I am writing my senior thesis paper on the book and adapted musical Wicked. I had a few questions I hoped you could answer for me that I may include in my paper. I realize you have a very busy schedule but any help you could provide would be very much appreciated and I thank you in advance for your time.


My paper is based on the transition the story has taken from book to play. My thesis states that their elements lost in the play that the book provided, such as social and racial issues. My questions for you are as follows:

1. Why was it decided that the music and story would change from a politically radical story to a more of a fairytale?

2. What concerns did the author of the book, Gregory Maguire, have about the music?

3. Do you think the play would not have been as popular and successful if it had kept to its literary roots and stayed a politically motivated piece?

4. As a composer, do you feel the transition was a positive or negative turn for Maguire's story?

5. How close did you work with Gregory Maguire and Winnie Holzman and did their opinions affect some of the songs? If so, could you provide me with an example?

6. Which do you think presents a more powerful story: the book or play?

SS: Thank you for your interest in WICKED. I will try to respond to your questions in a way that may be helpful to you, but I must tell you from the outset, I disagree with your premise that the show has changed from "a politically radical story to more of a fairytale." I think that is demonstrably untrue. Certain specifics have been changed from the book, but I would argue that the show is still basically political in its content.
Among the specifics that changed: Oz in the book is essentially a totalitarian state, and the Wizard rules by fear, aided by his secret police force. In the show, the Wizard is more manipulative, pretending to be doing things for the good of Oz and to be subjugating the Animals for the greater good, but it becomes clear through the course of the evening that he is doing these things only to remain in power, and that his scapegoating of the Animals (pun intended) is because "one sure way to bring people together is to give them a really good enemy". In fact, it may be argued that the Wizard in Gregory's book is somewhat like Hitler, whereas the Wizard in the show has resemblances to George W. Bush and other American politicians. This doesn't make the show less political; it merely makes it different in its political targets.

What social and racial issues have been lost? Oz in the show is still a place where one "race", the Animals, is being systematically deprived of its rights; the Animal story in the show still has strong elements of Jews in Nazi Germany or minority races in the United States.
Consider the lyrics to the song "Wonderful", which contains sections like "A man's called a traitor, or liberator; a rich man's a thief or philanthopist; is one a crusader or ruthless invader? It's all in which label is able to persist. There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities, so we act as though they don't exist." If that's not socio-political content, I'm not sure what is.

Also, the central character of Elphaba clearly has her political conscience and consciousness raised in the show -- as she becomes aware of the plight of the Animals, fighting the injustice being done to this "race" becomes her central cause, so much so that when she finds out the Wizard is behind the injustice, she sacrifices her own personal goals to become his implacable enemy. In effect, as in the book, she becomes a revolutionary. Whereupon her behavior is "spun" by the Wizard's press representative to convince the populace that she is an enemy of the state. Again, that seems like political content to me.

Yes, specific story changes were made -- the show concentrates more on the personal relationship between Elphaba and Glinda and how they influence one another, and the fun of learning where all the familiar Wizard of Oz icons come from (the ruby slippers, winged monkeys. etc.) is more prevalent in the show than in Gregory's book. These were emphasized partly because of the difference in story-telling demands between a full-length novel and a two-and-a-half hour musical (the show has to be more focused in its story-telling) and partly because of the personal taste of Winnie and myself. But it was absolutely never our intention to minimize the social and political content of the story nor to turn it into more of a fairy-tale, and if that is how it comes off to you, than we have failed as writers (fortunately, there are many other people who do see political content in the show.)

In answer to a couple of your other specific questions: Gregory did not have much to do with the writing of the show, so he did not express any concerns to me about any of the music or lyrics. He attended an early reading of the show and had some story suggestions, many of which Winnie and I took. When I expressed my concern that he might be disturbed by some of the story changes we had made, he said no, that he felt the show was true to the underlying spirit and content of his book and that many of the specific choices we had made were ones he felt were implied in the book anyway. He did attend several out-of-town performances, but did not to my knowledge express any concerns about the book, music, or lyrics at that time.

Winnie did have a great deal of influence on the songs (as I did on the script), since she and I worked very closely together. Two specific examples of that would be that the title of the song "For Good" was something Winnie came up with during a brainstorming conversation we had, and the concept for the song "What is This Feeling?" (a hate-at-first-sight song) was Winnie's.

I hope these responses will be of some use to you for your paper, despite the fact that I take issue with its central premise. In any event, I wish you the best with it.
Sincerely, Stephen Schwartz