Just Wicked.

Seeing that this pseudo-faction warfare is dying a natural death from everyone waiting for each other to post, methinks that we should hold the thought of Team Eugene vs. Team Lester for a later date, and talk about something else.

You know, life’s just peachy keen when everything’s black and white. All that good vs. bad business - Superman foils some smalltime crook (who just wouldn’t get it), Ultraman kicks some giant crustacean's arse (who also wouldn't get the point), and America pummelling decentralized militant groups with shock and awe. Yup, very two-dimensional and very ‘friggin boring.

Thank our non-denominal monotheistic deity for giving us the little shades of grays, and the other colors that make up the rainbow for our else mundane existence. Thus to this, sprouts my ethical commentary on what good and bad really are, based on timeless characters and their parallels to recent events.

In a land called the Emerald City, where the roads are paved with gold (and maroon, as you would understand a little later) bricks, lived the scarecrow, the tin woodman, and the cowardly lion. Let's get to know them - Meet the scarecrow, with his long straw hairs, and who would trade his all his hay just to have a throbbing brain. Tsk. Unlucky chap. Well how about the tin woodman, 100% metal and 100% stoic? The chump's got no heart to beat so he couldn't feel a single thump of social empathy. Poor laddy. And finally, how could we ever forget the cowardly lion? Born without an ounce of courage. Most unfortunate of him to hide behind his mother's shadows all his life. Tsk tsk. Depressing sight indeed. Anyway, to make things short, they were the goodies and the witch was the baddie. Oh yeah, DDorothy (I spell it with a double 'D' as you would understand later) and the wizard fled to some place.

Ding dong, the witch is dead. End of story.

Now here’s my question. What if you got to know the witch’s side of the story and realized that the witch was only driven into conflict out of concern and for the welfare of preserving the integrity of justice (hmm, wasn't that just a bit too deep for skippity children to comprehend)? Was the witch’s death (physically and later metaphorically) reasonable?

Maguire’s Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West (1996), is a revisionist look on Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900), with a political, social, and moral perspective on good and evil (Wiki). The story centers on Elphaba, the future Wicked Witch of the West, who has gotten a bum rap. She lived a life of disapproval and embarrassment from her parents and through college. She also learns that the Wizard of Oz is politically corrupt and causing economic ruin (among his dawdlings were animal experiments, murder, and the usual political manipulation for personal gains), and thus she found a sense of purpose in her life, to stop him and to restore harmony & prosperity to the land (Amazon). Nice satyrical book and equally well Broadway adaptation (I'd say they're both 4/5's on some hick's little black book).

So how about it?

Who was/were right? Was it the half-witted scarecrow, the dehumanized tin woodman, and the cowardly lion (who I'm positive that he was a most unfortunate menopause cub) who were right? Or was it the witch, who sacrificed personal integrity to stood up for what she believed was right? (remember DDorothy and the wizard? They play the key role in this because they were the 'status quo' that Elphaba stood up for and against).

There. By the way, I'm actually really talking about the yahoogroup yearbook fiasco. =) Oh yeah, what's the latest about it?