has a BOOK? What a waste.
That's how I feel about most of the book.  A great concept but it ends up being squandered.  She never becomes a powerful character. Interesting and complex, yes, but never one to inspire fear or respect.  She does everything half-assed and never accomplishes anything.  It's tragic, but it was always going to be tragic. At least let her be strong.  Don't make her resist every important action she could take.  Give her some conviction.  I like this politicized version of OZ. I enjoyed its play on religion and its effect on people.  I like the concept as a whole.  I just don't get why it played out so muted, sporadic, and motivationless.  Maybe that was the point.  Maybe it was all just a big accident and she was just another victim that didn't deserve it.  GREAT JOB.  Turning one of the most iconic and dynamic women in pop culture and turn her into a VICTIM.
And the green thing!  What the hell?  A big deal is made about how she is born green and is allergic to water but nothing comes of it.  So much is made of it that I thought it was going to have some symbolic meaning or purpose.  But no.  Nothing.  It's forgotten because the Hitler of OZ wants a book.
Sorry if you love the book or the musical.  I don't mean to hate.  I was just disappointed.  Oh well.  The next book I read I really loved, so look forward to that!

I Read: First King of Shannara

I Read: First King of Shannara

I realized recently, as I was putting my bookshelves back up after moving, that I owned many books that I have never read. Too many.  I put aside the ones I haven't read and set them on their own rack.
I have a massive amount of books to read.
So as I read through them, I have decided to do an illustration of each, and then give a little opinion piece on what I thought of it.  Why? Well, Why not?
The first book off of the list is First King of Shannara by Terry Brooks. 

Illustration: Bremen The Druid
This is my first Terry Brooks novel, and since I have always been a fan of fantasy, it was recommended to me.  It was, at best, OK.  I don't want to bash it too bad, as it is my first experience with the man and his writing, but I was not blown away by what I read.
To begin with, I must acknowledge that this was not his first novel.  It is the first in the chronology of his fictional universe, and it was the first one given to me by a fan.  So most people who have read his stuff, probably didn't start with this one, and there may be reasons that it was written the way it was.  That way, in my opinion, was not nube-friendly.  There were many instances of passages that seemed to have no purpose, and then they would like "And that man's name was Joe." Next chapter.
Who?  What? is that supposed to mean something to me?  I assume that it would make sense for people who already knew the future of the series, but for me, I just had to guess or use wikipedia.
Now lets get into the story.  It may have been bad luck, but starting me out on a fantasy series on a novel that is a near exact copy of the plot of the Lord of The Rings Trilogy is not going to impress or interest me.  If I want to read LOTR, I'll read that.
Seriously, the plot is the same: old wizard shows up, says the bad guy they thought was dead thousands of years ago is back and has an evil army to take over the world, assembles a diverse "fellowship" to find the "lost king" and "item of evil the bad guy wants" and stop the evil guy from conquering all the "good races" with "evil races." Also the bad guy is a formless wraith of darkness and has other evil wraiths of darkness that do his bidding. characters die, fight, "fall in love," and the boring guy gets the girl and the crown.
Actually, never mind.  It's not that similar. Aragorn is absolutely quirky compared to Jerle Shanarra.
Along with snagging the basic plot of LOTR it also takes its cues on the villain.  The Warlock Lord is a motivation-less evil force that makes two total appearances in the book, never gains a personality, and is gone before we can care.  The world also feels so sparsely populated that I don't see his actions as much of a threat.  there is mostly land and few people in a land that you can apparently walk across in a matter of days. And the Warlock Lord doesn't function very well as just a representation of Evil-Otherness as his supposed evilness can't reach out from beyond his little wagon, and the races he uses to fight with are just foreigners that want land.  In short, I felt no particular desire to see this enemy defeated.  I just knew it was supposed to happen.
So there's that.  So lets get into the actual writing. As I read, I thought I shuld have a map to look at as Brooks continuously refered to fictional geography in so much detail, I assume he would want you to check a map and pat him on the back for being so creative.  It is creative, but the extent to which he would detail a location got distracting.  Other distractions include extended descriptions of the natural world, histories that distracted from the moment, and what seemed like filler "action" sequences to keep things going.
Something I thought was interesting was how he described magic.  It made me picture how spells look in video games.  Cool, especially for coming from a pre-video game world, but at times it was cheesy.
To some up, it wasn't that great.  I never got a chance to see the characters as more than stock archetypes, and so I didn't invest in them.  The villains didn't do anything specifically evil enough to characters I cared about to make we want to see them defeated.  I'll give Mr. Brooks another shot, but that might be it.