Wicked Cool: I've Gotten Over My Literary Snobbery (A Little)

At one point in my life, I was a ridiculously voracious reader. I'd read two or three books a day, often more, never less. When you suffer from insomnia beginning as a toddler, I guess you're bound to be either a hard-core reader or a television addict.

As I've gotten older and found that free time is at a premium between my daughters, my students, and the never-ending cycle of grading, planning, keeping on top of professional development and such, I just don't have the time to read that I once did.

It's kind of funny, though ... I always fancied myself something of a literary snob that took pride in avoiding the "book of the moment". I was late to the party in terms of excellent works including Stieg Larsson's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo trilogy, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, and even the dreaded Twilight books (which I couldn't stop reading until I was finished and realized how poorly written and unoriginal they were).

Perhaps the greatest proof of what an idiot I was? I received a copy of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird from my eighth grade English teacher as a prize for a writing contest. Totally refused to read it because it was "supposed to be so great and all the books that have that reputation totally SUCK." Well, it didn't suck (it is, in fact, my favorite book of all time)

I even eschewed Dan Brown for months even when everyone on the planet was reading The Da Vinci Code.

So I guess it's no surprise, really, that I somehow missed this one.


Published in 1995, Gregory Maguire's Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West tells the backstory of Elphaba (sound out the initials of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz author L. Frank Baum for the pronunciation) ... including her run-ins with Dorothy, Toto, the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion.

Can I just say that this book is blowing my mind?

I'm a huge fan of Baum's Oz books, and this book is making me question motivations and points of view and bias and bottom lines and so on to the point where I'm probably going to be rereading Baum's canon as soon as possible (which will probably be next Christmas vacation at this point).

The intent of this post is not to be a scene spoiler (plus, I'm only halfway done the book ... I plan on finishing it tonight), but just to contemplate why I am so reluctant to read "popular" books despite the fact that I am almost never disappointed once I give in ... and to see if anyone else has this tendency.

Also, I've got another conundrum ... I have very strong feelings about movie adaptations of books I've enjoyed. Since Wicked has been made into a very popular musical, should I make an effort to see it, or would it be the same kind of limiting, unsatisfactory experience movie adaptations usually are?

If you've ever turned up your nose at a book, eventually changed your mind, and ultimately loved it, please share titles in the comments (and of course any other thoughts this post might inspire ;-))

Keeping "My Sister's Keeper" Out of It

I saw the film adaptation of Jodi Picoult's My Sister's Keeper this past weekend. Honestly, it was much better than I'd expected it to be. I only went to see it in the first place because my mother asked me to go--I very rarely watch films based on books I've read and enjoyed. I hadn't planned on being into it, on having tears pouring down my face for the film's duration ... but that's what happened.

If I'd walked out of the theatre at the requisite beach scene (this seems to be a requirement in films about the dying), I probably would have given it a grade in the B range.

However, I didn't. I stayed for the ending. And that's where my issue with the film came into play ...

******SPOILER ALERT: DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT THE ENDING RUINED******

Picoult's novel builds up some heavy themes--death and dying, the bonds between siblings and the incredible depths to which they reach, legal rights for children whose parents aren't necessarily acting in their best interest, and so on.

After reading My Sister's Keeper, I kept the book in my heart. I thought about the agonizing choice faced by Sara and Brian Fitzgerald, who must cause two of their children agonizing pain (one physically through forced blood, bone marrow, and potentially a kidney transplant and one emotionally through serious neglect) in order to pour their energies into keeping their cancer-stricken daughter Kate alive. The book's denouement, which sort of puts their decade-long fight into a grim and terrible perspective, brings up questions about fate and God and karma. It makes you think.

The ending might not be realistic (as my ever-practical nurse practitioner mother points out, there's no way a girl weakened to the point of death by leukemia would ever survive a kidney transplant), but it makes you think.

The film adaptation went for the cop-out. It went for the cliche. It turned Picoult's carefully crafted work into a watchable tearjerker, sure, but it was a story we've all seen or read before: kid-with-cancer-suffers-terribly-and-so-does-her-family-and-then-she-dies-and-everyone's-really-sad.

This is where the English teacher and writer in me comes out. For one thing, and not to beat a dead horse, but that book makes you think. It leads to rich discussions, to moral debates, to mind-stretching. Furthermore, I know a lot of people who read that book that haven't read a book in years. I've recommended it to students, many of whom have never finished a "real" book, and they couldn't put it down. It's what bothered me about Holes, about Twilight, about Bridge to Terebithia. Here are these great books that kids will actually read, and they make movie adaptations that make reading the books obsolete, at least as far as many kids are concerned.

But anyway, if you've read My Sister's Keeper and you take in the film, leave after the pizza in the hospital. Trust me. You won't be disappointed that way, and you can imagine the ending how you want it to be.