I’ve only just finished part one, so there’s room for growth of course.
But, it feels like the author puts in grotesqueness at least once every chapter for no reason. For example, when the priest gets pushed over then kicked in the asshole so he shits his pants (and for those who haven’t read, I do not mean he gets his ass kicked, I meant literally foot to asshole then shit comes out) and that’s all that happens to him. He was then carried off to safety with no further injury. Why even write that. Sure, it could be some odd metaphor about how he’s dirty just like everyone else but there are about a dozen better ways to get that across, surely.
I’m failing to see how such a crass book became an LGTBQ+ powerhouse of a musical. Surely there were other stories with similar narratives and less babies sniffing piss, right?
I suppose I don’t want an actual explanation. I’m more ranting, but I’d be interested to hear others’ thoughts
Musical theatre is both a genre and an umbrella of multiple genres that loosely obey rules like any genre (cyberpunk wouldn’t feel good if the story didn’t centre around a crime, a western wouldn’t feel good if it took place in a large city and was about people living comfortable rich lives)
You can take practically any (or no) story and fit it to the structure. And people have: The Bible has both Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar, TS Eliots poems were made into Cats, multiple Hans Christian Anderson and Brothers Grim stories are musicals both Disney and not, a handful of chapters of War and Peace became Natasha Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812.
But that isn’t much different from Shakespeare, classical opera etc, who did the same thing.