#subverted expectations

What surprised me was the reveal that the Wizard was persecuting the Animals, that Elphaba became a freedom fighter against him, and that most of her evil reputation came from propaganda designed to vilify her, when really her actions were heroic.

Yet even then, I don't think I would have claimed that my expectations were subverted. Elphaba's character arc still ultimately played out in the way I had expected: an eventual slide into villainy because of all the abuse and defeat she suffered, but a return at the end to her better self. Meanwhile, nothing particularly surprised me about Glinda's character arc, although she came closer to the edge of villainy in Act II than I had imagined she would. Her overall journey was just what I had expected.

But my first-time experience isn't universal.

I remember once reading a long Tumblr post, long ago, that more or less reflected what I felt when I first saw the musical, but framed it more in terms of "subverted expectations." It argued that in "No One Mourns the Wicked" (and because we know The Wizard of Oz), we're set up to think we'll be seeing the story of how Elphaba went bad. But the "subversion of expectations" is that she was never wicked, that she was a brave heroine smeared by propaganda and bigotry, and that her actions in The Wizard of Oz were just a very brief phase in which she tried to go rogue because her spirit was broken. Meanwhile, this post argued that we never expect adorable Glinda to do anything really bad, even if she is silly and bratty at times, but that she subverts expectations by selling out to the Wizard and later betraying Elphaba in anger over the love triangle, and by the fact that her reputation for goodness turns out to be propaganda too. Though of course she redeems herself in the end.

But other people have argued that the show subverts expectations in almost the opposite way.

Repeatedly, both on Tumblr and in other places like TV Tropes, I've seen the argument that at first, the musical sets us up to think it will be a simple perspective-flip of The Wizard of Oz, which reveals that Elphaba was the good witch all along while Glinda was the real wicked witch. But in a "subversion of expectations," Glinda turns out to be sympathetic and their friendship deep and true. Her choice to stay with the Wizard while Elphaba fights against him isn't the great betrayal we "expected," but fully understandable, and arguably the much wiser choice than Elphaba's attempt to rebel with no support. Meanwhile, Elphaba makes more mistakes and darker choices than we "expected," and when her real falling out with Glinda finally happens, it turns out they're both to blame. And then of course in "No Good Deed," she plunges into real villainy after all. But then the two witches "subvert expectations" again by reconciling and both redeeming themselves in the end.

Now, that's a valid reading of the show. But again, it wasn't what I felt at all. (And to be honest, I think this reading is a little too soft on Glinda in places where the actual script calls her out.)

Relatedly, I've also seen Glinda described as a "subversion" of the "dumb blonde" stereotype: that we think she's a ditz while Elphaba is the smart one, but in key ways Elphaba turns out to be the naïve one, while Glinda's social and political savvy lets her achieve status where she can "do all [Elphaba] couldn't do." Again, valid, but I personally never thought of their characters that way... and if you think Glinda's success and Elphaba's failure all comes down to Glinda being "smart" and Elphaba being "naïve," then you're missing some big points. Some fans also claim "At first we think Glinda's philosophy of 'It's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed' just shows her shallowness and will be proven wrong, but then the plot subverts our expectations by showing that she's totally right." Again, I didn't feel this. I instantly took it for granted that her philosophy was all too correct: her treatment vs. Elphaba's treatment at Shiz already showed it.

I've always felt as if Wicked combines various different themes that don't always sit easily together. I've written about this before. Maybe I just don't get it because my autistic brain tends toward black-and-white thinking, when the whole message of Wicked is that nothing is black-and-white. But I've always felt as if the musical is trying to tell several different stories at once: "the story of how Elphaba becomes wicked while Glinda becomes good," "the story of how prejudice and propaganda unjustly vilify Elphaba and the Animals and glorify the Wizard and Glinda,” "the story of how everyone in Oz is morally gray and no one is really good or wicked," and "the story of Elphaba and Glinda's love for each other." And I think this jumble of different themes contributes to the fans' different ideas of how the plot "subverts expectations."

Did ANYONE expect the story to take the turn it did?!?! I came in having watched one trailer and thought it was just going to be some dude bro boxers who get jumped by a local gang and just box their way to victory.

I had NO IDEA there was going to be so much of a story. I had NO IDEA there would be so many moving parts! I had NO IDEA it would all come together just so!!! Of course, I had my hopes as I watched more and more, however, nowadays you just don’t know the direction a writer is going to go or what genre and style exactly they’re trying to embody when they’re telling their story. (Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes, it’s just disappointing when you connect with something but the writer’s agenda doesn’t match the vibe… if that makes sense?)

The invincible marine duo, of course, were the STARS. The show would not have worked without them.

It would have been nothing without them (superb writing, superb casting, superb acting), but such an important factor was the stories of so many other people coming together (all of whom can be seen in the opening), including but not limited to

The originals: Mr. Choi and his knifers (such valuable assets to the story);

the replacements: lil Group heir, cousin, and Co (exactly who we deserved after the devastation that ravaged us with episode 6);

and this bitch: Gil-Gil (I have no respect for him) and his Smile Company thugs (and supportive girlfriend — she was so supportive!)

I did not go in expecting a history. I went in thinking, “OK, loan sharks and evil businessmen.” Then Mr. Choi showed up with, “I used to be one of them,” we were blessed with Du-yeong and Yang-jung and I was like “Wait a second …”

Like. How is that storyline ALONE not enough to make you drop your jaw and impress you?

Expectations successfully subverted: 1

Everyone go watch Bloodhounds now then come back and rave about it!