By the pricking of my thumb...
I talked earlier about discussing Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress as our first book discussion, but after deliberating and discussing with friends who want to be involved, I decided we'd talk about Gregory Maguire's Wicked.
The way this will work is I will give a discussion topic, and the comments will relate to that. After about a week or so (sooner or later depending on how discussion goes), I will post a new question, and discussion will proceed the same way.
Question #1
What does Maguire say about the nature of evil? How do his ideas develop throughout the novel? What does Maguire's final statement say about the other theories offered throughout the story?
These will be graded.
The way this will work is I will give a discussion topic, and the comments will relate to that. After about a week or so (sooner or later depending on how discussion goes), I will post a new question, and discussion will proceed the same way.
Question #1
What does Maguire say about the nature of evil? How do his ideas develop throughout the novel? What does Maguire's final statement say about the other theories offered throughout the story?
These will be graded.
posted by Unknown @ 5/10/2005 02:55:00 PM
2 Comments:
At Monday, May 16, 2005 9:24:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
I’ll venture a post though I have more questions than answers.
The theories on evil Maguire offers explicitly through the dialogue between Galinda and Elphaba both maintain that evil stems from a rift in the relationship between a/the deity and the cosmos. One theory is that evil is simple the absence of deity (which reminds me of Aquinas), and the other is that evil is a nebulous infection that strikes indiscriminately (which reminds me of Calvin). However, what I didn’t understand is what caused the rift in the first place? It seems that evil is merely being described and not traced back to its origin.
That question aside, Maguire seems to follow the latter theory throughout the story. Elphaba is always feeling like a pawn and her “wicked” actions are merely natural reactions to stimuli outside her control.
Another interesting aspect was the icicle example that evil is formed from the competition of opposing forces hot and cold. Not sure how to take that.
I suppose this book presented more questions than answers when I read it. Even practical questions like who are Yackle, the dwarf, and the time clock? Don’t be mean if it was obvious. I read it late at night. Also difficult questions about education, government, the afterlife, and providence were raised effectively. Then of course there is the returning question of evil, its nature and its origins. Perhaps Elphaba was giving good advice when she said, “The real disaster of this inquiry is that it is the nature of evil to be secret.”
However, I don’t think any analysis should detract from the fact that Maguire crafted “cracking good tale.” That should be beyond debate.
At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:13:00 PM,
Unknown said…
While Andrew focused on the overt conversations in the book, I'd like to turn to the workings of the plot itself. "Wicked," as we all know, refers to the protagonist, Elphaba, better known to most of us as the Wicked Witch of the West. Maguire expects us to presuppose something from the beginning - Elphaba is evil. We then assume that the novel is going to tell the story of how she became evil.
A few possibilities emerge early on. Elphaba might be evil by nature, after all she is (presumably) the result of her mother's rape by elves. She might become evil as a result of her upbringing: either through her dysfunctional and adulterous mother, or the oppressive religion of her father. But by the time Elphaba is ready for school, she's not yet become evil.
I'm sure we can all think of several stories where a character becomes evil as the result of being shunned by peers. While Elphaba is certainly the outcast, she does not become evil because of it.
And here is where Mguire's brilliance really shines through: Elphaba never becomes evil. In fact, it is clear by the end of the story that the characters we presupposed to be good are actually evil. The difference is that they have power, and they are the ones who tell the story.
Maguire's final statement seems to be that "evil" is the term given by those in power to those who oppose them. This usage is alive and well in the world today (Axis of Evil, anyone?), and I fear that one day, someone may be able to retell the past six or so years of American history in much the same way that Maguire retells The Wizard of Oz.
Post a Comment
<< Home