WICKED is wonderful

A colleague had warned me that the Broadway version of Gregory Maguire's terrific novel WICKED was nothing like the book itself, which I loved. I haven't had a chance to ask her why she felt that way, but my impression was quite different.

We all know the stories of movies eviscerating the books they sprang from, and even a few stories of movies improving upon flawed novels (BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY springs to mind, as does THE HORSE WHISPERER.) The musical WICKED, in my opinion, did something different. In a way, it opened up the ideas of the book, made them more accessible, made us in the audience think about how evil is, as both the book and the play assert, sometimes thrust upon us.

I'm not the greatest Broadway musical fan. Particularly in the last fifteen years or so, the music has a sameness that I find tedious. Such a dearth of melody! But the tunes in WICKED, while hardly memorable, weren't bad, and they did take a minor turn once in a while that reflected the sense of the story. And I appreciated not having to put my fingers in my ears, as I did all the way through RENT.

But it was the story I found remarkable. WICKED the musical works beautifully as a play, not so much referencing the original source material, of course--the L. Frank Baum material, that is--but the movie, which is quite a different story. The play has a quite satisfying dramatic arc, and something substantive to say. I found the ending a tad too convenient, but still, it's a delightful show. I'm not surprised Gregory Maguire is so happy with it (according to an essay in the program, written by him.) His novel personalizes a figure we've accepted for years as the embodiment of evil, without backstory or individuality, and the play goes even further to bring this figure to life, although of necessity without the depth of Maguire's characterization.

If you've never read the original WIZARD OF OZ, I recommend borrowing it from the library if you can get it. It's hard to believe that such a primitive work can take on a lasting life of its own, create its own cultural paradigm, grow into a variety of forms. Of course we've all seen the movie. And I hope you'll read Geoff Ryman's odd but fabulous novel WAS, for yet another approach.

And then, when you can, go see the musical. I enjoyed it from beginning to end. Wonderful!

The write priority

Sent by my buddy Sharon Shinn:

"When writing a novel that's pretty much entirely what life turns into: 'Houseburned down. Car stolen. Cat exploded. Did 1500 easy words, so all in all it was apretty good day.'" -Neil Gaiman

And I remember William Gibson saying: "Writing a novel is mostly just walking around and worrying if it will work out."

Let's talk about plagiarism

Okay, there seems to be consensus that Cassie Edwards is too old to beat up on. She even puts her age on her MySpace page, 71--the page is all in pink, by the way. Naturally.

The issue stealing from other authors is being chatted up all over the internets now, with this poor senior lady at its center. So the question becomes, "What is plagiarism?" Crediting sources? Footnotes?

I'm working on a novel with lots of historical references now, and I'm certainly keeping a bibliography, in case I need to re-check something. Maybe--maybe that bibliography will go on the web page for the book, but it doesn't belong in the back of a piece of fiction.

Footnotes worked gloriously for Susannah Clarke's JONATHAN STRANGE AND MR. NORRELL, but they were part of the entertainment. They were funny and colorful and beautifully written. They had nothing to do with sources, and I don't think footnotes in fiction ever work unless they serve the purpose Ms. Clarke put them to.

It seems perfectly clear to me that plagiarism means lifting whole passages out of another author's work and putting them in your own. A little modification doesn't alter the fact that somebody else wrote the passage. And I don't think any writer--student, beginning author, or 71-year-old romance novelist--could mistake that for anything but what it is, stealing.

As has been pointed out on another forum, in science fiction we're all riffing off each other's ideas. Ideas are at the heart of what we do in sf, and there's no patent on them. Where we would get in trouble would be directly quoting another author without saying that we're doing so. Duh.B

ut gosh, I would hate, at the age of 71, and having published 100 novels, to have my career falling around my ears in such a fashion. I think I'm feeling more sorry for the lady in question than outraged. Her pride must be in tatters.

My pride, I feel sure, would have forestalled me doing any such thing in the first place.

Plagiarism, Romance, and Readers

Poor Cassie Edwards! Cassie is the author of more than 100 romance novels, delighting her readers with such titles as SAVAGE LONGINGS, SAVAGE MOON, and SAVAGE BELOVED (that one sounds fun, doesn't it?) Apparently she writes historical romance about Indians. Never mind all the issues I have with romantic views of Indians, since I are one, but imagine this: she's been cheating, and her READERS outed her!

In the New York Times, Felicia R. Lee (see, I'm being very careful to credit my sources) writes that Cassie's readers caught passages lifted directly from research materials. The whole article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/books/12roma.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Romance+novelist+accused&oref=slogin (The best part is a link to blog called SmartBitchesTrashyBooks.com. I might like a blog by that name.)

And in her defense: "Ms. Edwards told an Associated Press reporter earlier this week that she did not know she was supposed to credit her sources. “When you write historical romances, you’re not asked to do that,” she said."

Okay, I've written historical, and of course I've done tons of research for my sf. I use the material, but I don't quote it. How boring would that be? This whole thing seems very odd to me, and I'm sure it will all blow over.

The part I can't get over is that the readers turned on her, like a pack of dogs chasing a rabbit! I don't know if I'm more stunned that they cared about the issue, or that romance readers found comparisons between a novel and a historical source. Maybe they really are SmartBitches. Bless 'em.