Wicked and disability

So as some of you know I love the Wizard of Oz, have as long as I can remember. During this break I saw Wicked, which in many ways was an awsome musical. I loved the songs, I loved the sets, the actresses were very good who played the leads, and I thought it was closer to the real Oz books and character then the Wicked book was.

However, I don't know if I was just so angry at the book in general that I forgot how bad it was disability wise or if the play was worse. I have always been intriged by the Oz books because they have all these creatures with mutations, adaptations, and different ways of doing things. So I always thought the Oz books themselves were pretty disability friendly in general. The entire character of the Tin Woodsman is about aputation and creating tin prostetics to keep him alive. It asks the basic question of if someone is  adapted are they still a person and comes with the answer of yes. So in general on the Val scale of disability good books it has always been pretty much in the good colum.

When i saw wicked however I thought it was in the bad colum on disability for multiple reasons. The sister of the wicked witch is in a wheelchair and is taken care of by her sister. The chair is seen as the bad thing and she is treated with pity. Then the sister Narcissa controls a munckin and eventual kills him and is shown to be evil because she is a wheelchair.  They also have the tin man get more upset about the adaption of using tin versus what would of been his death for lack of tin. I find this to be odd based on more positive view of disability in a book created in the 1900 versus a musical created in the 2000s. I find this wierd, specifically since I always thought it was a cool part of the book.


Popular posts from this blog

pity and inspiration

What is my reaction to cities opting out of the bus system?

Comments on writing and spelling