Moral relativism and Broadway
A friend loaned me a copy of “Wicked” . I had some preconceptions about the book, but I thought I’d give it a go. About five minutes into it I threw it against a wall.
This nimrod is trying to warp the original story by assigning altruism to the Wicked Witch of the West. We’re supposed to believe that Glinda was a shallow pain in the ass, and that if you “just get to know” the wicked witch, you’ll find she’s really not so bad.
Look, folks, the POINT of L Frank Baum’s story was that goodness and wholesomeness was beautiful, and that evil and nastiness was ugly. This villian-as-victim bullshit is just annoying. Save yourself the trouble, and stay away from this drivel.
I LOVED the L. Frank Baum series, but “Wicked” is also a great read. It doesn’t make the Elphaba any less wicked; it just gives a good explanation for how she got that way.
The other thing that “Wicked” does is posit the possibility that just because someone is physically beautiful does not make them good and wholesome, and just because someone is physically ugly does not make them evil and nasty.
Bus driver, after your first comment I thought “it isn’t possible to miss the point more thoroughly” and then you made the second commment and proved me wrong.
As I said. The whole point of the original story is that goodness and decency are beautiful, that’s the entire reason it was written that way. The point of “wicked” is specifically to say ‘oh, those murderors and rapists and etc are just misunderstood, if you look in their hearts you’ll find something great!” Bullshit. L Frank did never intend anyone to get the impression that only the beautiful are good, only that only the good are truly beautiful.
BTW, Bus driver, that was not meant as a slam, I probably just wasn’t clear enough in the original post. Not your fault you din’t unnerstand.