THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 1, 1996 Happy New Year, everyone! -- Dave ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 20:21:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Various 1) Uh, Tyler, when I suggested the people of Oz calling their planet the Inside World, I didn't mean to imply that they were not living on the surface. I meant it in opposition to the term Outside World. Also you seem to have overlooked Speedy in Oz, in which the netherworld of Subterranea appears and a few ones higher up are mentioned. 2) Eric, I have a solution to the apparent contradiction between The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and The Royal Book of Oz concerning the Scarecrow's origin. Suppose that magic can work retroactively. So when the Scarecrow is up on the pole, the spell affects things in the past, and the spirit of Chang Wang Woe enters the Scarecrow while the first ear is being painted on. Hence no contradiction. 3) I was at Books of Wonder today (more on that later in this entry) and saw Silly Ozbuls of Oz there. From the pictures, which gave the Silly Ozbuls the appearance of two tribbles connected by a spring, they appear to be more or less mammalian, so unless they have evolved poisonous defenses, I see no reason why they should not be edible. 4) I think in The Patchwork Girl of Oz, Dr. Pipt said that he had traded some of the Powder of Life with Mombi for the (bogus) Powder of Youth. So it would appear that Dr. Pipt is probably Dr. Nikidik, though the theory that Dr. Pipt used a jar with Dr. Nikidik's wishing pills hidden under a false bottom unknowingly is an intriguing one. 5) Dave, Tyler, what are all the Woozy's names? Gwomokolotolint is certainly dreadful, and if he has other horrible names, I'd certainly like to know about them, and well as anything Laumer or anyone else wrote about the Woozy (such as in which books this stuff appears). That the Woozy has such a dreadful name, or rather names, is a fact I can deal with, as, the way The Woozy of Oz is being written, the Woozy has been in hiding since 1897, and hence it is not surprising that the Woozy would make up pseudonyms for himself. For all those out there who are wondering why the Woozy would even think about sticking around the Emerald City, he did it because there are so many strange creatures there that he figured that he would never be noticed, and in fact, in all the Oz books I've read (the Famous Forty plus a few others), he only manages to show up in two (The Patchwork Girl of Oz and The Lost Princess of Oz), so he apparently has done a very good job. 6) I AM assuming Oz in not on Earth, OK, so, Dave, don't panic! 7) Barry, the Scarecrow is mentioned as having eaten kittens while he was human in The Royal Book of Oz. 8) I think a pre-Pastoria king of Oz also drank from the Fountain of Oblivion and made his citizens have a drink as well. 9) I'm mentioning the Shaggy Man's brother's name in The Woozy of Oz, so will people stop arguing over whether Wiggy is in any way official or not? 10) Someone tell me about Dorothy and the Lizard of Oz, please. I read The Lizard of Oz (available at the Online Books Page), and that was definitely not to be borrowed from. (It considered The Wonderful Wizard of Oz a forgery.) 11) OK, back to my trip to Books of Wonder today. (Yes, I live in New York, at least most of the year.) There I got two books of 'historical' relevance to The Woozy of Oz: Oz and the Three Witches and The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz. Big mistake. WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that these books are incredibly boring and hence unozzy. Plus The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz managed to Make a tie-in to Oliver Wendel Holmes. Do not read them! I repeat, DO NOT READ THEM! Plus they are in contradiction with each other, and Oz and the Three Witches is in contradiction with the much better written How the Wizard came to Oz, which also has nicer illustrations than either of the stuff I brought today. Somebody shoot me next time I go to Books of Wonder and don't buy The Shaggy Man of Oz instead. Aaron: Hey, mac. Wanna buy some Oz books? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================== Date: Monday 01-Jan-96 02:27:55 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Aaaron's remarks Aaaron wrote: > ... Suppose that magic can work retroactively. So when the Scarecrow is up on the pole, the spell >affects things in the past, and the spirit of Chang Wang Woe enters the Scarecrow while the first ear is >being painted on. Hence no contradiction. I just received a letter from my future self of three weeks from now warning me NOT to comment on the implications of magic that works backward in time... :) >5) Dave, Tyler, what are all the Woozy's names? Gwomokolotolint is >certainly dreadful, and if he has other horrible names, I'd certainly >like to know about them... The Woozy has only the one Laumer name (that I know of)... When I said, "His other names are dreadful", "His other names" referred to Laumers' names for other Oz characters (I should have made that clearer). For example, his name for the Sawhorse is "Lignum" (one of the better ones). >10) Someone tell me about Dorothy and the Lizard of Oz, please. I read The Lizard of Oz (available at >the Online Books Page), and that was definitely not to be borrowed from. (It considered The Wonderful >Wizard of Oz a forgery.) So who do they think wrote _W. of Oz_, Elvis (just before he was abducted by Planetty's people)??? :) :) ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 23:49:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Sample chapter of The Woozy of Oz which is going to get severely modified before the final version but which deserves to be shared anyway How the Magic Machine Didn't Leave History Alone As mentioned in the Asmard's speech, the Magic Machine, whenever it makes a mistake (well, nothing in that universe is perfect) retroactively changes history. This is known to have happened several times, and if Barry the Asmard of Ix hadn't found the magic crystal, no one would have ever known about it, as when history changes, everyone's memory changes with it. Besides the magic crystal's testimony, the only other evidence we have for this phenomenon is otherwise irreconcilable contradictions in the Oz books. For example, in 1904 Ozma sent the Scarecrow, Nick Chopper, Professor Wogglebug, Jack Pumpkinhead, the Sawhorse, and the Gump to America, where they visited Dorothy and her family. However, soon after they returned, the Magic Machine attempted to divide by zero and during error recovery it wiped out the entire incident retroactively. As far as anyone knew, the Scarecrow and company never made it to America, and when Henry and Emily Gale arrived in Oz in 1907, they were shocked to find that Dorothy hadn't made up Oz after all. This kind of thing takes place all the time. The most serious error the Magic Machine ever made was that in 1940 it managed to overflow a buffer, call a nonexistent operating system routine, try to write to a locked file, and leak several kilobytes of memory, all at the same time. The combined effects of these mistakes was to severely warp the entire nature of Oz. Houses came to life and fought with one another. Forests of trees began wandering around, looking for water. Shoes began to sing. Even worse, practically everyone in Oz became shallow and stupid. Full tales of what sorts of nonsense went on then were written down, and the author of this book would recommend these books to anyone interested in this truly bizarre era of Ozite history, except that an incompetent editor corrupted the writing so that it became virtually unbearable to read. This editor was fired in 1943, and he later made his way to West Antozia, where he studied magic and became a wicked wizard. But I digress. After the aforementioned editor was told to clear out his desk, the Magic Machine attempted to shift a bit into an already filled bit bucket, and in the process of dumping the used bits into a recycling chute inadvertantly tripped a corruption repair routine. The Magic Machine proceeded to repair the damage to Ozite history, totally eradicating everything unozzy that had happened there, especially the stupid singing shoes, and so Oz returned pretty much to normal. (This is why some books for that era give severely divergent histories, depending on whether they were written during or after the Strangeness.) However, there was some damage the Magic Machine could not repair. During those wierd years, two humans came to Oz from America. You can now forget everything that happened to them there. The Magic Machine wasn't able to edit them out of Ozite history completely, but their histories became completely warped, especially as they remained shallow, while everyone else in Oz returned to their normal level of intelligence and wisdom. The way that Jennifer Junk arrived in Oz, after the Magic Machine had repaired history, did begin with her catching a leprechaun and demanding to be turned into a fairy, but the resemblence to the original history ends there. When the leprechaun refused to comply, refering to The Official Handbook for Magical Beings, which specifically prohibits leprechauns from granting wishes or giving away pots of gold whenever they are caught, as this has been known to lead to an increase in kidnappings of leprechauns. Junk told the leprechaun that if he didn't turn her into a fairy, she was going to feed him to her pet boa constrictor Cuddlywumps. Faced with imminent danger, the leprechaun instantly transported Junk into low geosynchronous orbit over the Nonestic Ocean. When her orbit decayed and she fell into the sea two years later, Junk was swallowed by Moby David the Lead Whale, inside of whom was living "Lucky" Buckminster Nomes, who used to get his kicks by beating up smaller children and had made his way into the Nonestic Ocean via the New York City sewer system. The three decided to go somewhere nicer where they would have plenty of people to pick on and maybe conquer, and so they made their way through underground rivers leading into the Continent of Imagination and eventually surfaced in the Munchkin River of Oz. There they were promptly arrested by Glinda's soldiers, for as everybody knows Glinda has the Book of Records, which briefly records much of what goes on in the world, and hence Glinda was able to find out about their scheme even before they arrived and prevent them from doing anything mean. Plus they should have known better than to enter Oz without their passports. Moby David promptly submerged and swam as fast as he could back to the Nonestic Ocean through the underground rivers, only to be smashed by a storm at sea into small pieces, which were eaten by hammerhead sharks. Jennifer Junk was successfully taken into custody and locked in a cage beside that of Mr. Yoop, but Buckminster Nomes temporarily escaped. About that time, the Wizard had discovered a type of particle given off exclusively by complete and utter jerks, which he was able to condense into a thick grayish goo. As the Ozite term for a complete and utter jerk is 'scalawag', the Wizard named his new type of particle the 'scalawagon' and the goo it could be condensed into 'scalawagonium'. A few days later, the Wizard condensed a rather large blob of scalawagonium, at which point Buckminster Nomes walked by the palace. As Nomes, being a complete and utter jerk, gave off huge numbers of scalawagons, and as scalawagons attract one another, the glob of scalawagonium flew out of the window of the Wizard's laboratory and bowled Nomes over, at which point he was arrested by Omby Amby, after which Ozma returned him using the Magic Belt to New York City, where he was promptly mugged. The next day's edition of the Ozmapolitan had this headline for its lead story: RUNAWAY CRIMINAL "LUCKY" BUCKY RUN OVER BY SCALAWAGONS IN THE WONDER CITY OF OZ. And so the people of Oz thought they were safe from Junk, Nomes, and Moby David for evermore. But that was only true for two out of three of them. Writer's note: The final version will probably contain a masked villian who calls herself the Demifairy of Doom, but as to whether this is Jenny Jump or not will be left to the readers to decide. (: On the other hand, if I ever write something called A Plethora of Preposterous Parodies of Oz, this chapter will probably be expanded greatly and included in it. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================== THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 2, 1996 ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 01 Jan 1996 12:22:56 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Sample Chapter from _The Woozy of Oz_ Aaron "Nails" Adelman wrote: >How the Magic Machine Didn't Leave History Alone Bravo! So would this sort of thing explain away anything we don't like about certain Oz books? (Or we could instead accept the books as they are and try to understand them in the context of the people who wrote them, the times they lived in, and their conception of Oz...) ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 01 Jan 1996 12:11:21 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-01-96 > Happy New Year, everyone! -- Dave You too, Dave! Thanks for doing all this work for us! > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Various > > 2) Eric, I have a solution to the apparent contradiction between The > Wonderful Wizard of Oz and The Royal Book of Oz concerning the > Scarecrow's origin. Suppose that magic can work retroactively. So when > the Scarecrow is up on the pole, the spell affects things in the past, > and the spirit of Chang Wang Woe enters the Scarecrow while the first ear > is being painted on. Hence no contradiction. Uh-huh. If you can find any other examples of retroactive magic, MAYBE I'll believe this. But it just doesn't ring true, somehow. It's too convoluted, and the simple explanations are always the best. >7) Barry, the Scarecrow is mentioned as having eaten kittens while he was human in The Royal Book >of Oz. The Scarecrow NEVER was human in "Royal Book," to avoid some possible confusion here. True, if you believe the "Royal Book" explanation of how the Scarecrow came to be alive, he was ONCE human, but not during the events of the book itself. >8) I think a pre-Pastoria king of Oz also drank from the Fountain of Oblivion and made his citizens have >a drink as well. No, that story was credited to Pastoria (or at least it's strongly implied). >9) I'm mentioning the Shaggy Man's brother's name in The Woozy of Oz, so will people stop arguing >over whether Wiggy is in any way official or not? Okay, we'll just argue over whether or not "The Woozy of Oz" is official or not instead... :) > 10) Someone tell me about Dorothy and the Lizard of Oz, please. I read > The Lizard of Oz (available at the Online Books Page), and that was > definitely not to be borrowed from. (It considered The Wonderful Wizard > of Oz a forgery.) No, no, not "The Lizard of Oz," which is not an Oz book despite the title (and, seen in that light, is pretty good). "Dorothy and the Lizard of Oz" was a book a psychologist wrote some years ago to take out all the elements of the original story that he felt were harmful to children -- the Scarecrow was smart just because he had a piece of paper saying he was, the Tin Woodman had a heart just because he showed everyone a heart-shaped watch, etc. It was AWFUL, because this guy totally failed to see the point of the story -- either that, or he thinks kids are too stupid to figure it out for themselves unless they're hit over the head with The Message five or six dozen times. It's my candidate for Worst Book Purporting to Take Place in Oz of all time, beating out "Barnstormer" and Tedrow's "Dorothy: Return to Oz." (But yes, I have a copy in my collection.) >11) OK, back to my trip to Books of Wonder today. (Yes, I live in New York, at least most of the year.) >There I got two books of 'historical' relevance to The Woozy of Oz: Oz and the Three Witches and The >Mysterious Chronicles of Oz. Big mistake. WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that >these books are incredibly boring and hence unozzy. Plus The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz managed to >make a tie-in to Oliver Wendel Holmes. Do not read them! I repeat, DO NOT READ THEM! Plus they >are in contradiction with each other, and Oz and the Three Witches is in contradiction with the much >better written How the Wizard came to Oz, which also has nicer illustrations than either of the stuff I >brought today. Well other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play? Okay, they may be boring (that's a matter of personal opinion -- personally, "Oz and the Three Witches" is a rollicking good read, in my opinion), but does contradicting other books make them bad? Most books today are written without knowledge of any others, and should be accepted on their OWN terms, not in comparison to others. I'm really, really starting to get tired of all this talk here about "official" Oz stories and theories and explanations and dibsing and all that. If anyone has an Oz story to tell, they should be allowed to tell it without small-minded fans nitpicking them to death. Sheesh, no wonder Thompson and Payes had so little patience with adult Oz fans. You tell your story, let others tell theirs, and enjoy them all just because they're Oz books! >Somebody shoot me next time I go to Books of Wonder and don't buy The Shaggy Man of Oz instead. What if you don't like "Shaggy Man," either? > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Sample chapter of The Woozy of Oz which is going to get severely > modified before the final version but which deserves to be shared anyway Aaron, this is a VERY, VERY dangerous thing! Remember, there are other Oz authors (and potential authors) and a publisher reading this. What if one of them subconsciously retained one of your ideas and used (or accepted) it in one of their writings? It could get VERY messy, with you making accusations and denials flying all over the place. Please, DON'T MAKE THIS DIGEST YOUR PERSONAL LITERARY JOURNAL! You live in New York City, there are lots of Oz fans there, find them and get critiques in person! I already told you privately I can't be your editor, now you're posting it again in public? You are overstepping the bounds of etiquette, propiety, and possibly legality here, Aaron. Cool it. --Eric "Of course, I will happily read 'Woozy' once it's published" Gjovaag ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 01 Jan 1996 18:16:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Gwomokolotolint and other dreadful names and other stuff 1) Would someone please post a list of all the dreadful names Laumer comes up with for Oz characters who otherwise remain nameless, such as "Gwomokolotolint" and "Lignum"? Also, in which of his books do these names appear? For the Woozy having the name Gwomokolotolint I can provide an explaination, but where would the Sawhorse get the name Lignum? ("Ozma, in a moment of anger, decides to give the Sawhorse a dreadful name in order to punish him for fighting with Jack Pumpkinhead...") As for the Woozy having the name Gwomokolotolint, the family of Hiergargo, the Woozy's creator, has been doing research into time travel for the past few centuries. It has been very common for children of this great North Antozian family to pop in on their parents or other ancestors (or rather past versions thereof), even while the parents are still children, and do irritating things, such as ask for money in the middle of the night. This has led to numerous incidents of parents giving their kids funny names in order to get revenge on their offspring. The Woozy never engaged in such puerile behavior, but ended up with the name Gwomokolotolint because he was named after Hiergargo's grandfather, who had recieved that name for waking a past version of his older brother Tranguyathunox as a baby up in the middle of the night, which his parents really did not appreciate, especially as it took two hours to come Tranguyathunox down enough so that he stopped crying. I am pleased to report that Hiergargo did not name the Woozy's younger sister the Queasy anything dreadful at all. Hiergargo was thinking of calling her Rathinoquandvajurepuna after his grandmother (don't even THINK of asking what she did to get that name), but Hiergargo's wife Garudiprostrella told him that if he gave another child a dreadful name, especially an undeserved one (neither the Woozy nor the Queasy ever came back through time to irritate their parents, although Hiergargo and Garudiprostrella's natural children did) she was going to turn him into an African clawed frog. As Hiergargo knew that he was likely to get stepped on as a frog before he could restore himself to his natural form, he gave in and named the Queasy Sue. 2) At the moment I am collecting incidents where Ozma or Glinda do something that potentially offends the other or is of questionable judgement. (Sorry, can't tell you what I intend to do with them. Yet.) So far I have: 1903A (Stuff in The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz ommitted since the book is of doubtful historical accuracy and in any case completely unozzy, but trust me, Ozma somehow manages to misbehave and be disgustingly perfect at the same time.) 1905 Ozma going with practically no army and definitely no magic to force the Nome King to release the royal family of Ev. Notice Glinda is nowhere in the picture. 1906 Ozma frivolously uses magic to bring Dorothy to Oz for her birthday party. 1910 Glinda sends Queen Ann and the army of Oogaboo into Ev. Evardo XV was presumably not pleased with this. 1911 Glinda gives the Scarecrow magic to use against various meanies in Jinxland. As the Scarecrow is not licensed to practice magic, this is probably illegal. 1917 Ozma acted very ineffectively against Ugu. It doesn't take THAT long to scream. Glinda has to take over temporarily. 1920 Ozma goes on a peace-making mission with insufficient force to back her up. Glinda has to save her neck yet again. 1921-1939 Ozma turns into a total wimp. 1940 Ozma uses magic frivolously. 1980 How come Ozma didn't have the Forbidden Fountain walled off in the first place? 1993 See 1993E in the HACC. The title of the book itself is definitely in bad taste, and I'd hate to find out what the story itself is like. 3) In The Lizard of Oz it is claimed that something called the Humbug wrote The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in order to make people think magic was only a fantasy. 4) I don't think the Anutherians are social enough to develop space travel. And it was the East Antozians who kidnapped Elvis. (: Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================== THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 3, 1996 ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 14:26:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-02-96 1) I never claimed that the Scarecrow ate kittens as the Scarecrow. He ate them while he was human (according to those who say that the Scarecrow was formerly human). 2) Another example of retroactive magic: In The Marvelous Land of Oz, Tip swallowed one of Dr. Nikidik's wishing pills, counted to 17 by twos, and then failed to make a wish. He developed severe stomach pains and wished he'd never swallowed the pills. So the stomach pains went away, and the pill which had been supposedly swallowed appeared in the box with the other pills. Also: Someone did write a book called Time Travelling in Oz. 3) Actually I do like Snow's books, and when I returned The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz and Oz and the Three Witches today, I left with The Shaggy Man of Oz and Queen Ann in Oz instead. 4) The Magic Machine's fiddling with history is intended as a last resort for explaining away contradictions. I'd like to see a decent attempt to reconcile Neill's FF books with everyone else's work that doesn't require such an extreme explination. (Shallowness and stupidity spell gone wild + animation spell gone wild + Kabumpo gets tired of Pumperdink and goes on sabbatical in the Emerald City + Ojo gets tired of Seebania and gets a job with Kabumpo in the Emerald City + Mifkets intebreed with Scoodlers, resulting in Mifkets that can throw their heads + Cheeriobed abdicates, Scarecrow becomes Munckin king + Wizard forgets that scalawag is a term of reproach + ...) By the way, is there anyone out there who actually likes Neill's FF books? 5) What ever happened to the Monarch of the Munchkins who ruled the country after the Wicked Witch of the East was killed until Cheeriobed took over again? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================== THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 4, 1996 ============================================================================== Date: Wednesday 03-Jan-96 14:57:32 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: How to explain ALL the contradictions! From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >4) The Magic Machine's fiddling with history is intended as a last resort for explaining away >contradictions. I'd like to see a decent attempt to reconcile Neill's FF books with everyone else's work >that doesn't require such an extreme explination... Well, here's my humble explaination that I've just come up with (as a compromise between the "We-should-work-to-iron-out-contradictions-ers" and the "Don't-worry-just-enjoy-reading/writing-Ozzy-stories-ers"): The chroniclers of Ozzy history get the stories via wireless telegraph from Dorothy or other emissary from Oz ( R.C. Payes' little bird is an example, and I got my story from the Adepts at Sorcery, who E-mailed the history of Locasta's return to Oz to me :) ), and the Ozzy author is inclined to make little changes in retelling the tale ("fictionalized for dramatic purposes" as movie disclaimers say). So I suggest that the work to explain contradictions should continue, and a concensus about what the important things in Oz are "really" like should be reached; but contradictions that remain irreconcilable despite the best of efforts may be assumed by budding, aspiring Ozzy authors (like Aaron and me) to be the result of a little exaggeration, sensationalizing, or even inattentiveness on the part of previous Oz historians, and that the perception of Oz in *our* story is the "factual" one. For example, if you really don't like Neil's stories, and want to write about a strictly Baum-Thompson Oz, just assume that Neil totally sensationalized the behaviour even of the buildings in Oz, over-blew the Ozzy color schemes to include even skin tones, and just forgot which quadrant of Oz the Scarecrow resides in. :) Comments, anyone? -- Dave ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 07:22:04 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-03-95 From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >1) I never claimed that the Scarecrow ate kittens as the Scarecrow. He ate them while he was human >(according to those who say that the Scarecrow was formerly human). I know that. But the way it was first phrased was confusing, so I was just trying to clear it up for those who may have misinterpreted. >2) Another example of retroactive magic: In The Marvelous Land of Oz, Tip swallowed one of Dr. >Nikidik's wishing pills, counted to 17 by twos, and then failed to make a wish. He developed severe >stomach pains and wished he'd never swallowed the pills. So the stomach pains went away, and the >pill which had been supposedly swallowed appeared in the box with the other pills. That's not retroactive magic, that's a paradox. > Also: Someone did write a book called Time Travelling in Oz. Have you read this book? Don't claim it's retroactive magic until you know what's happening in it. >3) Actually I do like Snow's books, and when I returned The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz and Oz and >the Three Witches today, I left with The Shaggy Man of Oz and Queen Ann in Oz instead. Gjovaag cheers.> But my point is, many people DON'T like Snow's books, and you could have been one of them. I didn't know you'd already read "Shaggy Man." >4) The Magic Machine's fiddling with history is intended as a last resort for explaining away >contradictions. I'd like to see a decent attempt to reconcile Neill's FF books with everyone else's work >that doesn't require such an extreme explination. (Shallowness and stupidity spell gone wild + >animation spell gone wild + Kabumpo gets tired of Pumperdink and goes on sabbatical in the Emerald >City + Ojo gets tired of Seebania and gets a job with Kabumpo in the Emerald City + Mifkets intebreed >with Scoodlers, resulting in Mifkets that can throw their heads + Cheeriobed abdicates, Scarecrow >becomes Munckin king + Wizard forgets that scalawag is a term of reproach + ...) By the way, is there >anyone out there who actually likes Neill's FF books? /me raises hand. Although I realize this isn't the same Oz that Baum and Thompson wrote about, I still like the inventiveness and ideas Neill puts into his books. But I've got to ask, why do the Neill books need explaining? Can't people just read them and enjoy them on their own terms? Can't the small number of readers who ARE bothered by the differences come up with an explanation on their own? >5) What ever happened to the Monarch of the Munchkins who ruled the country after the Wicked Witch >of the East was killed until Cheeriobed took over again? Dunno. --Eric THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 4, 1996 (2) ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 11:00:11 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Due to the fact that I was not on-line this weekend, I have no less than FIVE digests to reply to! A belated Happy New Year, and let me add my thanks to Dave H. for doing all this work. The entire Ozzy Digest, December 1995, has been compiled into a HUGE text file (just under 300K). One contributing factor is the tendency to repeat peoples messages over and over again. I cannot put this on my Web Page, as I would soon go over my one Meg limit. Can anyone take it off my hands? Bill, you have quite lot of stuff on you collective Web Pages. Does the main page have links to everything yet? As for legal action by the Neill estate, I have heard that they are a little lax in suing people, but I wouldn't push them. Besides, it's more fun to make up your own characters anyway! As for changing their names (but you know who they are. Wink wink), that may not work either. There is a series called "I forgot" wherein several writers try to outdo each other and humiliate each others characters, with the only rules being that they cannot be killed or damged in a way that would make them useless (like a soldier losing his arms and legs). I hope that Oz does not become like that! Somebody in the BUGLE wrote an article about Dr. Pipt / Dr. Nikidik. I've always thought they were the same person, but then that would mean Dr. Pipt had access to wishing pills the whole time. Once he had those, would he need anything else? With wishes, you can have everything else. Maybe Pipt IS his first name and he is called Dr. Pipt because he has no last name! I also like the idea that Pipt had one of Dr. Nikidiks (perhaps a famous relative of his) boxes and did not know of the false bottom. Don't worry about if Oz is on another planet. Just say "the world". IN DINAMONSTER, Glinda made references about going "back to Earth", but that does not mean much. I htink that the spirit of Chang Wang Woe entered the Scarecrow as claimed in ROYAL BOOK, but the spirit of the Scarecrow was stornger and forced Chang into a dormant state. This explains why he did not act like the Emperor of the Silver Islands during all the earlier Oz adventures. This still does not explain how came to life in the first place. The only person I know who ever borrowed from BARNSTORMER is... March Laumer! The only thing he borrowed was the name of the Capital City of the Winkies.What? Your're all asking? There's no capital city in the Land of the Winkies! There may not be now, but there was. In THE LAND OF OZ, the adventurers, after escaping from the Emerald City, come to a hill which overlooks the castle of the Tin Woodman and a small town. This town never appears again. At that time, the Tin Woodman lived in the castle of the old Wicked Witch of the West. By the time we see his house again (ROAD TO OZ), he had built himself a new castle, presumably a few miles away. The town name, by the way, is Winkiezia. Strangely enough, he does not borrow the name of the capital of the Quadling city (which was not mentioned in the FF, but that does not mean it was not there) of Suthwarzha, but uses the more romantic name of Ruby City. Sadly, Marcus Mebes has vanished, and since he was the owner and only employee of Palo Verde Emeralds, that has gone as well. If anybody can find him, I (and Chris Dulabone) would greatly appreciate it. I don't think that the play should count. Despite the fact that it was written by Baum, it does not ring tru to the FF at all. To defend OZ AND THE THREE WITCHES (and MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES to a lesser extent), I found THREE WITCHES to be very well written, much better than HOW THE WIZARD CAME TO OZ. It may have been boring, in the sense that there was not the usual Ozzy fare (belts that grant wishes, pills that grant wishes, powders that grant wishes, emeralds, baskets, rings and so on that grant wishes, dozens of strange looking countries of strange looking people doing strange looking things who try to capture people and make them their slaves and Ozma popping in at the last minute to save everyones bacon by waving her hand), but it was a very good story even without all that. Most of Abbots books are not that great, but HOW THE WIZARD CAME TO OZ held its own. There really are not any contradictions in these three novels, they only appear so to the untrained eye. However, I would tend to give the benefit of doubt to OZ AND THE THREE WITCHES. Not because it came first, but because it tells the story much more logically and realisticly. HOW THE WIZARD presents the characters as cartoonish and one-dimensional. Besides, how do we know that the Wizards early years in Oz weren't filled with terror? There was no Ozma around to protect everybody with the all-powerful magic belt and the Wizard may have had some close shaves with the three wicked witches before he established himself. He was alone, he had nobody to fall back on. It's amazing that he pulled it off. Reading that story, you can feel for the Wizard as he trys to survive. I just remembered: Kiki Aru also drank from the fountain. we don't know the state of his memory, since he has not appeared since, but I think that the girls were going to keep him in Emerald City so he would be a nice loving person. He may still have gotten his memory back, like Ruggedo. Kiki Aru was not really a villian. He wanted to get away from the mountain top and was swayed by Ruggedo. Since he is away from Mount Munch and also away from the influence of Ruggedo, he turn out to be a real nice guy! March Laumers other "names" (and I use the term loosely) are mostly for new characters. Are you ready to meet Zippiochogolak (who married Dororhty, who went to the Wogglebugs college, so she is now addressed as "Doctor Choggolak"), Wamopavirochuck (The heretofore unknown Wizard Wam), Baumalaumerovik and Baumazigrynyvik? There are a few others, and they are all like the ones above. Besides this habit, Laumers books are among the best written, although they are definitely written for adults. Please, Aaron, the Woozy is just "Woozy" and let sleeping Gwommokolottolints lie (and Wiggys, in the case of the Shaggy Mans brother. I'm sure you can come up with a cool name for him!). If anyone is interested (and I hope nobody is), the spellings of these names are guesses. I don't remember the story about the king who made his people drink from the Fountain of Oblivion very well. Can someone refresh my memory? (was in in THE EMERALD CITY OF OZ?) I don't think Ozma or Glinda ever offended each other. Let me see: Ozmas behavior in THE MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES OF OZ is understandable, if exasperating. She had just been changed from a boy into a girl and was having trouble adjusting. True, she had no business slipping off like that when she is supposed to be ruling the country, but "boys will be boys", I mean "girls will be..." oh, never mind. In OZMA OF OZ, I believe Glinda gave Ozma the magic carpet after ozma came to her for advice. Therefore, I am asuming that Glinda had no serious objections to her venture. Maybe Glinda did not know of the magic belt, or the extent of power of the Nome King at that time. I'm not sure why Glinda sent the Oogabooans (you wrote about them, Eric. What should they called?) out of Oz. Despite the fact that they were going to conquer Oz, they were still citizens and they deserved some kind of protection / trial. This was a mistake on Glindas part. Glinda is the ruler of the Quadling country, which includes Jinxland. The Scarecrow at that time was carrying out Glindas orders as her agent. Therefore, Glinda could authorize the Scarecrow to use magic within the borders of the Quadling country if she so chose. Also, the magic was of a very specific nature and was to be used only in a certain way. Now, if she had sent the Scarecrow to the Gilikin country to do something, that may have been different. This is an interesting legal point. How often do the quadrant rulers act as a quadrant ruler? The only other time (besides this one) that I can remember, in and out of the FF, was in HIDDEN VALLEY. The Tin Woodman, while discovering new kingdoms in the Winkie Country, tells them that he is their ruler. They were less than thrilled with his revelations. Ozma may have been stunned by Ugus arrival. In this book (or possibly GLINDA) didn't Cap'n Bill temporarily rule in the Emerald City while a rescue attempt was under way? Glinda is supporting Ozma in her capacity as ruler of Oz. Granted, she has to save her now and again, but it's all in a days work for her. She advised her to take the Wizard (and, in my opinion, she should have). In 1921-1939 (presumably the Thompson books), Ozma for the most part recedes into the background. She usually appears only at the end of stories to "punish" villians and to host parties. She is usually very easygoing with villians (except the Nome King), but I don't know about the Wimp part. One thing that she did not do very often that she did in the Baum books was to replace bad rulers with good ones. Usually, she just made them promise to be good from now on and allows them to continue ruling. Story 1993E is only a two page ditty poking fun at Serafin Padilla and the WIZ KIDS. Since it's so short, it does not have much of a plot. Let's just say that Ozma is not happy with the idea of Serafin publising another Oz book. And BTW, she does not offend the people in the story (though some leave the throne room). Magic need not be used only for serious purposes, especially in Oz. It's supposed to be a fun place! Therefore, I find Ozma and Glinda NOT GUILTY of the charge of offending each other (though there could be episodes that we haven't heard about...) "This verdict is written on a cocktail napkin! And it STILL says guilty! And guilty is spelled wrong!" (From "The Simpsons") Either Marcus Mebes or Ryna Gannaway did TIME TRAVELLING IZ OZ. Don't get me started on the mechanics of time travel (too late!). Most people today get their time travel knowledge from Back to the Future and the Terminator movies. All of these, while good, were completely off base and illogical when charting the effects of travelling through time. For a good novel that really examines this effect, read THRICE UPON A TIME, by James P. Hogan, Del Rey Publishing. It's a litle technical, but it's incredibly good. And now for the real issue: There has been a lot of discussion over the HACC and "official" Oz history. The only official history is the FF. All else is incidental. At no time do we (creators of the HACC) demand that everybody conform to us in every way and to totally agree with EVERY OZ BOOK that has EVER been published. We did not build the HACC to force people into "our" way of thinking. We built the HACC to give people a sense of history and continuity. Many people say that the most important thing is to write a good story and enjoy them. This is true. However, I believe that some consistency among the books is itself an element of a good story, though not the only part. Let the numbers speak. I am so small minded, so nitpicky, so full of intolerance for anyone else, that do you know how many books I have refused to put on the HACC because they contradict some other non-FF book? ZERO. That's right. No book has EVER been rejected because some earlier non-FF book has "overridden" it. True, some books are not on there, but that is exclusively because the contradict the FF and the FF only (titles such as BARNSTORMER, Tedrows DOROTHY - RETURN TO OZ and SIR HAROLD AND THE GNOME KING, for example). We don't want to reject stories. That is not the point of the HACC. In the realm of imagi-nation (This is Ato called the Fairyland of Oz n PIRATES, by the way), Oz is a real place, and the people and events that they experience are just as real (in a make-believe way, of course). I do not think it is small minded or nitpicky at all to try to find the thread of truth in all Oz stories. People can write any Oz story that they want to. The fact that we have many authors, many publishers and many points of view represents the strength of Oz in its enormous diversity as well as a challenge to put it all together in one piece. This will require some effort, but everything worthwhile takes a little work, and Oz will be a better place because of it. In no way to we try to stump peoples creativity. For example, Aaron was asking about Captain Fyters first name and if someone else had given him one. If they had, and Aaron made up another one, would I reject THE WOOZY IN OZ because of that? Of course not. I would just assume that he had many names. In some cultures, people have a personal name, a family name, a nickname, a name they use among friends, a name indicating where or when they were born, a formal or spiritual name, and so on. Assuming that someone else had already named the Tin Soldier, how would Aarons use of that name stifle his creative energies? He can still write about him any way he wants. The point is that by using the same name, we add to the continuity of all the Oz books. It is true that most of these books are generally unavailable and so if person A writes about something that person B already wrote about (or is currently writing about), they may not know about each other. However, we now have a medium of communication and a way to transfer information all over instantly. In my opinion, to totally refuse to use this resource and to make NO EFFORT AT ALL to acheive even a small degree of continuity is just as small minded as an attempt to make everyone totally agree with each other even down to the smallest detail, which WE DO NOT DO. Our only goals are to make people aware of the large amount of written material that is Oz and to minimize major contradictions. This still leaves a HUGE amount of room to write about anything that you want to. We will never achieve total consistency. I for one do not want this. I mentioned to someone once that part of the magic of Oz is that there will always be hidden kingdoms, etc. in Oz and that we will never know them all. This was an excuse to keep writing Oz books. This also applies to history. We will never know the ENTIRE truth, but we should make an effort to get fairly close. "When the Ozospheres are hanged and Nonestic Oceans are drowned, the single secret will still be Oz", to paraphrase e.e. cummings. We WANT people to write stories and we want them to be fun and creative. Adjusting for consistency is a minor part of the whole, but one that I am glad to perform, contributing to Oz in my small way. The only sticking points I have are Pre-Dorothean history and the Nome King (or any villian, really). As for the first, pre-Dorothy history is vague at best. I want to write a story of my own about this time, but I am waiting until we can get a concensus on at least a skeleton of what happened in those days. This is not so that I can force my personal view on others, but so that we can paint a picture that everybody can see and use. The vast majority of books do not concern themselves with this time period, so this is not a major issue. As for the second, the key thing is: do not assume that you are the only person who has ever brought somebody back or who ever will bring that person back. This way, you can write a great story that will not interfere with somebody else's story and will still allow you to write you story in your own way. Take the Nome King for example. He has been enchanted and un-enchanted so many times in his endless attempts to conquer Oz that I've lost count. If you want to write about him, simply pick a shape, have him unenchanted from that, do not mention how he got there and do not give specifics of his last adventure. In all likelihood, these points will have nothing to do with your story anyway. In some cases, maybe a little discussion is necessary. For example, Dave is writing about the three adepts. Since he is probing into the history of some characters, we needed to thraash out some background to get some details straight. This was a group effort, but so is everything else in this world. By coming together and combining our efforts and skills, we can make a good thing better. Daves story was not compromised at all by this collaborative effort. I'm sure the story will be excellent and I can't wait to read it! (same for WOOZY and anything else out there!) Everybody has a different gift that they can give to Oz. Some people tell stories. Some people draw illustrations. Some people work behind the scenes editing magazines, organizing conventions, etc.. Some (like myself) are of a more scholarly bent and we dervie great pleasure from looking at all the Oz books, explaining seeming contradictions, and fitting them together like a big jigsaw puzzle. All of these activities are important and I do not consider what I do to be hurting Oz in any way. The bottom line is that we want people to write Oz books, we want people to have fun writing Oz books and we want people to tell any kind of story any way that they want to. OK, that last part was not entirely true. Chris D. (the other side of the HACC) dislikes sex and violence. If you wrote a story that was totally accurate to the FF but contained sex and violence, Chris would not want it in the HACC, but I would put it in. I make no moral judgements, only textual ones. All we ask is just a little effort on the part of everybody (myself and Chris actually do most of the work) so that all our Oz books will be at least in partiall agreement, with no major contradictions. Some contradiction is inevitable and that is a good thing. Often, the desire to explain away a contradiction leads to yet another Oz book! In my opinion, every single one of these goals is attainable, desireable and will make the Oz saga the best ever! I realize that this was a VERY VERY long, rambling message, but I felt that I had to set the record straight. --Tyler Jo ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 13:30:24 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest For the record: TIME TRAVELLING IN OZ does not have retroactive magic, it just has people travelling back in time. Ryan Gannaway has written three books so far(including the newly released SINISTER GASES IN OZ), all of which have people travelling through time. None of them have retroactive magic (or meta-magic, which is almost the same thing) in them. I really liked MAGICAL MIMICS, but did not like SHAGGY MAN at all. Neill showed a lot of inventiveness in his books, but he went way overboard. If you were a living floor, would you like people walking over you all the time? And so on, for all the other live stuff. If I was a house, I would not appreciate people opening and closing my doors. On one level, it is certainly possible to just read the stories and have fun without worrying about anything else than reading a good story. On another level, it is also possible to think about differences and explain them. It is even possible for the same person to do both! Maybe Thompson and Payes got tired of this from adult Oz fans, but that is one of the prices we pay for growing up. We can still lose ourselves in the stories, but every once in a while, we must stop and ask "why?" --Tyler ============================================================================== Date: Thursday 04-Jan-96 16:22:35 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Tyler's remarks >A belated Happy New Year, and let me add my thanks to Dave H. for doing all this work. My pleasure! I'm having a lot of fun doing this! >The entire Ozzy Digest, December 1995, has been compiled into a HUGE text file (just under 300K). >One contributing factor is the tendency to repeat peoples messages over and over again. I cannot put >this on my Web Page, as I would soon go over my one Meg limit. Can anyone take it off my hands? I would like to archive the Ozzy Digest to a FTP site so people can read the back issues. Does anyone know of a good site available? >Sadly, Marcus Mebes has vanished, and since he was the owner and only employee of Palo Verde >Emeralds, that has gone as well. If anybody can find him, I (and Chris Dulabone) would greatly >appreciate it. You can write to him at: Marcus D. Mebes, c/o Sail Away International (Enya Fan Club) 10461 Ridgely Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70809-3225 (I'm not 100% certain it's the same Marcus Mebes but I'm 99.9% certain- "Sail Away to Oz" seems too fantastic a coincidence!!!) >March Laumers other "names" (and I use the term loosely) are mostly for new >characters. Are you ready to meet Zippiochogolak (who married Dororhty...) MARRIED Dorothy???!!!! In which book does THAT miracle take place?? And does anyone else in Laumer's books get "hitched"? >I don't think Ozma or Glinda ever offended each other. Let me see: I still don't understand how they are supposed to have "offended" each other. Can someone explain? >And now for the real issue: [ eloquent text omitted :) ] Thank you Tyler for conveying so well what I was unable to (me and my dippy "senationalizing Oz historians" theories!)! I think this should put the Consistancy Controversy to rest! -- Dave ============================================================================== THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 5, 1996 ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 23:33:19 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Where do I find...? Was the work listed as 1993E (the one with the name Aaron dislikes) published somewhere? With a name like that I got to see what it's like, but I don't have the information yet to ILL it. Also is -Three-Headed Elvis Clone Sighted in Flying Saucer over Oz_ a book or an article? Somehow I have trouble imagining a three-headed Elvis clone anywhere other than the front page of a tabloid. Has any story mentioned a reason that the Winkies asked the Tin Woodman to rule over them? Admittedly he did a lot in getting rid of the wolves and the bees which the Wicked Witch of the West undoubtedly used against her enemies, but it was Dorothy who actually got rid of the Witch. (Oh, God, I'm turning into my brother...) ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 22:53:10 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-04-96 Addendum ( Sorry Eric! :) ) Thanks, Tyler. I'm gonna quote your last post, here. > The only official history is the FF. All else is incidental. This is probably the most logical and certainly the most popular concept. >People can write any Oz story that they want to. The fact that we have many authors,many publishers >and many points of view represents the strength of Oz in its enormous diversity as well as a challenge >to put it all together in one piece. Amen! >...to make NO EFFORT AT ALL to acheive even a small degree of continuity is just as small minded as >an attempt to make everyone totally agree with each other even down to the smallest detail, which WE >DO NOT DO. .... [There is] a HUGE amount of room to write about anything that you want to. We will >never achieve total consistency. I for one do not want this. > Me neither. Let's just use some logic and consideration along with our creativity. >Everybody has a different gift that they can give to Oz. Beautifully said in the true spirit of Oz, Sir Tyler! ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 20:57:03 -0800 (PST) From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-04-96 Addendum ( Sorry Eric! :) ) In reply to the need for an ftp site, yes I can certainly provide storage for dispersal of this most spectacular digest; it will be part of the Ozcot home page before the month of January is out as long as there are no objections among the participants (so far as I know, the service provider I'm using has a 25 meg limit, I'm not anywhere close to that for now.) -- Ken Cope Ones & Zeroes SurReal Estate ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 23:02:18 -0800 (PST) From: Jim VanderNoot Subject: IWOC Web Site For the next Ozzy Digest: The International Wizard of Oz Club's WWW site has just added information about the Autumn 1995 edition of the Baum Bugle, other Baum works available to read on the Internet, the Centennial of the Wizard of Oz in 2000, and the Oz Club's centennial contest for a new Oz book. Come and visit us at http://www.neosoft.com ------------------------------------- Jim Vander Noot E-mail: jvandern@sam.neosoft.com Date: 1/4/96 Time: 11:02:18 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 00:55:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-04-96 Addendum ( Sorry Eric! :) ) 1) Tyler, I SURRENDER! (Opinions on Neill, Madden, and Pendexter retained.) I'll even give up the date 2097 for The Woozy of Oz and put it indefinitely in the future! 2) Actually, the way The Woozy of Oz trilogy is planned, we need to worry about whether Oz is on another planet or not. (Sorry, can't explain further without serious plot leakage.) 3) I have real trouble seeing there being a "spirit of the Scarecrow" when Chang Wang Woe's spirit entered the Scarecrow, as inanimate objects are not usually considered to have spirits (at least in America). And I was under the impression that the Scarecrow did act something like Chang Wang Woe (respecting commoners, for example). And Glinda's Book of Records did claim that the Silver Emperor had returned to his people when the Scarecrow travelled to the Silver Islands. 4) Actually I already wrote the Woozy's name into The Woozy of Oz. The Asmard of Ix quotes an entry from the Encyclopaedia Zlurgiana on the Woozy which contains it. Don't panic, people. Everyone (so far as I've written) still calls him 'the Woozy'. What Hiergargo and family called him, that I'll worry about when and if I write the prequel. 5) Dorothy getting married? Uh-oh... I already wrote in her biological age as 12, and having nothing against Laumer (yet at least) I choose to be consistent with him. Since my trilogy is supposed to be the conclusion of the series, if any of the characters decide to age, I have to make sure their ages in The Woozy of Oz are at least as old as that. Does anyone out there disagree with me assuming that no one's going to let his/her age drift past, say, 25? While I'm at it, how much does Laumer change the Ozite status quo? 6) What is the earliest (by HACC) that Glinda appears in the series? I know she appears at least as early as How the Wizard Came to Oz, but considering that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz claims that she had already been around for a long time, it wouldn't surprise me if she was around at the start of the series, but is there anything to confirm this? 7) What is the earliest (by writing) source from which we know that four wicked witches conquer Oz and divide the country among them? 8) On the subject of copyright infringement, what exactly constitutes a new character? (I've decided to give up the idea of having Jenny Jump attack the Emerald City in The Woozy of Oz, so don't panic, please.) For example, everybody knows there was a Wicked Witch of the South. Then Rachel Cosgrove wrote a book about her, actually developing the character and giving her a name, Singra. Is Singra legally considered a new character (making her impermissible to use without permission), or is she considered identical with the Baumian (or was it Thompsonian?) Wicked Witch of the South (making her public domain)? 9) On the subject of Glinda and Ozma offending one another: Yeah, I know that in the FF (at least) Glinda and Ozma never got in a fight or anything like that. What I'm looking for is things that they have done that are reckless, irresponsible, or in some way in violation of proper standards towards each other, or at least could reasonably be interpretted negatively by the other. The Oogaboo incident, for example, is almost certainly improper on Glinda's part, being a major international relations blunder. I am certain Evardo XV was not thrilled to have an army out to conquer the world roaming around his country, even if they really didn't have much idea what they were doing. Another example of what I'm looking for is when Ozma went to Ev to force the Nome King to release that country's royal family. On the surface Ozma was acting recklessly, considering that 15 men do not a realistic army comprise, especially since only one of them was not an officer. (Please compare where Dorothy and companions go after the Wicked Witch of the West, where none of them has high hopes for success.) The only reason that Ozma and company succeeded was that Billina happened to be at the right place at the right time to hear the right information which enabled her to save the day by beating the Nome King at his own game. Had Billina drowned in the sea, Ozma would probably have ended up permanently as an emerald grasshopper. (In Ozma's defense, The Shaggy Man of Oz says that Ozma created the Magic Picture, which would indicate that Ozma when she went to Ev was already dabbling in deep magic. Perhaps this gave her an overly optimistic impression of her chances of success.) Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 00:38:12 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Oz Cookbook I've had an inquiry about the existence of an Oz Cookbook. Does anyone know if such a book exists, and if it does, bibliography info and where it might be obtained. Bill W. ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 00:41:42 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Scholarly Research Ref the earlier message I sent before Christmas, from a college student in France looking for references for her thesis, which is a study of Oz WRT US society........... to date the only response I have from anyone is from Eric who offerred several books for consideration (these are listed in his FAQ). Does anyone else have any other books on Oz critical analyses that we can refer her to?? Bill Wright ============================================================================== Date: Friday 05-Jan-96 00:45:04 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Slick Ozma II -- "I meant no offense to Glinda!" :) Aaron wrote: >9) On the subject of Glinda and Ozma offending one another: Yeah, I know that in the FF (at least) >Glinda and Ozma never got in a fight or anything like that. What I'm looking for is things that they have >done that are reckless, irresponsible, or in some way in violation of proper standards towards each >other, or at least could reasonably be interpretted negatively by the other ... [An] example of what I'm >looking for is when Ozma went to Ev to force the Nome King to release that country's royal family. On >the surface Ozma was acting recklessly, considering that 15 men do not a realistic army comprise ... (In >Ozma's defense, The Shaggy Man of Oz says that Ozma created the Magic Picture, which would >indicate that Ozma when she went to Ev was already dabbling in deep magic. Perhaps this gave her >an overly optimistic impression of her chances of success.) If there's one world leader whose defense I almost unerringly come to, it's Ozma ( "wimp" my foot! :) )! But if I had to name one really egregious ( the Wogglebug asked me to use this word whose meaning I can never remember :) ) black mark on her record of Ozzy leadership, I'd have to say it's her ultra-pacifism in _Emerald City_ when the Nome King et al. where plotting to invade Oz. She'd rather see Oz destroyed than fight those poor little innocent Phanfasms, Whimsies, and Growleywogs??? Otherwise, I think (as I asserted long ago in "Slick Ozma I" on Chris' list) she's been an exceptional Queen, and I wish she could run for President here! :) -- Dave ============================================================================== THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 6, 1996 ============================================================================= Friday 05-Jan-96 12:23:31 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: How to get back issues Hi everyone! I just wanted everyone to know that I am hoping soon to have an FTP site available for archiving the Digest...Until then, if you want back issues, send me a message, and I'll send the issue(s) you request. -- Dave ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 10:33:25 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-05-96 I recently purchased a WIZARD OF OZ COOKBOOK. It has scenes from the MGM film, as well as some Denslow drawings. The recipes didn't do much for me, though. The author, exact title and publisher don't come to mind right now, but I could find that info for you. I also have a cookbok from the 1980's based on the Wizard with the story line and Denslow drawings included. Monica Bayley (sp?) was the editor, I believe. Hope this helps. Let me know if you want full info on either. Cheers, Scott ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 10:31:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Nathanel J. Barlow" Subject: Fwd: The Ozian Times #30 "Special Edition" -- FAQ [NOTE FROM EDITOR: Here is another Ozzy FAQ for our perusal. :) This is Nate Barlow's FAQ from his "Ozian Times" (the semi-precursor to the "Ozzy Digest") -- Dave] *********************************************************************** T H E W O N D E R F U L W I Z A R D O F O Z F A Q L I S T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = - - - - - - - - - Maintained by Nate Barlow, wiz@CMU.EDU Initially compiled by Nate Barlow, wiz@CMU.EDU, July 1994 Hello! This FAQ covers all things dealing with L. Frank Baum's wonderful world of Oz. It is divided into four parts: More Info, Books, 1939 MGM Movie, and Other. At the start of the FAQ is a list of questions answered. Any suggestions, additions, deletions or corrections should be sent to: Nate Barlow wiz@CMU.EDU Thanks! Nate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions Answered: ------------------- 1. More Info: 1.1. What is Oz? How did Oz get started? 1.2. What is The International Wizard of Oz Club (IWOC)? How can I join? 1.3. What is The Baum Bugle? The Oz Observer? The Oz Gazette? 1.4. What is The Ozian Times? How can I subscribe? 2. Books: 2.1. Who wrote the Oz books? How many did each author write? 2.2. What are the titles? 2.3. Who illustrated them? 2.4. How can I acquire them? 2.5. Who wrote the IWOC published books? How many are there? What are the titles? How can I acquire them? 2.6. Are there any other Oz books? 2.7. What is _Oziana_? How can I acquire it? 2.8. What is _Bibliographia Oziana_? How can I acquire it? 2.9. Did the Oz authors write any other works? 2.10. Did Baum write under any pseudonyms? 3. 1939 MGM Movie: 3.1. Which cast members are still alive? 3.2. I've heard that there is a scene where a body can be seen hanging in the background. Did someone really hang oneself? 3.3. How many releases have there been of the movie? 3.4. What year did the movie first appear on TV? How many times has it been shown on TV? 4. Other: 4.1. What other Oz movies have there been? 4.2. Is is true that there is a series of Russian Oz books? ******************************************************************************* Answers: -------- 1. More Info: -------------- 1.1. What is Oz? How did Oz get started? Oz is fairyland originally created by L. Frank Baum as stories he told his four sons and their friends. There are many stories as to how Mr. Baum came up with the name of Oz, one being that when asked by one child what the name of this marvelous land was, his eye happened to catch sight of his filing cabinet, which read "O-Z". Baum proceeded to write 14 Oz books, the first of which, _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_, was published in 1900. 1.2. What is The International Wizard of Oz Club (IWOC)? How can I join? Official International Wizard of Oz Club announcement: The International Wizard of Oz Club was founded in 1957 to bring together all those interested in Oz, its authors and illustrators, film and stage adaptions, toys and games, and associated memorabilia. From a charter group of sixteen, the club has grown until today it has pretty near 3,000 members of all ages throughout the world. It's magazine, _The Baum Bugle_, first appeared in June of 1957 and has been published continuously ever since. The _Bugle_ appears three times a year and specializes in popular and scholarly articles on Oz and its creators, biographical and critical studies, first edition checklists, research into the people and places within the Oz books, etc. The magazine is illustrated with rare photographs and drawings, and the covers are in full color. The Oz Club also publishes a number of other Oz associated items, including full color maps; an original collection of original Oz stories; books; and essays. Each year, the club sponsors conventions in different areas of the United States. These gatherings feature displays of rare Oz and Baum material, an Oz quiz, showings of Oz films, an auction of hard-to-find Baum and Oz items, much conversation about Oz in all its aspects, and many other activities. The International Wizard of Oz Club appeals to the serious student and collector of Oz as well as to any reader interested in America's own fairyland. For further information on the International Wizard of Oz Club or _The Baum Bugle_, please send a long self addressed stamped envelope to: Fred M. Meyer 220 North Eleventh Street Escanaba, Michigan 49829 Additional Information: If you don't want to wait, yearly dues are $15.00 third class, $20.00 first class and overseas air shipment, $30.00 contributing membership; $50.00 sustaining membership. For the lack of space and time, I will not include a list of what else you can order here and now; you'll get one soon enough. Bye, and enjoy! 1.3. What is The Baum Bugle? The Oz Observer? The Oz Gazette? The Baum Bugle is The International Wizard of Oz Club's magazine. It comes out three times a year and is included as part of one's membership. The Oz Observer and The Oz Gazette are two newsletters that IWOC also puts out three times a year. The two newsletters are sent out together but separately from the Bugle. They, too, are part of one's membership. 1.4. What is The Ozian Times? How can I subscribe? The Ozian Times is an email digest currently run by Nate Barlow, who can be reached at wiz@CMU.EDU. This digest is for any and all interested in Oz in any of aspects. To subscribe, send email to: wiz@CMU.EDU [NOTE: The Ozian Times has more or less been succeeded by the Ozzy Digest. -- Dave] ******************************************************************************* 2. Books: ---------- 2.1. Who wrote the Oz books? How many did each author write? The author of _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ and its first 13 sequels was L. Frank Baum. The following authors also wrote books considered to be part of what is widely considered the "canonical" 40 book series (number written by that author follows the author's name): Ruth Plumly Thompson, 19; John R. Neill, 3; Jack Snow, 2; Rachel C. Cosgrove, 1; Eloise Jarvis McGraw and Lauren Lynn McGraw (Wagner), 1. 2.2. What are the titles? The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (Baum, 1900) The Marvelous Land of Oz (Baum, 1904) Ozma of Oz (Baum, 1907) Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz (Baum, 1908) The Road to Oz (Baum, 1909) The Emerald City of Oz (Baum, 1910) The Patchwork Girl of Oz (Baum, 1913) Tik-Tok of Oz (Baum, 1914) The Scarecrow of Oz (Baum, 1915) Rinkitink in Oz (Baum, 1916) The Lost Princess of Oz (Baum, 1917) The Tin Woodman of Oz (Baum, 1918) The Magic of Oz (Baum, 1919) Glinda of Oz (Baum, 1920) The Royal Book of Oz (Thompson--although R&L editions say Baum, 1921) Kabumpo in Oz (Thompson, 1922) The Cowardly Lion of Oz (Thompson, 1923) Grampa in Oz (Thompson, 1924) The Lost King of Oz (Thompson, 1925) The Hungry Tiger of Oz (Thompson, 1926) The Gnome King of Oz (Thompson, 1927) The Giant Horse of Oz (Thompson, 1928) Jack Pumpkinhead of Oz (Thompson, 1929) The Yellow Knight of Oz (Thompson, 1930) Pirates in Oz (Thompson, 1931) The Purple Prince of Oz (Thompson, 1932) Ojo in Oz (Thompson, 1933) Speedy in Oz (Thompson, 1934) The Wishing Horse of Oz (Thompson, 1935) Captain Salt in Oz (Thompson, 1936) Handy Mandy in Oz (Thompson, 1937) The Silver Princess in Oz (Thompson, 1938) Ozoplaning With the Wizard of Oz (Thompson, 1939) The Wonder City of Oz (Neill, 1940) The Scalawagons of Oz (Neill, 1941) Lucky Bucky in Oz (Neill, 1942) The Magical Mimics in Oz (Snow, 1946) The Shaggy Man of Oz (Snow, 1949) The Hidden Valley of Oz (Cosgrove, 1951) Merry Go Round in Oz (McGraw and Wagner, 1963) 2.3. Who illustrated them? W. W. Denslow--The Wonderful Wizard of Oz John R. Neill--The Marvelous Land of Oz through Lucky Bucky in Oz Frank Kramer--The Magical Mimics in Oz and The Shaggy Man of Oz "Dirk" [Dirk Gringhuis]--The Hidden Valley of Oz Dick Martin--Merry Go Round in Oz Several of the books (most notably The Wizard and Land) have been illustrated by several different illustrators. Some of these editions are available; others are not. 2.4. How can I acquire them? All of the books have been reprinted at some point in recent years. However, several of those reprints are now out-of-print themselves. The Baums are still available, along with several of the others. Publishers who have Oz books available: The International Wizard of Oz Club, Dover, Del Rey (I believe their Baums are still available, but I could be wrong), Books of Wonder, Easton Press, and others. The Wizard and Land are available from countless publishers. If you are only interested in first and older editions, the search becomes exponentially harder. Used book stores, flea markets and tag sales are all good places to check. There are several dealers who specialize in Oz and related works. Auctions are also very useful. IWOC periodically sends out an "Oz Trading Post", where club members can post their sell/trade/want lists. A major feature of IWOC conventions is an auction, which is followed by dealers setting up their tables. Good luck, and enjoy the search! 2.5. Who wrote the IWOC published books? How many are there? What are the titles? How can I acquire them? There are five: Yankee in Oz (Thompson, Illus. Martin, 1972) The Enchanted Island of Oz (Thompson, Illus. Martin, 1976) The Forbidden Fountain of Oz (McGraw & McGraw, Illus. Martin, 1980) The Ozmapolitan of Oz (Martin, Illus. Martin, 1986) The Wicked Witch of Oz (Cosgrove Payes, Shanower, 1993) All are currently available and can be ordered from the club. 2.6. Are there any other Oz books? Yes, with more being published constantly. There are even other stories by the above authors. Baum had a newspaper series in 1904-1905 called _Queer Visitors from the Marvelous Land of Oz_, which was later adapted into a book by Jean Kellog named _The Visitors from Oz_ and illustrated by Dick Martin. Baum also wrote a series of short tales called _The Little Wizard_ series (later _The Little Wizard Stories of Oz_) and _The Wogglebug Book_. The _Queer Visitors_ series and _The Wogglebug Book_ were recently compiled into one volume titled _The Third Book of Oz_ (since the stories originally came out between _Land_ and _Ozma_). As to the other authors, Thompson wrote several short stories. Supposedly John R. Neill had written a fourth title called _Runaway in Oz_. Jack Snow wrote a short story, "A Murder in Oz", and also _Who's Who in Oz_ (1954), a compendium of almost every character appearing in the Oz books published at that time (i.e. through Hidden Valley). The book is illustrated with pictures from the series. A few characters were overlooked, with the Bunny King from _Emerald City_ the most famous. The list of Oz apocrypha/pastiches by other authors is quite long. The most famous is _The Laughing Dragon of Oz_ by Frank Joselyn Baum, L. Frank's eldest son. It was published in 1935 (copyright 1934) by Whitman Publishing Co., as a Big Little Book. While its sequel, _The Enchanted Princess of Oz_, was reportedly in proofs, Reilly & Lee brought suit. Whitman agreed not to publish _Enchanted Princess_ or reprint _Laughing Dragon_. Reilly & Lee also claimed that "OZ" was its common-law trademark, winning that point in a separate case. I will not go into any of the other titles here, for the sake of brevity and the impossibility of completeness (I will however discuss the Russian Oz books in the "Other" section). 2.7. What is _Oziana_? How can I acquire it? _Oziana_ is an annual collection of short Oz stories published by IWOC. It, along with some back issues, can be ordered from the Club. 2.8. What is _Bibliographia Oziana_? How can I acquire it? _Bibliographia Oziana_ is the major work describing the various states, issues, printings, and editions of the Oz books (the canonical 40 and selected others, including the IWOC books, _Laughing Dragon_, _The Little Wizard Stories_, etc). It also includes a basic glossary of bibliographical terms and pictures of the book covers. The most recent edition is copyright 1988 and is available from IWOC. The book was written by Peter E. Hanff, Douglas G. Greene, Dick Martin, David L. Greene and James E. Haff, with contributions by many others. This is a must-have for anyone who is seriously collecting first and early edition Oz books. 2.9. Did the Oz authors write any other works? Yes, all of them, too many to list here (although if someone wants to compile a list, send it to me and I will gladly tack it on). Several of Baum's other fantasy works "connect" to Oz, with the cross-over of characters and lands bordering Oz: _Queen Xixi of Ix_, _The Magical Monarch of Mo_, _The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus_, _The Sea Fairies_ and _Sky Island_ are just a few of these. 2.10. Did Baum write under any pseudonyms? Yes. Several, actually: Laura Bancroft--_Twinkle and Chubbins_ stories, _Policeman Blue Jay_ Edith Van Dyne--_Aunt Jane's Nieces_ series, _The Flying Girl_ series, _Mary Louise_ series Floyd Akers--_The Boy Fortune Hunters_ series Capt. Hugh Fitzgerald--_The Sam Steele's Adventure_ series John Estes Cooke--_Tamawaca Folks_ Suzanne Metcalf--_Annabel_ Schuyler Staunton--_The Fate of a Crown_, _Daughters of Destiny_ anonymous--_The Last Egyptian_ ******************************************************************************* 3. 1939 MGM Movie: ------------------- 3.1. Which cast members are still alive? Most, sadly, have passed away. The only remaining principal cast members are 19 of the 124 Munchkins. Several of these still make public appearances, especially at the Ozfests which occur in various parts of the country 3.2. I've heard that there is a scene where a body can be seen hanging in the background. Did someone really hang oneself? No. What is actually being scene is a bird which escaped from another set and just happened to wander onto the Tin Woodman's forest set. MGM had rented a large number of birds to be in the background of one of the scenes. 3.3. How many releases have there been of the movie? The initial release was in 1939, and full rereleases occured in 1949 and 1955. "In both 1970 and 1972, the film was used to successfully launch an MGM Children's Matinee series of family pictures...the first 'test reappearance'... drew capacity houses in 1976..." (Fricke/Scarfone/Stillman, _The Wizard of Oz: The Official 50th Anniversary Pictorial History_, pg. 212) 3.4. What year did the movie first appear on TV? How many times has it been shown on TV? The first TV appearance was on November. 3, 1956. The next was in October of 1959. It was then broadcast annually from 1960-1967 on CBS. NBC took it for 1968-1975, but then it returned to CBS in 1976, where it has been shown ever since. The makes 37 appearances! ******************************************************************************* 4. Other: ---------- 4.1. What other Oz movies have there been? There have been several Oz film adaptions. What follows is an incomplete list, taken from Allen Eyles'' book _The World of Oz_: 1910: The Wizard of Oz; Dorothy and Scarecrow in Oz; The Land of Oz (Selig Production Company) 1914: The Patchwork Girl of Oz; His Majesty, The Scarecrow of Oz (later called The New Wizard of Oz) (Oz Filme Manufacturing Co.) 1925: The Wizard of Oz (Chadwick, Distributor) 1939: The Wizard of Oz (MGM) 1960: The Shirley Temple Show--The Land of Oz (TV) 1963: Return to Oz (An original sequel to the book, TV, Rankin/Bass, animation) 1969: The Wonderful Land of Oz (Cinetron) 1971: Journey Back to Oz (Filmation, animation) 1976: Oz (Australian--shown in US as 20th Century Oz in 1977) (US Distributor--Inter Planetary) 1978: The Wiz (Production--Motown, Distributor--Universal) 1985: Return to Oz (Production--Oz Productions/Walt Disney Productions, Distributor--Buena Vista) 4.2. Is is true that there is a series of Russian Oz books? Yes. There are six books, the first a retelling of _The Wizard of Oz_ titled _Volsebnik Izumrudnogo Goroda_ (The Wizard of the Emerald City, 1939--the word Oz is never mentioned in any of the books). A revised version appeared in 1959, followed by five original sequels: _Urfin Dzjus i ego Derevjannye Soldaty (Urfin Dzjus and His Wooden Soldiers, 1963), _Sem' Podzemnyh Korolej_ (Seven Underground Kings, 1969), _Ognennyi Bog Marranov_ (The Fire God of the Maronnes, 1972), _Zeltyi Tuman_ (The Yellow Fog, 1974), _Zabrosynnovo Zamka_ (The Secret of the Deserted Castle, 1982). ******************************************************************************* I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this FAQ. The number is too great to list; you know who you are. Thanks. ;) My own sources inclue _Bibliographia Oziana_, _The World of Oz_ (Allen Eyles, 1985), _The Wizard of Oz: The Official 50th Anniversary Pictorial History_ (John Fricke, Jay Scarfone, William Stillman, 1989), _The Baum Bugle_, 8 1/2 years of membership in IWOC, seven Munchkin Conventions, and lots of great friendships. I hope everyone enjoys reading this as much as I did putting it together. Hope it helps. Nate Barlow wiz@CMU.EDU ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 10:52:07 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: Oz sale list OZ! January 1996 _____________________________________________________________________________ Terms of Sale 1. Prices include postage. Minimum order $15, please. 2. Make all checks payable to Scott Cummings. 3. Specify item number with your purchase. 4. Include your mailing address and phone number with your order 5. Refunds for previously sold items will be given unless you specify alternative choices 6. All sales are final. Scott D. Cummings PO Box 622 Gambier OH 43022 CUMMINGSS@KENYON.EDU _____________________________________________________________________________ Books and Magazines B1 Pirates in Oz. R & L, B & W, pictoral cover label, poor condition. $10 B2 Ojo in Oz. R & L, B & W, library rebound, reading copy $8 B6 The Royal Book of Oz. R & L, B & W, blank boards, reading copy $12 B7 The Scarecrow of Oz. R & L white edition, ex libris, poor $7 B10 Joel and the Great Magician. by Eloise Jarvis McGraw, Panthenon, Weekly Reader books 1979, good $2 B12 The Magic of Oz. Rand McNally paperback, good $5 B13 The Patchwork Girl of Oz. Rand McNally paperback, v.good $5 B14 The Wizard of Oz. Rand McNally paperback, excellent $5 B15 The Wizard of Oz. Rand McNally paperback, excellent $5 B17 The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Dover (1974) coloring book illustrated by W. W. Denslow. excellent. $7 B19 The Secret Island of Oz. by Eric Shanower (First Graphic Novel, 1986) excellent $4 B22 Utopia Americana. by Edward Wagenknecht (University of Washington, 1929). Original booklet, missing front cover sheet, else good. $15 B23 Notes on a Cowardly Lion. by John Lahr (Knopf, 1969) Book Club Ed. Contains appendix with lengthened lyrics to "If I were King of the Forest" ex. libris poor condition $3 B24 The Wizard of Oz. Del Rey paperback, good. $1 B25 Ozma of Oz. Del Rey paperback, good. $1 B26 Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz. Del Rey paperback, good. $1 B27 The Road to Oz. Del Rey paperback, good. $1 B28 The Emerald City of Oz. Del Rey paperback, good. $1 B29 The Patchwork Girl of Oz. Del Rey paperback, good. $1 B30 Rinkitink in Oz. Del Rey paperback, good. $1 B31 The Lost Princess of Oz. Del Rey paperback, good. $1 B32 Set of Eight Del Rey Baum Oz Books $6 B33 Grampa in Oz. Del Rey paperback, excellent. $5 B34 The Gnome King of Oz. Del Rey paperback, excellent. $5 B36 The Giant Horse of Oz. Del Rey paperback, excellent. $5 B37 The Yellow Knight of Oz. Del Rey paperback, excellent. $5 B38 Speedy in Oz. Del Rey paperback, excellent. $5 B39 The Wishing Horse of Oz. Del Rey paperback, excellent. $5 B40 Set of Six Del Rey Thompson Oz books $25 B42 The Life And Adventures of Santa Claus. Dover paperback, excellent $3 B43 Queen Zixi of Ix. Dover paperback, excellent $3 B45 American Fairy Tales. Dover paperback, excellent $3 B47 Return to Oz. Random House, 1985. hardcover color storybook. very good $5 B50 Dorothy - Return to Oz by Thomas L. Tedrow. 1993 hrdcvr. mint $10 B51 Dorothy - Return to Oz by Thomas L. Tedrow. 1993 Advanced Reading Copy. paper. v. good $8 B52 The Widow of Oz by Kathryn Lasky Knight. 1989 hrdcver. ex libris. $5 M3 The Baum Bugle. Christmas 1974, out of print, excellent $10 M4 The Baum Bugle. Spring 1972, out of print, excellent $10 Records, Toys, Games, Puzzles, Dolls, Figurines & Paper Collectibles R2 The Story and Songs of the Wizard of Oz. Disney LP (#3957). MGM tunes and built-in 11 page full color story booklet. excellent $10 T1 The Ozmapolitan Card Game. Set of one card each of Dick Martin's original card Game for the Ozmapolitan Convention. Includes a letter of authenticity from Mr. Martin $14 T5 The Wizard of Oz Board Game. Cadaco, 1974. rips in cardboard box; all parts present. poor $6 D5 Figurines. Set of four PVC (Presents, 1987) 3 1/2" MGM Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, Cowardly Lion, Glinda, Wicked Witch. excellent $8 for the set, P2 MGM Cards and Postcards, set of 10. (1) "That's what happens to Munchkins when they lie about their age", Glinda with Dorothy (Hallmark postcard). (2) Dorothy with Wicked Witch (Hallmark postcard). (3) Judy Garland as Dorothy in cornfield, B& W postcard. (4) Ray Bolger as the Scarecrow, B& W postcard. (5) TinWoodman, Dorothy and Scarecrow in forest, B & W postcard. (6) foursome in castle, sepia tone postcard (Ludlow Sales). (7) Dorothy in cornfield, sepia tone postcard (Ludlow Sales). (8) "Congradulations Graduate!...You've finally got a brain!" Scarecrow (Hallmark) card with envelope. (9) "Have an Oz kind of Birthday... That's when you get blown away and can't find your way home." (Shoebox Geetings) card. (10) Wicked Witch on broomstick (Summertime press) card with envelope. all very good to mint. $8/set P3 1982 Calendar. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (Determined Productions) text abridged by Monica Bayley, illustrated by Denslow. very good. $9 P4 1985 Calendar. 12 MGM color stills (Landmark, 1984) excellent. $12 P5 Stills, set of 4. 8" x 10" B & W MGM stills of Dorothy in cornfield, Dorothy with Toto (close-up), Dorothy and Scarecrow oiling Tin Man, Dorothy with Scarecrow (small rip) others excellent. $12 Denslow's Humpty Dumpty and Other Stories. Donohue & Co. 1903, first edition. Includes: Humpty Dumpty, Little Red Riding Hood, The Three Bears, Mary Had a Little Lamb, Old Mother Hubbard, and House that Jack Built. Cover pictoral label has small (10%) piece missing . Cover is worn at edges and spine is weak. Interior is intact but pages are worn in spots and have small rips. Overall fair copy. $90 The Sea Fairies. 1911 Copp Clark first edition. Identical to Reilly and Lee first edition, including double horizontal rules enclosing a pink band, a seashell vignette on spine (Hinke, p. 52). Small amount of wear on cover label, signiture on ownership page and following page. Otherwise good+ copy. $190 Billy Bounce, color plates, paper cover label. Small amount of ink writing in rear e.p., pencil on fron e.p. Spine weak. Interior fine, but last 1/3 of pages are discolored. Overall good copy. $90 The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus 1920's edition. color plates. owner's name on front e.p. hinges starting. good copy $50 Baum's Castorine Axle Oil box. 11" x 7 3/4" x 6 = " wooden box with stamped letters on three sides and torn paper label on fourth. open on top. Also one can (paper) of Baum's Never Fail Radiator Solderine. Sealed, contains solderine. 3" high x 2 = " diameter. Products that made the Baum Family fortune! $ 85 Frank Morgan and Billie Burke photo (inquire) ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 09:23:50 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-05-96 From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN >Was the work listed as 1993E (the one with the name Aaron dislikes) published somewhere? With a >name like that I got to see what it's like, but I don't have the information yet to ILL it. Also is -Three->Haded Elvis Clone Sighted in Flying Saucer over Oz_ a book or an article? Somehow I have trouble >imagining a three-headed Elvis clone anywhere other than the front page of a tabloid. "Three-Headed Elvis Clone" is partly my fault, I'm sorry to say. Chris Dulabone and I were talking one night, and got going on goofy ideas/titles for Oz books. This is one I came up with, and I thought no more about it. All of a sudden, I see that it's in a list of Chris' upcoming books! So once it gets published, I want a free copy... (Yes, this is a novel, not an article in a certain type of "newspaper"...) >Has any story mentioned a reason that the Winkies asked the Tin Woodman to rule over them? >Admittedly he did a lot in getting rid of the wolves and the bees which the Wicked Witch of the West >undoubtedly used against her enemies, but it was Dorothy who actually got rid of the Witch. (Oh, God, >I'm turning into my brother...) Re-read "The Wizard of Oz," once the Wicked Witch is melted. (Theory: The Winkies offered leadership to Dorothy first, but she turned it down, as she still wanted to go home. Or the Winkies passed on her because she was still a kid.) From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) >In reply to the need for an ftp site, yes I can certainly provide storage for dispersal of this most >spectacular digest; it will be part of the Ozcot home page before the month of January is out as long as >there are no objections among the participants (so far as I know, the service provider I'm using has a 25 >meg limit, I'm not anywhere close to that for now.) I say we take Ken up on this! He was one of the regulars on the Oz IRC sessions (back when we had them), he has some wonderfully Ozzy ideas, he knows his way around a CPU, and he's a nice bloke, to boot. I even got to meet him in person at last year's Winkie Convention. But Ken, you do realize that at the rate we're pumping out Digests, you may run out of megs pretty quick? From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >8) On the subject of copyright infringement, what exactly constitutes a new character? (I've decided to >give up the idea of having Jenny Jump attack the Emerald City in The Woozy of Oz, so don't panic, >please.) For example, everybody knows there was a Wicked Witch of the South. Then Rachel >Cosgrove wrote a book about her, actually developing the character and giving her a name, Singra. Is >Singra legally considered a new character (making her impermissible to use without permission), or is >she considered identical with the Baumian (or was it Thompsonian?) Wicked Witch of the South >(making her public domain)? Tough to say. (The "Bugle" REALLY needsto do an article on Oz and copyright law!) Since the Wicked Witch of the South was mentioned in passing by Baum, you can probably use that title with no problem. You may even be able to use the name Singra, but as long as you don't give her a full description or a huge part in the book with lots of dialogue, it's probably okay. (With Singra, unlike the Neill characters, you can at least write to the author and ask!) Writing a full-blown sequel to "Wicked Witch" without Payes' permission -- THAT will DEFINITELY get you into hot water... >9) On the subject of Glinda and Ozma offending one another: Yeah, I know that in the FF (at least) >Glinda and Ozma never got in a fight or anything like that. What I'm looking for is things that they have >done that are reckless, irresponsible, or in some way in violation of proper standards towards each >other, or at least could reasonably be interpretted negatively by the other. > >The Oogaboo incident, for example, is almost certainly improper on Glinda's part, being a major >international relations blunder. I am certain Evardo XV was not thrilled to have an army out to conquer >the world roaming around his country, even if they really didn't have much idea what they were doing. I think this is a case of Glinda deciding not to let Ozma be bothered by this pidling little army, and to teach Queen Ann a lesson at the same time. Since they're from Oz, Glinda figured no real harm could come to them. Reread chapter 3 of "Tik-Tok of Oz" for more of her reasoning behind this. And why would King Evardo be offended? He never even knew they were there, and there's some debate as to whether or not they were even IN Ev. >Another example of what I'm looking for is when Ozma went to Ev to force the Nome King to release >that country's royal family. On the surface Ozma was acting recklessly, considering that 15 men do not >a realistic army comprise, especially since only one of them was not an officer. (Please compare where >Dorothy and companions go after the Wicked Witch of the West, where none of them has high hopes >for success.) The only reason that Ozma and company succeeded was that Billina happened to be at >the right place at the right time to hear the right information which enabled her to save the day by >beating the Nome King at his own game. Had Billina drowned in the sea, Ozma would probably have >ended up permanently as an emerald grasshopper. (In Ozma's defense, The Shaggy Man of Oz says >that Ozma created the Magic Picture, which would indicate that Ozma when she went to Ev was >already dabbling in deep magic. Perhaps this gave her an overly optimistic impression of her chances >of success.) Do you really think Ozma wouldn't go on this venture without consulting Glinda? (Glinda did give Ozma the Magic Carpet, after all.) And the Army is a typical Ozian army, there's no way Glinda would have thought it was inadequate. Offended? No, I don't think Glinda would be at all. Concerned? Certainly, but I don't think Ozma would have gone if Glinda didn't have every confidence in her. From: "W. R. Wright" >I've had an inquiry about the existence of an Oz Cookbook. Does anyone know if such a book exists, >and if it does, bibliography info and where it might be obtained. There have been two Oz cookbooks. One was by, I think, Monica S. Bailey, came out quite a few years ago, was based on the book, and is probably out of print now. The second, based on the movie, came out in 1993 as part of the Hollywood Hotplates series of movie cookbooks (I'd hate to see their "Aliens" cookbook!), was written by Sarah Key, Jennifer Newman Brazil, and Vicki Wells, published by Abbeville Press, and is probably still available. From: "W. R. Wright" >Ref the earlier message I sent before Christmas, from a college student in France looking for >references for her thesis, which is a study of Oz WRT US society........... to date the only response I >have from anyone is from Eric who offerred several books for consideration (these are listed in his >FAQ). Does anyone else have any other books on Oz critical analyses that we can refer her to?? I tried to come up with as many as I could for the FAQ, so that should pretty much cover it (although there are some earlier articles that I THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 7, 1996 ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 20:41:11 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: What happened to J. Glegg? I recently (God knows why) reread _Kabumpo in Oz_. I was wondering if any stories speculated what happened to J. Glegg. For that matter, what does the "J." stand for. I suppose if Laumer was going to make the speculation, it would be something like "Jopoglobonisnorf," or worse. Mark Semich (I think) mentioned something if anyone else was reading _Oz Squad_. Since the idea of Dorothy as a secret agent is intriguing, I am curious to see them, but I have no idea if this is something usually found in places which sell comic books. (Then again, I have this image of Pierce Brosnan saying, "The name is Bright, Button Bright.") Would _Oz Squad_ require special ordering, etc.? ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 20:47:03 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-06-96 1) According to the map in the Del Rey paperback versions of the Thompson books, the Oogaboonians were in Ev. 2) While we're on the topic of possibly needing to contact previous Oz authors to avoid copyright infringement, what are the addresses (snail mail or electronic) for Cosgrove and McGraw & McGraw? (I don't think I'm at that stage YET, as I'm killing references to Jenny Jump, but I want to keep the quartet of Mombi, Singra, Gigemma, and Bastinda in so I can have them talk about their takeover of Oz during Pastoria's reign, which helps explore Glinda's involvement in Ozite politics, which leads to some more stuff I'd better keep my mouth shut and not talk about. So far Singra's description of what happened the second time she woke up has been limited to something like "And you don't even want to know what happened the second time I woke up!" and so far she hasn't done much except participate in a conspiracy and travel with Flambissa (Glinda's sister) to the Quadling country. Bastinda, Mombi, and Gigemma have been getting more attention, though.) 3) What do you mean that Orin marries Sir Robert Something or Other? I thought she was married to Cheeriobed! (Then again, does polygamy exist in Oz? In Oogaboo I wouldn't be surprised, considering there are significantly more women there than men, but that could be because males in Oogaboo choose to grow up less often...) 4) I know about the witches taking over Oz and dethroning Pastoria. What I want to know is who made that part of Oz history and where they wrote it. 5) More names requested: 1) Mrs. Hokus 2) Sir Hokus's horse 3) the Medicine Man (is it Herbie?) 4) Is Uncle Henry and Aunt Em's last name Gale? 5) Which part of Chang Wang Woe's name are personal and family names? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 23:05:31 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Oz Cookbook In response to my question on published Ozzy cookbooks, both Scott C and Eric G. responded. This is what I got out of the responses so far. Book #1 Author: Monica S. Bailey Title: ?? Published 198? by ? Book#2 Author: Sarah Key, Jennifer Newman Brazil, and Vicki Wells Title: Wizard of Oz Cookbook Published: 1993 by Abbeville Press Scott, I gathered from your note that you have the books. If so, could you fill in the missing information. Also, does anyone know where these books can be purchased? Thanks, Bill W. ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 8, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 23:24:33 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: copyright Dave Hardenbrook wrote on Friday 05-Jan-96 18:02:26: >P.P.S. One more question: If Neil's characters are still under copyright, then >why are his drawings in the public domain? And are Jack Snow's characters >still under copyright? Dave, Copyright law can be a little confusing for older "works" since the laws have been re-written a number of times in the past 50 years. In general, as I understand it, Neill's illlustrations in books published before 1920 are now unquestionably in the public domain. The one's published since then may or may not be, depending on whether the copyright owner took appropriate action to extend the copyright based on the revised laws. So you may have to check on each one independently. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Jan 1996 12:57:07 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Names Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman asked: > 4) Is Uncle Henry and Aunt Em's last name Gale? Doubt it.......since Aunt Em was Dorothy's mother's sister. Now if Uncle Henry was a brother to Dorothy's dad, then it's possible. (Rural families in the midwest in those days did see marriages between families that way. Not too many people to choose from.....!) Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Jan 1996 18:03:36 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Chang Wang Woe Regarding the name Chang Wang Woe, if it follows the usual pattern in East Asia then Chang is the surname and Wang and Woe would be the personal names (and would likely be written together when transliterated as Wangwoe or Wang-woe). However, Thompson doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable about the cultures she tries to borrow from and she may have intended the name to be interpreted European style, that is, Chang and Wang being the personal names and Woe being the surname. So until someone establishes it either way, you can interpret it any way you like. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Jan 1996 14:44:48 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: For the Ozzy Digest Hey, guess what came yesterday? A new issue of "The Baum Bugle." Pity it's the Autumn 1995 issue, seeing as how it's already 1996... Anyway, here's a bit of a review, and my reactions: * "Oz an Ends": Too bad the notice of the "forthcoming" TV broadcast of "The Wizard of Oz in Concert" is now hopelessly out of date. Otherwise, good info on a bunch of stuff. * Gary Kurtz interview: The "Bugle" needs to do more stuf like this! More interviews, please, with people of Ozzy note. Pity this also came under the thumb of the "Bugle"'s usual scheduling demon, as it was meant to celebrate "Return to Oz"'s tenth anniversary, in 1995. Oh, yeah, and what happened to the end of the piece? It was just cut off in mid-WORD! Very unusual for the "Bugle" to goof up THAT bad. I suspect we'll see the final paragraphs reprinted in a future issue. * It was good seeing another vintage issue of "The Ozmapolitan" again. But why was it presented as two two-page spreads this time, instead of the 1-2-1 pattern as in the past, making it appear as it did originally? It would have been real easy to put something else on page 14 and bumped "The Ozmapolitan" back one page. (For those who haven't seen it, BTW, it's from ca. 1970, and advertised the new Reilly and Lee editions of "The Sea Fairies" and "Sky Island" put out that year.) * "The Oz Files." Patrick Maund explores two odd, seemingly out-of-place episodes from "The Patchwork Girl of Oz" and "The Hungry Tiger of Oz." Funny, I never had any trouble with Down Town in "Hungry Tiger" (although I do like Maund's analysis). I do agree that that house in "Patchwork Girl" is oddly out of place, however. * "The Scarecrow to the Rescue." One of the few times the "Bugle" has ever reprinted anything from previous issues, which may be a good idea to do more often, as there are some important articles that the average Oz fan has no access to. * "Bibliographia Baumiana" on "Sky Island": When are these going to be completed and put together in a book, to go with "Bibliographia Oziana"? * "The MGM Scrapbook": Nice vintage "Wizard of Oz" movie posters. Too bad at least one of them couldn't appear on the cover in color. * "The Oz Bookshelf": With all the Oz material coming out today, this REALLY needs to be either expanded, or the focus needs to change to include shorter reviews of more books and/or more notices of "This has also been published:" * "An Oz Quiz." Either I'm getting too old, or I've read too many quizzes, but too many of these seemed to me to be reruns of previous quizzes, and they were ALL too easy for me (although I didn't get them all, either...) * "Oz in the News": What happened to the little picture at the top of the page? (And on some of the other regular columns, for that matter)? Oh, well. At least "Oz in the News" is starting to sort of get caught up. It's now up to May 1995. (I still say "Oz in the News" should be moved to "The Oz Observer" so we can get more current news.) --Eric "If you're not a member of the International Wizard of Oz Club and receiving this fine publication, why not???" Gjovaag "Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'" --The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Jan 1996 15:39:30 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-06-96 From: "Mark A. Semich" > Regarding "adult" Oz stories, does anyone else out there read the "Oz > Squad" comic book? All this talk about Laumer's stories and time travel > sounds a bit similar. In the most recent issues of "Oz Squad", Smith & > Tinker have invented a time machine powered by the Wish Belt, with some > very interesting events following.... Yeah, I read "Oz Squad," but it's not much like Laumer's books. I gotta admit, I'm enjoying the last few issues, since this is a more readily recognizable Oz, with the violence, sex, and swearing toned down. (Actually, hacked out with an ax is probably more like it.) > As for Dorothy getting married, how do we know she didn't age like a yo-yo > during all those decades? There is only one example of reverse-aging in > the series. This is the dubious episode in LOST KING. However, it is > very possible that Dorothy aged a little for a while, then asked Ozma to > make her into a little girl again, and over and over again... The point > is, make her any age that you want, and it won't affect continuity! Or don't mention how old she is, and leave it up to the reader's imagination. (Readers DON'T have to be hit in the head with ALL the facts, you know.) But it looks as if reverse-aging is pretty tough to do and a rare occurrance, as seen by the Wizard doing it to Jenny Jump in "The Wonder City of Oz." > Glinda did not appear in LURLINE AND THE WHITE RAVENS, but that did not > have much about Oz in it, so she may have been there. In one of Snows > books, Glinda celebrates her 100th anniversary as the ruler of the South... Er, no she didn't. Are you thinking of "Magical Mimics," where Ozma goes to an every-200-years-conference in the Forest of Burzee, and takes Glinda with her? Had nothing to do with the length of Glinda's reign in the Quadling Country... > The four witches overthrew Pastoria and divided the country up between them > some years before the arrival of the Wizard, but they were probably active > for many years before then and may have actaully been ruling slected areas > during the reign of Pastoria. Also don't forget that there seem to have been other witches who've had some influence in other parts of the country, such as Gloma in the southern Winkie Country and Blinkie in Jinxland. The witches who overthrew Pastoria may have been the most powerful or influential, but not the only ones in Oz. From: Tyler Jones > PLEAS FROM BELOW: > > I compiling the digest into monthly text files, there are two things that would > really help a lot: > > 2. When people echo other peoples comments, could you please put NO spaces > between the little greater-than sign and the text? That may be tough to do, as it's my system, not me, that does that. (I would think this would be very easy for you to fix with a global search-and-change in any decent text editor.) From: Dave Hardenbrook > P.P.S. One more question: If Neil's characters are still under copyright, then > why are his drawings in the public domain? And are Jack Snow's characters > still under copyright? Not all of Neill's drawings are in public domain, only those that are in books that are in public domain. So any Neill picture from a Baum book is fair game. The copyright is on the book, and expires after a certain amount of time, depending on current copyright law. And from what I understand, since the copyright on the Snow books was never maintained, they are now public domain. DO WE HAVE ANY COPYRIGHT LAWYERS HERE??? --Eric ============================================================================= Sunday 07-Jan-96 18:41:25 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Eric's Comments on the _Bugle_ From: Eric Gjovaag >Oh, yeah, and what happened to the end of the [Return to Oz] piece? >It was just cut off in mid-WORD! Very unusual for the "Bugle" to goof >up THAT bad. Are you referring to page 13, to the left of the photo of the caged Mombi? Take a look just *above* that picture... :) (It still seems like an abrupt end to the article though.) >(I still say "Oz in the News" should be moved to "The Oz Observer" so we >can get more current news.) I agree, it would be more appropriately placed there, IMHO. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Jan 1996 23:23:14 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: New Stuff I have just completed a major update to my Ozzy website. The following summarizes the new material. (1) All the characters to the first 14 books have now been added (plus Sea Fairies, Little Wizard Stories, and Gnome King). (2) New graphics have been added so that most of the Wizard of Oz book characters now have their own picture in full color. (3) The "Encylopedia Oziana" (i.e., Characters, Places, and Things) pages (almost 900 pages!!!) have been completed hyperlinked to each other. (4) A set of index pages have been added for each of the three sections. This includes indexes for book, Oz region, category, alphabetic, etc. With this much data there are inevitably going to be errors. So please let me know if you find any errors. Please be sure to identify the page where the error is. Also, the possibility exists that I have missed some character, place or thing. So also let me know if you think something is missing. I have tried to structure all the pages for very rapid download. Performance over the wire is a very important issue for most people. I would also be interested in your feedback regarding performance (anything taking too long to load??) and display problems (do the pages display properly for you?). Two notes in this regard: (1) Performance: server response time to your initial page change request is a function of how busy the server is (also the Internet loading). There is not much I can do about this. The performance issue of most concern to me at this time is: once the page starts downloading, does it paint/complete in a reasonable time? (2) My pages are HTML version 2.0 tagged and optimized for Netscape. If you have another browser and are having display problems with my pages, please let me know what browser you are using. Your feedback will be most appreciated. Bill Wright ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 9, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 08:31:30 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy_Digest, 01-08-96 ************************************************************************** I have some questions regarding the comic book(s) THE OZ SQUAD. I saw a review of one appear a while back in The Bugle. At the time, I thought it was a single issue. Is this a series? If so, how many issues have been published? Are they still in print? Thanks, Scott Cummings **************************************************************************** ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 08:41:18 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Oz Site error Found the first error in my Ozzy web info. In some places "Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz" is listed as "Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz". I thought I had fixed this problem, but it slipped by me. It will be corrected in the next update. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 13:28:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Various 1) Glinda was responsible for Ozma being put on the throne, and How the Wizard Came to Oz indicates that she was involved with the Wizard getting to the emerald county and staying in power there. Is there any evidence of her involvement with the ascention of previous rulers of Oz? 2) Concerning the idea of a scale of magic working: Perhaps magical ability cannot be quantified by a single number. There would appear to be several different categories of magic, and proficiency in one would not neccessarily indicate proficiency in others. For example, yookoohoos are excellent in transformations, but weak in other sorts of magic. This would explain how Ozma made a magic picture (as stated in the FF book The Shaggy Man of Oz) so early yet bungled the situation in Ev from not being able to detect enchanted objects. 3) Would someone mind telling me in what book the idea of 4 wicked witches deposing Pastoria first comes up, please? (History known, source requested.) Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 13:16:13 -0500 (EST) From: "M.GESSEL" Subject: REPLY TO: Ozzy_Digest, 01-08-96 I enjoyed your review of the Autumn issue of the Bugle. When I was the editor I always appreciated thoughtful criticism Readers of the Ozzy Digest are invited to contribute news items to the "Oz and Ends" column which I still do. I am interested in tips on any news items coming up in the future or that happened. I can be reached in any of the following ways: Mail: Michael Gessel P.O. Box 748 Arlington, Virginia 22216 Telephone: (703) 532-4261 Internet: mgessel@hr.house.gov Michael Gessel ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 18:30:30 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest OZIADS UPDATE: I've read 21 of the 40 (22 of 41, actaully, since Tik-Tok has two editions), and they are very good. They are not at the level of detail that I wanted for my on-line textual summaries, though, so I will continue with the project. --Tyler ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 18:30:34 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: ozy digest I don't know if this message got posted last time, so here it is again! New stuff comes first, so if you've seen the old stuff before, just ignore it. Other Laumer names: Frogman: Frederick Fraukx. Kangaroo from EMERALD CITY: Mar Supial My favorite merchant: Levimeyerabloch J. Glegg exploded at the end of Kabumpo. Presumably, he is not dust. The official map of Oz attributes a pretty good-sized chunk of land to Ev. I do not believe that the writ of Evardo extends that far. Nobody has written of the time of the four witches taking over. Much of the theorizing comes from the conversation between the Wizard and Ozma in DOROTHY AND THE WIZARD IN OZ. I am only assuming that the four wicked witches overthrew Pastoria and then divided the country up between them because that is the most logical sequence of events. Of course, in Oz, that may not always happen... I am also assuming that the four wicked withces were active before this took place. It is doubtful that four people, who had never done anything before, suddenly rose up in a united action and overthrew the king of the country I doubt that any of the four ruled an entire quadrant for several reasons, but I won't go into them here. Also, there have been many wicked witches besides the four. There was Blinkie (she also had assistants) and Faleero (who also had assistants). Don't forget the witch in ENCHANTED APPLES. The Wogglebug named her as the Wicked Witch of the South, but there may have been many who made this claim and only Singra was THE wicked witch of the south. Mrs. Hokus is named Marygolden and his steed is Stampedro. Somewhere, there is mention of a party for Glinda who is celebrating her 100th anniversary as ruler of the south. This may or may not be a symbolic number and it is NOT the same as the 200-year confab of fairies. More of March Laumers marriages: This has a connection to Daves book. Tattypoo, the "fake" Good Witch of the North, who turned out to be Tattypoo, also has another capacity as Diane, countess of Gillequaine. This is not a hidden identity, it's just the result of some of her heritage from King Gil of Gilkenny. By the way, I WON'T tell you who her mother is, you just wouldn't believe it! :) Anyway, she marries Sir Robert of something-or-other. The problem is, is her name Tattypoo, Orin or Diane? Laumer combined the first letter of each name and calls her TOD, of all things :(. Also, Ozma does not get married (FYI, she married the king of Ev in the Historically Inaccurate SIR HAROLD AND THE NOME KING), but she... I'd better not say. E-mail me privately for the straight dope on her and the Shaggy Man. Barry, 1993E (the evil Oz book) was published by Palo Verde Emeralds, which may or may not exist, based on information from Dave. It was a small press edition and cannot be ILLED. This is a point that Eric has brought up. Many books on the HACC are not generally available, but most do not affect the situation in Oz so the point is moot, but here is a capsule of the story. Note that since this story is only two pages long, and those pages are half the size of a normal book, a summary of it will be very short indeed! :) Dorothy runs into Ozmas throne room where whe is hearing a complaint by the Hoppers and Horners. She tells Ozma that something horrible has happened: Serafin Padilla (WIZ KIDS OF OZ) has written another Oz book! Ozmas internal temperature starts to rise and she finally growls "Oh, ****" People are very upset. The HHoppers and Horners leave and Dorothy is curious why she said that. Ozma replies that that little &%*$# has caused too much trouble already, so she said what she felt. Oh, **** This book is not a necessary to read to understand the further history of Oz, since nothing really happens. By the way, I have found the Wiz Kids books to be as good as any and better than some. The only complaint I have is that some of the later ones spent almost no time in Oz itself. The Ozzy digest for Dec. 1995 has been PKZIPPED into 94K size. I'll mail it to Ken sometime next week. Aaron, what are you surrendering on? My Silly OzBul army has been granted leave, so there is no danger there. If we need to worry if Oz is on another planet, here are my reasons for believing that Oz is in a paralell universe: 1. People from all over have gone to Oz, so it's hard to pin down a precise location on Earth (other than the Pacific Ocean) 2. People usually get there through disasters, which could open a gateway to the Oz Universe. 3. There is ANOTHER magic area, on the other side of "Oz/Earth/Ertha". It is doubtful that there are TWO magical continents floating aroud out there! Since the Scarecrow was alive before being placed on the bean pole, there must have been some kind of consciousness there that was pre-Chang Wang Woe (barring the magic machine). He did act like the Emperor after getting to Silver Island, but before that, he had always been the Scarecrow of Oz, without a hint of his former existence. Even after arriving, he still did not remember. As for Dorothy getting married, how do we know she didn't age like a yo-yo during all those decades? There is only one example of reverse-aging in the series. This is the dubious episode in LOST KING. However, it is very possible that Dorothy aged a little for a while, then asked Ozma to make her into a little girl again, and over and over again... The point is, make her any age that you want, and it won't affect continuity! As for you question of "new" characters, I don't know. Another example is Pastoria. he was mentioned in LAND OF OZ, but did not appear until LOST KING. Is he a Baum character or a Thompson character? Perhaps Chris D. knows. I'll ask him. Ozma and GLinda have both made mistakes in the FF, setting the stage for a POSSIBLE confrontation of some sort. It seems to me that I have heard of an Oz Cookbook, but I am not sure. Maybe the Winkies knew that Dorothy wanted to return home, so they chose the Tin Woodman, as one of the heroes of the day, to be their leader. Glinda did not appear in LURLINE AND THE WHITE RAVENS, but that did not have much about Oz in it, so she may have been there. In one of Snows books, Glinda celebrates her 100th anniversary as the ruler of the South, but this may have been a symbolic number. It is known only that she was there for some years before the Wizard arrived. The four witches overthrew Pastoria and divided the country up between them some years before the arrival of the Wizard, but they were probably active for many years before then and may have actaully been ruling slected areas during the reign of Pastoria. Last but not least, to continue the mutual admiration society :) Dave, don't be so hasty to ditch your "authorial deficit syndrome" defense! This happens all the time in the world. Do we even know the full history of our own country in every detail? Just look at the mystery surrounding the Kennedy assassination. It was only 30 years ago, yet it generates a lot of controversy. Even if you don't believe in all the conspiracy theory, the fact that so much of it exists means that history is often a clouded thing, hard to sort out. We rarely know the clear objective truth of aything, if such a thing can even be said to exist. Events are colored by our emotions and feelings at the time. Once our attitude changes, we forget a lot of the important stuff that happens, and we edit our memory on occassion, chaning things, adding things and deleting things. Here is a classic example: The ancient Egyptians and Hittites fought a war a long, long time ago, although it was NOT in a galaxy far, far away! According to the internal histories of the nations, they both claimed to have won the war. On the surface, it seems like at least one side is lying. You can have a war where everybody loses, but you can't have one where everybody defeats everybody else. Or can you? Let's dig a little deeper. The Egyptians were expanding, and they wanted to be large and strong enough to hold their own with the Hittites. There was a river somewhere, and their goal was to reach that river. If they did that, their goal was reached and they could relax. On the other side, The Hittites were afraid of the Egyptians getting too big. They figured if they could stop them at the river (you guessed it, the same one), then they were saved. The Egyptians reached the river, but did not go beyond it. Both sides achieved their goals, so both claimed that they had won. I'm sure that each felt that the other side had lost. Also, when people record events, they change them a little to match their own feelings and beliefs at the time. I myself am using your method to explain away an Oz book that just came out. It is accurate textually, but the characters act really weird and bizarre. The whole tone of the story is lame, but I figure G.J. just wrote it that way to have fun with it! That method, and the magic machine, are a little heavy-handed, though, and should only be used as a last resort. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 18:56:12 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: New (?) Baum Songs I just picked up the following information regarding Baum songs that I have never seen listed anywhere else. Do any of you have any information which adds to or conflicts with the following? (A) Baum, Frank & Emerson Hough. "The Maid of Athens: A Musical Comedy in Three Acts." Folio, 11ff, unbound sheets, stapled at top (as issued). Chicago: privately printed, 1903. [This synopsis printed for copyright protection, is one of several theatrical projects (all unproduced) devised by Baum & the popular novelist Emerson Hough (The Mississippi Bubble). The text is included in the 1958 Musical Fantasies of L. Frank Baum.] (B) Unproduced musical synopsis, "Prize Silverwings" by Edith Ogden Harrison & Baum, 1903. (1200/1800) Also, does anyone know what the "1958 Musical Fantasies of L. Frank Baum" are? I presume it was something published at that time as a collection, but I have no bibliographic information on it. thanks, Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 21:41:24 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 01-08-96 Eric, et al: The BUGLE quiz is based on what we get from the quizmakers for that year's conventions. Fred, Jim, and I make up other questions. We try hard NOT to repeat stuff that's been asked before, although the same info may indeed be asked for in a different format, sometimes (which I don't particularly like, either.) Yes, usually that quiz is intended to be of low to moderate difficulty. Not everyone is the Ozmaniac that you and I are. I hope there's no real hurry to publish BibBaum. The moment it gets into dealers' hands, the prices will go up and the knowledgeable collector will lose his "edge." But it may be of more help than harm. IWOC plans to run the articles in the BUGLE and hope for member input before publishing the book. Actually, it's not BibBaum that causes me concern. It's BIBLIOGRAPHIA PSEUDONYMIA that worries me. That'll go a long way to kill the "sleepers" out there that we still find cheap 'cause so few know they're Baum. Oh well. I liked Patrick's oddity article, too, but like you, I'd never had a problem with Down Town, having always considered it just one more strange place encountered along the way. Patrick's take on it was interesting. The bit with the houses frustrated me as a kid. I wanted the darn things to be really explained. Aaron, if you write Eloise, be prepared for a polite but firm turndown. She's expressed dismay before that others may try to use her characters. I have a short story I wrote using Fred(the destrier horse) and got her permission to use him, but I also got the very distinct impression that she agreed to it only because we're friends. I know she wasn't happy about it, and I've never showed anyone the story because of that. She's a terrific lady and a professional author. She's very protective of her copyright rights. Rachel is also a terrific gal and a professional writer, but I don't know how protective she is of these things. ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 10, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 10:52:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Rulers of Oz How many rulers of Oz have there been? So far I've only heard of Ozroar, Pastoria, and Ozma mentioned. (The Wizard, the Scarecrow, and Jinjur only ruled the Emerald City.) But from Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz I got the impression that there at least a few more due to the claim about Oz and Ozma being the traditional names for rulers of Oz. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 08:57:47 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 01-09-96 Aaron S. Adelman wrote: >This would explain how Ozma made a magic picture (as stated in the FF book The Shaggy Man of Oz) >so early yet bungled the situation in Ev from not being able to detect enchanted objects. The way I always rationalized why Ozma was not all-seeing and all-knowing given that she had the Magic Picture, is this. The Magic Picture is like a TV set hooked to a virtual realtime broadcast system; it only works if you turn it on and look at it, and you only see what you tune the channel to. There was no "agent" technology bundled with the Magic Picture. Thus, if Ozma wasn't using it at the time the NK's bad deeds were going on, and wasn't specifically looking at the situation in Ev, then it would never come to her attention. >3) Would someone mind telling me in what book the idea of 4 wicked witches deposing Pastoria first >comes up, please? (History known, source requested.) The Marvelous Land of Oz (I think.....) Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 11:26:43 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 01-08-96 From: "W. R. Wright" > Dave Hardenbrook wrote on Friday 05-Jan-96 18:02:26: > >P.P.S. One more question: If Neil's characters are still under copyright, then > >why are his drawings in the public domain? And are Jack Snow's characters > >still under copyright? > Dave, > Copyright law can be a little confusing for older "works" since the laws > have been re-written a number of times in the past 50 years. In general, as > I understand it, Neill's illlustrations in books published before 1920 are > now unquestionably in the public domain. The one's published since then may > or may not be, depending on whether the copyright owner took appropriate > action to extend the copyright based on the revised laws. So you may have > to check on each one independently. To further clarify, from what I've heard (please don't take this as any sort of official pronouncement): Baum and Snow are public domain, Neill, Cosgrove Payes, and the McGraws are still under copyright, and with Thompson it's sporadic, some are and some aren't. Which is which of the latter, I couldn't tell you, but she didn't do a great job of maintaining them all... > > 4) Is Uncle Henry and Aunt Em's last name Gale? > > Doubt it.......since Aunt Em was Dorothy's mother's sister. Where was this, then? (Probably "Dorothy and the Wizard," but I'm too lazy to check right now, although I suspect I will once I'm off the computer...) From: Dave Hardenbrook > From: Eric Gjovaag > >Oh, yeah, and what happened to the end of the [Return to Oz] piece? > >It was just cut off in mid-WORD! Very unusual for the "Bugle" to goof > >up THAT bad. > > Are you referring to page 13, to the left of the photo of the caged Mombi? > Take a look just *above* that picture... :) (It still seems like an abrupt > end to the article though.) (Eric does his Homer Simpson impression): D'OH! Still looks clumsy, though, sticking in two lines of article in amongst all those photo captions, and the article still does end abruptly. > >(I still say "Oz in the News" should be moved to "The Oz Observer" so we > >can get more current news.) > > I agree, it would be more appropriately placed there, IMHO. Problem is, some of the PTB (powers that be, for those scratching your heads) don't want to do that, for the sole reason that "Oz in the News" has ALWAYS been in the "Bugle," and there's no real need to fix it (or so they think...) --Eric "Great, I skip a day, and there are two Digests to digest" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 11:39:29 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 01-09-96 From: cummingss@kenyon.edu >I have some questions regarding the comic book(s) THE OZ SQUAD. I saw a review of one appear a >while back in The Bugle. At the time, I thought it was a single issue. Is this a series? If so, how many >issues have been published? Are they still in print? It is indeed a series, but it's been coming out somewhat sporadically (since issue 4 they've been coming out from another publisher since the "Bugle" piece). I'm not sure how many issues have been published, but at this point it's no more than ten, I think, plus a hilarious "Little Oz Squad" special. As for availability, check at your local comics store, or write to the current publishers, Patchwork Press -- trouble is, I can't find their address! Anyone out there got it handy? From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >1) Glinda was responsible for Ozma being put on the throne, and How the Wizard Came to Oz indicates >that she was involved with the Wizard getting to the emerald county and staying in power there. Is >there any evidence of her involvement with the ascention of previous rulers of Oz? Well, there is the story about her creating the Fountain of Oblivion, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean. (Remember, we know next to nothing about pre-Dorthean Oz history, and what we DO know is neatly summarized in Robert R. Pattrick's "Unexplored Territory in Oz," available from the Oz Club.) >From: "W. R. Wright" >I just picked up the following information regarding Baum songs that I have never seen listed anywhere >else. Do any of you have any information which adds to or conflicts with the following? > >(A) Baum, Frank & Emerson Hough. "The Maid of Athens: A Musical Comedy in Three Acts." Folio, >11ff, unbound sheets, stapled at top (as issued). Chicago: privately printed, 1903. [This synopsis printed >for copyright protection, is one of several theatrical projects (all unproduced) devised by Baum & the >popular novelist Emerson Hough (The Mississippi Bubble). The text is included in the 1958 Musical >Fantasies of L. Frank Baum.] > >(B) Unproduced musical synopsis, "Prize Silverwings" by Edith Ogden Harrison & Baum, 1903. >(1200/1800) These are not songs, but unproduced plays. In fact, I'm not sure either one even got to the scripting stage. >Also, does anyone know what the "1958 Musical Fantasies of L. Frank Baum" are? I presume it was >something published at that time as a collection, but I have no bibliographic information on it. "The Musical Fantasies of L. Frank Baum" was published in 1958, and is a collection of some unproduced play materials and an essay by Dick Martin on Baum's theatrical career. I did include it in my FAQ (comments still welcome!). I doubt it's still available, but I could be wrong. From: Robin Olderman > Eric, et al: >The BUGLE quiz is based on what we get from the quizmakers for that year's conventions. Fred, Jim, >and I make up other questions. We try hard NOT to repeat stuff that's been asked before, although the >same info may indeed be asked for in a different format, sometimes (which I don't particularly like, >either.) Yes, usually that quiz is intended to be of low to moderate difficulty. Not everyone is the >Ozmaniac that you and I are. Gee, maybe I should get to work coming up with quiz questions for the "Buble." (Say, don't I have a quiz to work on for Winkies this year as well? To be honest, I can't remember who won!) --Eric "Problem is, I think I've ASKED all the questions I've ever wanted to ask" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 12:45:01 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy digest This post has 100% new information! (unlike yesterdays stuff) Still more Laumer names: Cheeriobeds father is named "Obadiah". Cheeriobed was originally named after his father, but was a very cheerful boy, so people called him "Cheery Obadiah", which became "Cheery-Obed" which became "Cheeriobed". I have a couple of the OZ SQUAD issues, but have not really read them yet. They look really good, though. I do not remember anything about Glinda being involved with other rulers of Oz. I need to re-read the pertinent books for that. There was a discussion of different types of magic in GLINDA OF OZ, when Ozma and Dorothy were journeying to the area of Flathead Mountain and Skeezer Lake. They do not go into much detail, but Ozma implies that there are fields of specialization in magic and that nobody can do everything. (Thompson partially overrides this during her books when the Magic Belt has seemingly limitless power). Someone asked about the "King of the Munchkins" a few days ago. There were actually TWO references to this person before GIANT HORSE. The first was in OZMA OF OZ, when the returning party was entertained by "The King of the Munchkins" in his palace. Then, in ROAD TO OZ, part of the parade included THe Monarch of the Munchkins, the Emperor of the Winkies, the King of the Quadlings and the Sovereign of the Gilikins. Many people think that the ruler of the Munchkins was Cheeriobed or his father, but I do not think so for these reasons: 1. If Ozma had contact with Cheeriobed or Obadiah, this must have been before the sealing up of Lake Orizon. Wouldn't Ozma have become curious after he had disappeared for a while? "Gee, I haven't heard from the Munchkin King in about twenty years. I wonder what he's up to?" :) 2. In the parade, there is an Emperor of the Winkies, but the Tin Woodman is already marching in another part of the parade. Same for the King of the Quadlings and Glinda. Same for the Sovereign of the Gilikins and the Good Witch of the North. I think that the four mentioned in ROAD were stand-ins, possibly local rulers chosen for the honor to represent the fact that though they were kings and the quadrants had rulers, everybody ultimately was ruled by Ozma. The King of the Munchkins in OZMA may have been another local ruler. Any ruler of a small kingdom could claim with some justification to be the (or a) "King of the (insert quadrant here)". Maybe they were going on a victory tour and stopped in many places on thir roundabout way to the Emerald City. During Ozmas reign, there originally was no ruler of the Munchkin country. I used to wonder about this, but I read GIANT HORSE so long ago, I can't remember my thoughts about this political void. I do not know about The McGraws, Pays or the people running the Snow or Neill estates, but Dorothy Curtiss Maryott is in charge of the Thompson estate and rumor has it that she is not very willing to let others the Thomspon characters. Due to technicalities, the last five Thompson books were not copyrighted, so major characters from there are in the public domain. ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 11, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 13:30:43 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest The short answer is that we don't know how many rulers of Oz there have een. We know that Pastoria was Ozmas father and that Ozroar was his father. In LURLINE AND THE WHITE RAVENS OF OZ, Lurline enchants the land and tells a king named Ozroar that he is to be the ruler of the newly proclaimed Land of "Oz", named after "OZ"roar himself. originally, I thought that this incident ocurred two centuries before Dorothys arrival and thus there were only three rulers of Oz. The only problem was Ozma mentioning her mortal heritage in DOROTHY AND THE WIZARD IN OZ being named Oz or Ozma. I reconcciled this by theorizing that before Lurline arrived, Ozroars family had ruled a large area that was also called Oz. This was the reason for the family name. I based this on the fact that at the end of THE YELLOW KNIGHT OF OZ, Ozma arrives at the last minute and Scraps announces who she is. Despite the fact that these people had been enchanted for 500 years, they immediately knew who Ozma was and that whe was the ruler of the Land of Oz. I no longer believe this, and here's why: A member of the Oz research group noticed that in YELLOW KNIGHT, The Samandrans had been in a state of non-aging for 700 years. They could not have acheived this unless Lurline had enchanted the Land back then. My current theory is that Lurline enchanted the land around the year 1200, and named Ozroar the king of this new land. Generations of Ozroars descendants came and went as they expanded the borders of the old kingdom of Morrow to what is now the Land of Oz, and as Lurlines enchantment slowly took effect. The family name "OZ" was passed down through the ages, with Oz and Ozma being the most common variants. The Ozroar who is Pastorias father and is mentioned in THE BLUE EMPEROR OF OZ is NOT the same Ozroar that was met by Lurline. Robert Pattricks essays (especially the one about the ancient history of Oz) are excellent and that is what started my interest in Pre-Dorothean history. I used to call it Pre-Ozian history or Ozian pre-history, but these are not an accurate description of that time. He uses evidence from all over the FF and puts in a few assumptions of his own. Everything that he says in this essay is not necessarily correct, however. He mentioned that possibly 150 years had elapsed between Ozmas birth and her gaining the throne. This does not seem very likely anymore with our revelations. Also to give another an example, I do not agree with his assumption that there was no magic at all prior to Lurlines enchantment, although I will not give my reasons now. Pattrick, of course, only uses the FF in his research so a big question is how much non-FF material do you accept? I still consider the FF to be the baseline for all Oz history, so any outside source must not contradict what we know to be true from these books. In a related story, some other stuff is running a little behind, so my textual summaries will have to wait a little bit. Pattrick wrote a total of four essays covering a number of Ozzy topics. They are available from the Club in a standard version and a deluxe edition containing annotated notes from somebody (I forgot who). I have both editions and I consider them to be excellent reference tools. Bill made an excellent point about the Magic Picture. It will only show something if the user specifically asks for it. It will not search for important stuff and say "Hey, Ozma, you'd better check this out!" Of course, Glinda has the Book of Records, but even this can only give a very condensed summary of events that IT thinks is important, which may not always be what WE think is important. I have no clue at all about illustrations being copyrighted. I really must talk to Chris and tap his copyright knowledge, which is extensive. In EMERALD CITY, Uncle Henry is thinking about Dorothys mother, but I forgot what Baum said. In DOROTHY AND THE WIZARD IN OZ, Zeb mentioned "Your Uncle Henrys wifes sister", implying that Dorothy is related to them (and him) through Uncle Henry, though it is unknown if Henry is the brother of Dorothys mother or father. I may be able to find the address of Patchwork Press. If I can, I'll post it tomorrow. --Tyler ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 18:11:25 -0500 From: michael f burns Subject: ozzy digest material For everyone with questions on the Oz Squad comic books: it is a (so far) 8 issue series with 2 special issues not part of the regular series' current storyline. The first story arc was the one that upset some fans by having Tik-Tok go on a murderous rampage on Earth after his heretofore unwritten about Internal Morality Spring ran down. The central thesis of the series appears so far to be: what would have happened to Oz if somehow someone tied to Hitler's Germany found out how to get there and back again, involving Oz and our heroes in WWII. As a direct consequence of this action, Ozma, Glinda, and the rest had to learn to cope with increased access from an increasingly dangerous outside world. Some of the events hinted at in flashbacks: Nazi concentration camps in the Munchkin Country, the destruction of the Patchwork Girl and its effect on the Scarecrow, the death of Toto while protecting Dorothy. In this not so alternate Oz, Ozma and her diplomats are currently negotiating the repatriation of the citizens of the China Country who were pillaged during the war. A new witch of the East plots to sell Smith & Tinker's blueprints for an unstoppable army of Tik-Tok men to the highest bidder. Recent issues have Glinda calling a special council of the major witches of Oz: Rebecca, the eastern witch, a half-human, half-machine Mombi who somehow was able to restore part of her body after her dunking and is the current witch of the west, Glinda herself, and Glinda's nomination to replace the deceased Endora(of Bewitched)as the northern witch, Dorothy. Dorothy has aged to late teens early twenties in this series. This issue (#5) explains the purpose of the so-called compass witches as being responsible for the protection of the magickal laws of the Oz universe as well as the expansion of these same laws into other areas. The witches are free to act as they wish (good or evil) as long as they do not violate the trust inherent in their position as a compass witch. Also there is a party celebrating Dorothy's 100th birthday with a very special appearance by Santa Claus, who doesn't take kindly to the reporter's and camera crews from Earth. Smith & Tinker give her a mechanical Toto which causes her to flashback to the original death at the hands of Goebbels. Imagine one of Hitler's generals with the Nome King's Magic Belt. They also unveil their latest invention: a time train powered by the Magic Belt. The train derails in the timestream, sending the Scarecrow to the home of Leonardo da Vinci and an encounter with the vampire Joan of Arc, sending Dorothy and Ozma to pre-Dorothean Oz at the time of the witches' rebellion and eventually stranding Dorothy in late 19th century America, where her only chance of getting back to Oz is to hitch a ride on a certain cyclone... I could not possibly include all the details and interesting bits(like who had Gayelette's Magic Cap before the Witch of the West and how it was used) But the recent issues feature a new illustrator who is definitely in the Eric Shanower school and has done his homework very well. There is some strong language, no sex, lots of action and adventure and some really neat, well thought out things as well. I like this and the other Oz series, although this one is definitely the more interesting one, IMO. It can be bought at specialty comic shops, but being from a small independent press comes out with the same frequency as the Bugle. And yes, I too am working on an Oz book. And no, I'm not going to talk about it. Except that it heavily features Ev, the Deadly Desert, and friends both old and new. Mike Burns ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 00:03:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-10-96 1) If only the last 5 Thompson books are now public domain, then how come the Red Jinn, who was introduced much earlier in the Thompson books, is apparently written about by someone else (there's a The Red Jinn in Oz in the HACC)? Someone please explain this, because the Red Jinn has already been written into The Woozy of Oz (with his participation in the Evian mafia revealed). If possible, we'd like to throw J. Glegg as well (J. being interpreted as Jol, making him a pre-Ozmatic Oogaboonian who was forced to leave the tiny kingdom because he grew glegg, which is a vegetable combining the tastes of brocolli, cauliflower, and liver in one unappetizing-looking package). At least we don't have to worry about getting rid of Plumly the Four-Horned Cow... 2) The Laumerian explination of Cheeriobed's name is interesting, though it would have been more effective had Cheeriobed's original name been Obed. (Yes, there is such a name. It's mentioned in the book of Ruth near the end, and it's the name of King David's grandfather. I'm a rabbinical student, so I know these types of things.) 3) Just a goofy thought on how the Scarecrow could have been Chang Wang Woe without retroactive magic: Ghost: Hey, Marvin, wake up! Marvin: What is it? Ghost: I am the ghost of Chang Wang-wo. It is written that whatever is put first upon that beanpole in your cornfield, I shall enter therein and animate it. Now I'm getting sick of being a ghost, so in a few minutes I'm going to enter into the head of that scarecrow you and Max have been working on for all these years, so you'd better finish that scarecrow tomorrow and put it on the beanpole, or else! Marvin: Or else what? Ghost: Or else you will be attacked by an army of silly ozbuls! Marvin: Not silly ozbuls! Those things are worse than crows! Ghost: I knew you'd see it my way. I know Roger Baum probably wouldn't appreciate this, but the principle still works. The only problem is how come the Scarecrow never regained his memory of his past life. Maybe I'll write that into The Woozy of Oz too... Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 12, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Thursday 11-Jan-96 11:10:42 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Oz Rendezvous '96 I received the info. today on the Oz Rendezvous event in Las Vegas. It will be two nights of dinner at the Oz Buffet Restaurant in Las Vegas at 8PM.Special Guests will be Karl Slover and Roger Baum. Rooms are $85 per night. It looks to me like the emphasis (if not the entire focus) will be on the MGM movie, and as it is dinner followed by drinks, it doesn't look like it will be much like an Ozzy Convention. Still, for anyone who loves the movie and would just like to socialize with others, it might be a worthwhile event. If anyone wants more detailed info, please E-mail me. -- Dave ============================================================================= Thursday 11-Jan-96 16:58:19 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Locasta knows assembly, Mombi knows COBOL, Ozma knows Pascal, the Wizard knows C++, and Glinda knows 'em all! :) I've listened for a few days to the comments about my "Magic Scale", and I think I have a theory -- To continue Aaron's "Magical Machine = a computer operating system" analogy, maybe different types of magic--Fairy Magic, Krumbic Magic, Yookoohoo Magic, etc. are like different programming languages. And just as different computer languages are best for different things (COBOL for business, FORTRAN for engineering, etc.), maybe different "languages of magic" have different strengths and weaknesses. And some Magic, like what the Wizard and Glinda know, would be both more general-purpose and more powerful, like C/C++. And my "Magic of Everything" that Locasta knows about, would be like magical assembly language, or the direct "jump table" to the "Magic Machine"'s operating system. Just an idea. -- Dave ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 12:42:17 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest The Red Jinn was a major character in THE SILVER PRINCESS OF OZ, so he is no longer copyrighted. I'm not sure why the law was written that way, but it also includes other major characters from those stories who were "created" earlier, such as Kabumpo. I do not know if this extends to non-major characters. In chapter 6 of WISHING HORSE, there was a parade that featured just about every Thompson character ever used. Their status is unknown at this time. We don't know anything about the history of Jol Glegg, so go wild! I must get my hands on the rest of the OZ SQUAD, they sound cool! NON-OZ related stuff: Someone pointed me to some really cool utilities, but I can't get to them! Does anybody know how to download binary files from a USENET group? Look for these titles soon! Hopefully, just kidding! :) BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD IN OZ TONYA HARDING IN OZ RUSH LIMBAUGH IN OZ NEWT GINGRICH IN OZ TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES IN OZ ACE VENTURA IN OZ BUZZ LIGHTYEAR IN OZ BART SIMPSON IN OZ MADONNA IN OZ OPRAH WINFREY IN OZ AL BUNDY IN OZ --Tyler ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 13, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 11:50:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Consistency check on Plumly the Four-Horned Cow's Claims This is going to sound extremely bizarre, but please bear with me. A few days ago a wrote a new interpretation of the relationship between Mombi and Ozma into The Woozy of Oz, this one related by Plumly the Four-Horned Cow (who was originally mentioned early in The Marvelous Land of Oz), and I want to double-check that it is consistent from Ozma's point of view (though not neccessarily Mombi's or Pastoria's). Plumly claims that Mombi at the end of Pastoria's reign was Pastoria's wife (STAY CALM! STAY CALM!), and that she wanted political power, but Pastoria wanted her to stay out of government. When Mombi and her cousins Gigemma, Bastinda, and Singra decided to overthrow Pastoria and split the country among themselves, Mombi didn't have the heart to destroy her husband and adopted daughter, so she enchanted them relatively weakly. Pastoria lost his memory and became a caribou, and when the shape-changing spell wore off, he took up residence in Blankenburg and went into business as a tailor. Ozma was transformed into a turtle, who took up residence in the palace gardens. After the Wizard came to power in the emerald county, the transformation of Ozma broke down, and the Wizard, eager to hide the child to avoid being deposed for being an imposter, brought her to Mombi. Mombi, who by this time had been deposed by Tattypoo, was encouraged by Bastinda and Gigemma to destroy Ozma, but Mombi refused to do so and instead transformed the child into a boy to disguise her identity. (What sort of mother would kill her own daughter?) The fact that Mombi was Ozma's mother is also a reasonable explanation to the question of why Mombi would go through the trouble of raising Ozma/Tippetarius in the first place, especially considering that Tip was not exactly the best behaved child on the planet. It must be noted that Plumly's claim is probably not the truth, but that in order to make it believeable there are elements of truth mixed in with falsehoods. One thing that Plumly definitely does tell the truth about is that Ozma has been hiding her real name since she regained her natural form, and Plumly does get the name right and reasons for hiding the name right, 'Ozma' being properly a title and not a name, down to the fact that even the Royal Historians of Oz never caught word of it. See Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz, where it is mentioned that all the previous rulers of Oz have been named 'Oz' and 'Ozma', which makes these names sound suspicously like titles. (No, I am NOT going to leak Ozma's real name or the reasons she had for hiding it.) Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 17:19:06 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-10-96 Sorry I haven't been able to answer to any Digests for a while, I've been busy. But now, I'M BACK! From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > How many rulers of Oz have there been? So far I've only heard of Ozroar, > Pastoria, and Ozma mentioned. (The Wizard, the Scarecrow, and Jinjur > only ruled the Emerald City.) But from Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz I > got the impression that there at least a few more due to the claim about > Oz and Ozma being the traditional names for rulers of Oz. There's been nothing definite given about Ozian rulers before Ozroar (and remember, even that name is apocryphal, although probably generally accepted now). From: Tyler Jones > I do not know about The McGraws, Pays or the people running the Snow or > Neill estates, but Dorothy Curtiss Maryott is in charge of the Thompson > estate and rumor has it that she is not very willing to let others the > Thomspon characters. Due to technicalities, the last five Thompson books > were not copyrighted, so major characters from there are in the public > domain. The Neill estate is administered by his three daughters. --Eric ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 17:31:41 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-12-96 From: Dave Hardenbrook > I received the info. today on the Oz Rendezvous event in Las Vegas. It will > be two nights of dinner at the Oz Buffet Restaurant in Las Vegas at 8PM. > Special Guests will be Karl Slover and Roger Baum. Rooms are $85 per night. > > It looks to me like the emphasis (if not the entire focus) will be on the > MGM movie, and as it is dinner followed by drinks, it doesn't look like it > will be much like an Ozzy Convention. This is a surprise? Remember, it's MGM running the hotel in Vegas, not the Club or the Baum estate. (At least including Roger Baum acknowledges that there ARE books.) > Still, for anyone who loves the movie and would just like to socialize with > others, it might be a worthwhile event. If anyone wants more detailed info, > please E-mail me. Just so long as nobody mistakes it for an Oogaboo Rendezvous, which we have here in the Northwest... From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Locasta knows assembly, Mombi knows COBOL, Ozma knows Pascal, > the Wizard knows C++, and Glinda knows 'em all! :) You have too much spare time on your hands, don't you? ;) > I must get my hands on the rest of the OZ SQUAD, they sound cool! Well, if you don't expect a strictly loyal rewrite of the books, they are! > Look for these titles soon! Hopefully, just kidding! :) > > TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES IN OZ Don't laugh, this is another one I suggested to Chris once! At least he didn't write it! > MADONNA IN OZ Oh Lord... And one I came up with that you didn't include: MTV BEAMS ITS SIGNAL TWENTY-FOUR HOURS A DAY TO OZ. Gee, they all make my possible germ of an idea for "Aunt Jane's Nieces in Oz" sound tame! --Eric ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 20:53:23 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: LV Oz Convention Regarding the following info from Dave, I was recently at the MGM Grand and was told by the management there that Roger Baum comes to the hotel 3 to 4 times a year to host a signing party of his Silly Ozbuls books. I wonder if this Oz Convention event is one of those signing sessions??? Bill W. ------- start quoted text-------- Date: Thursday 11-Jan-96 11:10:42 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Oz Rendezvous '96 I received the info. today on the Oz Rendezvous event in Las Vegas. It will be two nights of dinner at the Oz Buffet Restaurant in Las Vegas at 8PM. Special Guests will be Karl Slover and Roger Baum. Rooms are $85 per night. It looks to me like the emphasis (if not the entire focus) will be on the MGM movie, and as it is dinner followed by drinks, it doesn't look like it will be much like an Ozzy Convention. Still, for anyone who loves the movie and would just like to socialize with others, it might be a worthwhile event. If anyone wants more detailed info, please E-mail me. -- Dave ------- end quoted text-------- ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 23:20:19 -0800 (PST) From: Jim VanderNoot Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-07-96 Someone recently inquired as to the whereabouts of Marcus Mebes. IWOC recently received a note from Elke Mebes in Baton Rouge, LA, requesting that we remove her son from our membership as he passed away six months ago. She did not give her son's name. Could this be Marcus? ------------------------------------- Jim Vander Noot E-mail: jvandern@sam.neosoft.com Date: 1/12/96 Time: 11:20:19 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- ============================================================================= Date: Friday 12-Jan-96 23:11:45 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Marcus Mebes and More Oz Books that will probably never be :) From: Jim VanderNoot >IWOC recently received a note from Elke Mebes in Baton Rouge, LA, requesting >that we remove her son from our membership as he passed away six months ago. >She did not give her son's name. Could this be Marcus? Baton Rouge is the right city, but Marcus wrote me only a week or so ago welcoming me to the Enya Fan Club. So Marcus who wrote the Oz books is alive and well...unless there is a Marcus Mebes (who runs the Enya Club) and a Marcus Mebes Jr. (who wrote the Oz books and is now deceased), but this does not seem likely to me, since one of his books is called _Sail Away to Oz_ (Enya connection) and the Enya Fan Club letterhead contains many fine drawinga, presumably by the same Marcus who illustrated his own and other Oz books. In any case, I have written the Marcus of the Enya Club asking if he is also the Ozzy Marcus, and hopefullly he will write me back and clear up the issue for us. From: Eric Gjovaag >> TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES IN OZ >Don't laugh, this is another one I suggested to Chris once! At least he >didn't write it! >> MADONNA IN OZ >Oh Lord... >And one I came up with that you didn't include: >MTV BEAMS ITS SIGNAL TWENTY-FOUR HOURS A DAY TO OZ. >Gee, they all make my possible germ of an idea for "Aunt Jane's Nieces in >Oz" sound tame! Here's some I came up with... :) WILLY WONKA IN OZ MARY POPPINS IN OZ ALADDIN IN OZ BASIL FAWLTY IN OZ COLUMBO IN OZ RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY IN OZ JO AND ROSE IN OZ (Of L.M. Alcott's _Little Women_ & _8 Cousins_ respectively) H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N IN OZ (Leo Rosten's Language-twisting hero) :) :) :) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 14, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 10:46:11 -0800 (PST) From: Jim VanderNoot Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-13-96 OK, Dave, I'll bite: Roseanne in Oz Jessica Fletcher OF Oz Eric-you should relate to this one: Dr. Who in Oz - or perhaps Daleks in Oz and who could forget Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure in Oz Jim ------------------------------------ Jim Vander Noot E-mail: jvandern@sam.neosoft.com Date: 1/13/96 Time: 10:46:11 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- ============================================================================= Date: Saturday 13-Jan-96 10:06:49 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: More Oz book "suggestions" Jim wrote: >Roseanne in Oz To screech "Over the Rainbow" while holding herself? ( To think that satirist Mark Russell called her "The Judy Garland of Our Time"!!! What's the Outside World coming to??? :) ) >Jessica Fletcher OF Oz *OF* Oz??? You mean you'd have her MOVE there and render Oz's murder-rate as high as Cabot Cove??? :) >Dr. Who in Oz - or perhaps Daleks in Oz Or how about: KIRK AND SPOCK IN OZ KLINGONS IN OZ HAL 9000 IN OZ R2-D2 AND C-3PO IN OZ ZAPHOD BEEBLEBROX IN OZ RIMMER AND LISTER IN OZ I'd better stop before it gets ridiculous (*BEFORE*???)... :) -- Dave ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 10:38:44 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Hanff Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-13-96 Dave, I've noticed several references over the last several weeks to "Plumly." Apparently these are references to Ruth Plumly Thompson. Plumly was simply Miss Thompson's middle name (a family name), not part of her surname. She was known personally as Ruth, formally as Miss Thompson, and I think references to her in written discourse are clearer if she's referred to as Thompson. I'm enjoying my review of your Ozzy Digests. Peter Edward Hanff (who would find it odd to find himself referred to as Edward rather than Hanff in articles about his works) ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 15, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:18:43 -0800 From: glassman@ix.netcom.com (glassman ) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 12-27-95 From: Tyler Jones >>There is something similar to an oz-guide out there already. In the tradition >>of Jack Snow, Peter B. Clarke has published "Who's Who, What's What and Where's >>Where in Oz". Based of the FF, it lists just about person, place and thing in >>and around Oz. I forgot his address, but I will post it tomorrow. > >I saw it *once* in the Books of Wonder catalog, but not lately. (Is BoW still >offering it, Peter G.?) > >From: Eric Gjovaag Unfortunately, the book is now out-of-print and the author/publisher has told us he does not wish to reprint it himself. He has offered it to us and we are considering it. As far as calling "dibs" on characters and trying to reconcile all the different Oz stories written thus far and still to be written - I say "Why?" After all, I think it's fun to see different people's ideas and interpretations of various ozzy people, places, histories and magical intstruments. So long as they don't contradict Baum too outrageously (who IMHO is the only "real" authority on Oz), I'm of a live and let live mind. That has certainly been our attitude in publishing books at The Emerald City Press. - Peter Glassman Books of Wonder ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 19:27:21 -0800 From: glassman@ix.netcom.com (glassman ) Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 12-28-95 (addendum) You wrote: >By the way, have any of the characters introduced by Neill reappeared in >any other book? And do the books that are put in the HACC between Neill's >first and second books (The Tired Tailor of Oz, The Green Goblins of Oz, >and The Dinamonster of Oz) show the same sort of imagination-run-wild >that Neill's books do? (Sorry, the only hint I'm giving away on this is >that the Neill Anti-Fan Club will be pleased with what I do to Neill's >characters.) > >Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman >adelman@yu1.yu.edu As the publisher of the four John R. Neill Oz books, I feel I should warn you that any and all characters created by John R. Neill for those four books are still under copyright and any use by another author without the permission of the publisher and the author's estate would be a serious violation of copyright. And just in case you think that's a minor matter, the judgements awarded for copyright infringement usually start at $100,000! So be carefuly with what you write, more than half the Oz books are still under copyright. And, no, before anyone asks, I cannot advise anyone on the legal status of the Oz books. That would be tantamount to practicing law without a license. If you want to be safe, consult a copyright lawyer. - Peter Glassman Books of Wonder ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 20:08:21 -0800 From: glassman@ix.netcom.com (glassman ) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-04-96 You wrote: From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >>By the way, is there anyone out there who actually likes Neill's FF books? Eric Gjovaag replies: >Although I realize this isn't the same Oz that Baum and Thompson wrote about, I >still like the inventiveness and ideas Neill puts into his books. Not only do many people like Neill's four Oz books, but some actually consider them their favorites. We've received many letters from Oz fans thanking us for bringing them back in print. I think it would be well for all you folks who keep attacking Neill's books that the underlying spirit of Oz is tolerance and accepting people differences - both physically and of opinion! - Peter Glassman Books of Wonder ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 20:32:27 -0800 From: glassman@ix.netcom.com (glassman ) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-06-96 From: Dave Hardenbrook >Question: If Neil's characters are still under copyright, then why are his >drawings in the public domain? You are making an erroneous assumption when you say that "his drawings are in the public domain." Not all of them are. Some of the books Neill illustrated have gone into the public domain, some haven't. Certainly all of his illustrations for the books he wrote are still under copyright. And as the publisher of these books, I am contractually bound to vigorously oppose any violation of these copyrights. So please, don't violate anyone's copyright (and, consequently, the law)! Talk to a good copyright lawyer before you make any assumptions about what is and isn't protected by copyright. - Peter Glassman Books of Wonder ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 20:37:30 -0800 From: glassman@ix.netcom.com (glassman ) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-07-96 >While we're on the topic of possibly needing to contact previous Oz >authors to avoid copyright infringement, what are the addresses (snail >mail or electronic) for Cosgrove and McGraw & McGraw? It is not the author(s) of these books you need to contact, but the publisher. When an author signs a publishing contract, they are assigning their rights to that publisher and they must approve of any use of the copyrighted material they have contracted for with the author. I would add that it is also customary for a publisher to consult with their authors before allowing any use such as you may be contemplating. But the proper way to go about requesting permission is through the publisher, because even with the author's permission, you may still be violating copyright if the publisher hasn't given his/her permission. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 00:05:29 -0800 (PST) From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-14-96 By way of introduction...I'm an animator and writer. I left Los Angeles and about 4 years at Disney behind me. No more Virtual Reality for me. It has taken the last year for my wife Genevieve and me to get situated here in the Silicon Valley. Gen is doing multimedia design, and I'm learning as fast as I can about the games industry; my first project is an arcade game for Acclaim's new Coin-Op division. This does not allow us as much time as we'd like to work on the Ozcot web page.There will be some long overdue revisions by the end of this month. I'll be creating links to the pages for the Wizard of Oz Club, and the Piglet Press. I wish I had the depth of Ozian expertise and time it took to make those pages. I am very much impressed with the hypertext index that is starting to unfold at ~piglet, and I can't start my day right without reading this Digest. At my first Winkie Convention (last year's) I met a lot of you for the first time and found out what winning the Oz quiz entails. I'll try to make next year's quiz a challenging one. I had a great time, and it really is fun meeting new friends and putting faces on people with whom you've previously only exchanged e-text. I very much enjoyed Patrick Maund's presentation at the conference concerning Ozian cartography. The best moment for me during his talk, (he was the very embodiment of Professor Nowitall) was when Eric Shanower, in a vehemently whispered assertion, insisted that a placement of the Winkie Country on the left is not right. I think that there is something to that opinion, and I'll try to support what is apparently a minority view. Why is everybody so certain that Professor Wogglebug's rendering was wrong? I suspect that the map from the old Bug is accurate, for these hastily contrived reasons. Oz has at least a spiritual affinity with Wonderland. If one were to hold Tik-Tok's endpapers up to a looking glass, the compass directions look correct, west to the left and east to the right. (I've never been able to find a north/south reversing mirror, mine is the normal variety.) Is it not possible that Professor Wogglebug accurately represented an Ozian compass? If the map was reversed like a magic lantern slide gone in wrong, the error was compounded or at least still uncorrected on page 75 of The Lost Princess of Oz, which has the country of the Winkies on the right side of the map. The current vogue of defining Winkies West and Left seems to me born of an effort to keep Oz somewhere in the South Pacific, congruent with our Terra. Pippi Longstocking has not reported encountering it in her travels. Couldn't Oz be surrounded by the deadly desert, various fairylands and the Nonestic Ocean on a magical sister planet that rotates counter to our own (making the sun rise in the Munchkin Country and Set on the Winkies) and nearly adjacent to our Outside World, some times more nearly than others? That could explain why visitors alight in random locations in Oz, since parts of the two spheres are closer at varying times and conditions. It would also be close enough for transmissions via wireless. I guess now I'd better be able to support that somehow. Here goes. When Peter Glassman's Books of Wonder was in Beverly Hills, I bought a lot of Oziana there. Besides my beautiful first of (my favorite) Ozma of Oz, I got a Sunday page pulled from the Pittsburgh Dispatch of August 28, 1904. It contains a Proclamation Extraordinary, from Princess Ozma, with her signature and seal. It says: To MR. L. FRANK BAUM, By Royal Appointment Historian to the Land of Oz, At the request of your Highly Esteemed Writeness, I have issued a Decree permitting my beloved subjects, the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, the Woggle-Bug and Jack Pumpkinhead, to visit the United States of America, in order that they may accumulate great store of Wisdom and Experience in your most prosaic Country. They are permitted to take with them the Animated Saw-Horse, and their journey will be made in the Flying Gump. They should arrive upon your Earth Planet within a brief space of Time, and I trust you will accord them a warm Welcome and watch carefully over their Interests. Given under my Hand and Seal at my Royal Palace in the Emerald City in the Ninth Division of the Second Year of my Reign. Ozma [her signature!] Reigning Princess of the Fairyland of Oz (Successor to the Wizard of Oz) [The seal is a red serrated circular affair containing regal lip prints with the word "seal" adjacent.] Among the illustrations is one of L Frank Baum seated (presumably not to scale) upon a 5 foot in diameter globe, preparing to extend a spyglass heavenward toward the Queer Visitors. Judging by the length of this, I'd better save the Frank Drake Project Ozma Radio Telescope story for the next posting. -- Ken Cope Ones & Zeroes SurReal Estate ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 12:43:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Various 1) What's this about the name 'Plumly' being refered to several times in the past few weeks. As far as I remember, when used alone, 'Plumly' has only been used to refer to Mombi's four-horned cow, and I should know, as I was the one that did that. (The name seemed appropriate for a Gillikin cow, it appeased the Royal Literary Critic of Oz, and I couldn't think of a better name.) 2) What do we know of the ancient Ozzish language? References to it pop up every once in a while, but so far I can only remember a grand total of three words and one suffix in Old Ozzish being mentioned: jemkiph = 'notepad, datebook, diary' (from Queen Ann in Oz) -ma = feminine suffix? (seems likely since Ozma is the feminine form of Oz) nuffet = 'midmorning', when the inhabitants of the Emerald City usually take a break and have a cup of green tea and a cookie (from The Forbidden Fountain of Oz) oz = 'great, powerful' I also suspect that soforth is the name of some sort of crop formerly grown in Oogaboo, which would explain the traditional surname of the ruling family thereof, though I am unaware of anyone explaining what a soforth is in any Oz book. Does anyone out there have any more data to contribute on Old Ozzish? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 12:23:08 -0500 From: Sissor Subject: SILLY OZ BOOK NAMES.... in reference to all the silly names we've been coming up with for oz books. Mork from Ork in OZ and I won't go on... Eric Henao Sissor henao@blkbox.com Houston, TX ##################################################################### "One hundred percent of the shots you don't take don`t go in." - hockey star Wayne Gretzky ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 15:58:14 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-14-96 From: Jim VanderNoot > Eric-you should relate to this one: > > Dr. Who in Oz - or perhaps Daleks in Oz Hey, don't knock it, if I ever get around to finishing that story I started back in college... (But no Daleks. Instead, the Nome King teams up with the Master!) > and who could forget Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure in Oz Oy... From: Peter Hanff > I've noticed several references over the last several weeks to "Plumly." > Apparently these are references to Ruth Plumly Thompson. Plumly was > simply Miss Thompson's middle name (a family name), not part of her > surname. She was known personally as Ruth, formally as Miss Thompson, and > I think references to her in written discourse are clearer if she's > referred to as Thompson. > > Peter Edward Hanff (who would find it odd to find himself referred to as > Edward rather than Hanff in articles about his works) Um, weren't you guys all referring to Mombi's four-horned cow as Plumly? In which case, I gotta ask, how did THAT name get started? --Eric "No, I souldn't be referred to as Paul, just Your Highness" Gjovaag ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 16, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 09:22:46 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-15-96 From: glassman@ix.netcom.com (glassman ) >From: Tyler Jones >>>There is something similar to an oz-guide out there already. In the tradition >>>of Jack Snow, Peter B. Clarke has published "Who's Who, What's What and Where's >>>Where in Oz". Based of the FF, it lists just about person, place and thing in >>>and around Oz. I forgot his address, but I will post it tomorrow. >> >>I saw it *once* in the Books of Wonder catalog, but not lately. (Is BoW still >>offering it, Peter G.?) >> >>From: Eric Gjovaag Didn't say much, did I? >Unfortunately, the book is now out-of-print and the author/publisher has >told us he does not wish to reprint it himself. He has offered it to us >and we are considering it. Go for it! A new edition, with proper typesetting and illustrations and large initial letters and... >As far as calling "dibs" on characters and trying to reconcile all the >different Oz stories written thus far and still to be written - I say "Why?" I've been saying that for weeks now... >After all, I think it's fun to see different people's ideas and interpretations >of various ozzy people, places, histories and magical intstruments. > >So long as they don't contradict Baum too outrageously (who IMHO is the only >"real" authority on Oz), I'm of a live and let live mind. That has certainly >been our attitude in publishing books at The Emerald City Press. Yes. You published "Queen Ann," after all... >I think it would be well for all you folks who keep attacking Neill's books >that the underlying spirit of Oz is tolerance and accepting people >differences - both physically and of opinion! An especially appropriate thing to remember on this day (that I'm writing this), January 15. The birthday of a great man and one of my personal heroes, who said much the same, and about bigger and more important issues than Oz books! If we can't even agree to disagree about Oz, what hope does the world have on agreeing about what REALLY counts??? From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) >By way of introduction...I'm an animator and writer. I left Los Angeles and >about 4 years at Disney behind me. No more Virtual Reality for me. It has >taken the last year for my wife Genevieve and me to get situated here in the >Silicon Valley. Gen is doing multimedia design, and I'm learning as fast as I >can about the games industry; my first project is an arcade game for Acclaim's >new Coin-Op division. "Oz Adventure," right? >I very much enjoyed Patrick Maund's presentation at the conference concerning >Ozian cartography. The best moment for me during his talk, (he was the very >embodiment of Professor Nowitall) was when Eric Shanower, in a vehemently >whispered assertion, insisted that a placement of the Winkie Country on the >left is not right. I think that there is something to that opinion, and I'll >try to support what is apparently a minority view. >Why is everybody so certain that Professor Wogglebug's rendering was wrong? I >suspect that the map from the old Bug is accurate, for these hastily contrived >reasons. Oz has at least a spiritual affinity with Wonderland. If one were to >hold Tik-Tok's endpapers up to a looking glass, the compass directions look >correct, west to the left and east to the right. (I've never been able to find >a north/south reversing mirror, mine is the normal variety.) Is it not possible >that Professor Wogglebug accurately represented an Ozian compass? If the map >was reversed like a magic lantern slide gone in wrong, the error was compounded >or at least still uncorrected on page 75 of The Lost Princess of Oz, which has >the country of the Winkies on the right side of the map. Well, you're right, it WAS a magic lantern slide gone wrong. The first map of Oz was a slide from the old "Fairylogue and Radio Plays" back in 1908. The slide is reproduced in "The Annotated Wizard of Oz" (a book that should be updated and reprinted in 2000 for the book's centenniel -- are you listening, Peter G.?). Michael Patrick Hearn speculated that when Baum (or whoever it was) drew up the map for the "Tik-Tok" endpapers in 1914, he looked at the slide backwards, and thus reversed both the Winkie and Munchkin countries and the W and E on the compass. Some editor at Reilly and Britton probably changed the E and W later without realizing that he was compounding the mistake, and all subsequent maps were taken from the "corrected" version until the Club's maps came out. I get the impression that it wasn't that big of a deal to Baum, and Thompson couldn't care less. Myself, I prefer to go with the Club's map, but if someone writes a book that has Munchkins west and Winkies east, it makes no never mind to me. (March Laumer did explain the east-west reversal in "The Magic Mirror of Oz," or something like that.) >The current vogue of >defining Winkies West and Left seems to me born of an effort to keep Oz some- >where in the South Pacific, congruent with our Terra. HUH??? I don't see the connection... > Pippi Longstocking has > not reported encountering it in her travels. Now THAT would be an interesting book... >Couldn't Oz be surrounded by the >deadly desert, various fairylands and the Nonestic Ocean on a magical sister >planet that rotates counter to our own (making the sun rise in the Munchkin >Country and Set on the Winkies) and nearly adjacent to our Outside World, some >times more nearly than others? That could explain why visitors alight in random >locations in Oz, since parts of the two spheres are closer at varying times and >conditions. It would also be close enough for transmissions via wireless. Could be. Personally, I've decided not to worry about it... From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >2) What do we know of the ancient Ozzish language? References to it pop >up every once in a while, but so far I can only remember a grand total of >three words and one suffix in Old Ozzish being mentioned: > >jemkiph = 'notepad, datebook, diary' (from Queen Ann in Oz) Oh, yeah, like that's an authoritative source. (I should know, I wrote half the thing!) > -ma = feminine suffix? (seems likely since Ozma is the feminine form of Oz) > >nuffet = 'midmorning', when the inhabitants of the Emerald City usually >take a break and have a cup of green tea and a cookie (from The Forbidden >Fountain of Oz) > >oz = 'great, powerful' > >I also suspect that soforth is the name of some sort of crop formerly >grown in Oogaboo, which would explain the traditional surname of the >ruling family thereof, though I am unaware of anyone explaining what a >soforth is in any Oz book. > >Does anyone out there have any more data to contribute on Old Ozzish? Yes. YOU do! Exercise that part of your brain called an "imagination," and you'll be able to find out all the Old Ozzish you need. From: Sissor >in reference to all the silly names we've been coming up with for oz books. > >Mork from Ork in OZ > >and I won't go on... Thank you! --Eric "I usually cut my .sig out because there's so much in the Digest already and I don't want to clutter it up, but in light of the holiday and what we were talking about earlier, it's in this time" Gjovaag "Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'" --The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 15:28:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-15-96 Peter Glassman, why are you attacking people for things which have already been settled? I removed Jenny Jump from The Woozy of Oz, and I do not intend to use any of Neill's characters in the future with the possible exception of a blatant parody of Neill's FF books, which as I understand the situation would not be subject to the same restrictions as using Neill's characters. (Someone stop me from writing that parody if I'm wrong in that belief.) Everyone has undibsed everything they had dibsed. As for trying to reconcile apparent or possibly real contradictions, why not? This in itself can be a source of new stories, and aren't telling stories what literature is all about? Please don't flame. I have already surrendered to Tyler's army of silly ozbuls. Now, which publisher(s) should one contact if one wanted to use characters from copyrighted Thompson books? I was under the impression that the company which originally published them was out of business. (Analogous questions for the other post-Baum FF authors.) Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 19:36:00 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: How the Four-Horned Cow Got It's Name Since there seems to be a minor flurry about Aaron using the name Plumly (which he is using to refer to the four-horned cow briefly mentioned in _The Land of Oz_), so I better come forth and confess how this got started. While Thompson's books are often imaginative and well written, they frequently do give me reason to complain, which I have done privately to Aaron, and that is over the issue of prejudice. Whereas Baum usually kept any ugly opinions he had to himself, Thompson instead has the unfortunate tendency to incorporate material into her work which is racist, sexist, weightist, and prejudiced against the unattractive. For example, the Silver Islanders and Mudgers draw on stereotypes of Chinese and Arabs respectively, the Red Jinn keeps black slaves and is not censured for this, the Chimney Villians do a groanworthy turn on the slogan "Black is Beautiful," Dorothy, who is virtually a rock in Baum's books, is more panicky in Thompson's, slights against Foleera and the King of Pompadore because of attractiveness and weight respectively, and so forth. Given the time period that Thompson lived in, it's not surprising she would have such opinions (indeed, it would have been remarkable if she had not been so), and though her inclusion of such stuff is intellectually understandable, it does do much to ruin the enjoyment of otherwise good books. In any case, as you are all probably aware, Aaron does get a little mean at times (sorry, clone) about authors he does not the best opinions of, as evidenced by suggesting that the Neillian characters be turned into baddies in his book. Given that this option was cut off because Neill's books are still under copyright, in revamping the four-horned cow as a replacement baddie, he used my grumblings about Thompson as a cue to go after her instead. (Like Bossie wouldn't be a decent name...) Since everyone is chipping in their silly names for Oz books, may I suggest: The Disaster Area of Oz Mr. Toad's Wild Ride in Oz Brainsuckers in Oz Dan Quayle in Oz Ronald Reagan in Oz Oliver Stone and the CIA in Oz ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 16:32:50 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Genealogy On 9 Jan, Eric "I'll believe it when I see it" Gjovaag wrote: >> > 4) Is Uncle Henry and Aunt Em's last name Gale? > >> Doubt it.......since Aunt Em was Dorothy's mother's >>sister. >Where was this, then? (Probably "Dorothy and the Wizard," >but I'm too lazy to check right now, although I suspect I will once >I'm off the computer...) The following explains the reasoning of why Dorothy Gale's mother was Aunt Em's sister. From: Ozma of Oz, Chapter 1 Uncle Henry, "...he traveled far away to Australia to visit his cousins...." comment #1: This means that Uncle Henry has blood relatives in Australia. (How they got there is never revealed.) From: Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz, Chapter 1 Zeb says to Dorothy, "Uncle Bill Hugson married your Uncle Henry's wife's sister; so we must be second cousins." comment #2: Zeb is nephew of Bill Hugson. He is no blood relation to Mrs. Hugson, but it is common to refer to distant "relatives" as cousins even though there is no direct blood relationship. (Also, young people are typically less precise in this than older folks.) comment #3: Aunt Em and Mrs. Hugson are sisters. comment #4: Uncle Henry is most probably not a Hugson. (Reasoning: Zeb statement explains the relationship. If there were a closer relationship, e.g., Uncle Henry was a Hugson, then Zeb's explanation would not be necessary.) From: Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz, Chapter 13 Dorothy says, "I was born on a farm in Kansas...." comment #5: Mr. & Mrs. Gale were Kansas farmers, like Uncle Henry and Aunt Em. From: Patchwork Girl of Oz, Chapter 16 "...Uncle Henry and Aunt Em -- the only relatives she [Dorothy] had in the world.--...." comment #6: This means that Uncle Henry's relatives in Australia are not her relatives, therefore the blood relation must be with Aunt Em. (It is unlikely that all the relatives in Australia have passed away!!!) comment #7: There is an inference that Mrs. Bill Hugson is no longer with this world. There is no mention of her in Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz. I am most interested in other passages from Baum's writings that could shed light on the familial relationships. If you are aware of other relevant passages not listed above, please let me know. Bill W. ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 17, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 22:31:39 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-15-96 I vote for FURRY-FOOTED SHORT PEOPLE VISIT MIDDLE OZ. Or maybe WINKIE CONVENTIONEERS WANDER IN OZ. Hey, Peter G., go get 'em, tiger! I wasn't sure who owned Eloise's and Rachel's copyrights. All I know is that it would be discourteous to use their characters, ever if it were legal. Thanks for clearing up some of the copyright confusion. VanderNoot, m'luv, if I ever doubted it before now (from your list of titles) I KNOW you're warped beyond repair. But I don't want you "repaired." I like you the weird way you are. Ken Cope...Fred is expressing concern about whether you're gonna make the Winkie Quiz in the next little while. He'd like it done in the next few weeks, if possible. Possible? Lemme know. While we're at it, have you got time to illustrate a story for OZIANA for me? I think I'll plague you about it where my pleas won't take up space for everyone else. David, where are the $85/night rooms in Vegas? I'm confused. I know it won't be a convention, but I'm getting hungry for an up-close dose of Oz. ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 10:43:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-16-96, Barry's thing on the Four-Horned Cow Actually I decided against calling the cow Bossie in order to purposefully contradict Onyx Madden. Onyx Madden in his The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz covers the period in Ozma's life soon after she was restored to her natural form and became ruler of Oz, and documents Ozma's transformation into a perfect person. As this book is historicall inaccurate (it has Tititihoochoo give Ozma the Magic Picture rather than Ozma making it herself, as stated in The Shaggy Man of Oz), and as I do not consider Ozma to be a perfect person, to the point where in The Woozy of Oz I'm actually writing about flaws of hers that no one ever mentioned before, I have decided to ignore Madden's book for the purposes of consistency checking. Hence I am not only ignoring Madden's precedent for calling the Four-Horned Cow Bossie but in fact making the Cow much more than a dumb animal who exists just to give milk as Madden had her. I think I'll end here before I leak something about what Plumly does that I want to keep a surprise. But before I forget, my own silly Oz book name: Barney in Oz: In which Prince Zingle of Mo visits the Outside World and discovers that the Purple Dragon has escaped his predicament and now has his own show on public television... Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 11:49:16 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Request for Assistance Several weeks ago I posted a note about a girl at the University of Angers in France who is trying to write her thesis on the subject of Oz. Unfortunately, she is unable to find Oz source books in the French library system, and is asking for assistance in trying to find a way to get access to the books. I have continued communication with her, and have potentially found a way to make the key source books available to her. There is an American Library in Angers, and I have sent the staff there a note to see if they would accept loans from individuals. If so, then it would be possible for us to send copies to that library for her use, and then get them back from the library when the research is completed. So my question to the Ozzy Group is: If this can be set up with the library in Angers, would you be willing to loan a book to the library for short period of time? The books in question are listed at URL: http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/books8.htm Please let me know as soon as possible if you can support this Ozzy research, or can offer some other suggestions. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Tuesday 16-Jan-96 17:09:41 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Marcus Mebes Hello everyone... Well, I received a letter today from Bruce Phillips who now runs the Enya Fan Club. There was only *ONE* Marcus Mebes--both Oz author and Enya-phile--and he did pass away a few months ago, I'm very sorry to say. (I realize now that the letter I received from the Enya Club is a form letter that they send to all new Club members, and not actually from Marcus.) I'm very sorry to hear that a fellow Ozite is gone, and I hope he's now in a better (i.e. Ozzy-er) world than this! -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 18, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 18:54:27 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-16-96 From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >Peter Glassman, why are you attacking people for things which have alread been settled? I removed Jenny Jump from >The Woozy of Oz, and I do not intend to use any of Neill's characters in the future with the possible exception of a >blatant parody of Neill's FF books, which as I understand the situation would not be subject to the same restrictions as >using Neill's characters. (Someone stop me from writing that parody if I'm wrong in that belief.) Everyone has undibsed >everything they had dibsed. As for trying to reconcile apparent or possibly real contradictions, why not? This in itself >can be a source of new stories, and aren't telling stories what literature is all about? Please don't flame. I have already >surrendered to Tyler's army of silly ozbuls. Aaron, don't be so paranoid! Peter is not personally attacking you, he's merely adding to the debate that's already gone on before. Be thankful that he's here, he's the most authoritative authority available, since he has to deal with these issues all the time. Since he is so busy, he can't read his mail every day like some of us, and so he may have missed some of the later replies to your earlier questions. From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN >Since there seems to be a minor flurry about Aaron using the name Plumly (which he is using to refer to the four-horned >cow briefly mentioned in _The Land of Oz_), so I better come forth and confess how this got started. While >Thompson's books are often imaginative and well written, they frequently do give me reason to complain, which I have >done privately to Aaron, and that is over the issue of prejudice. Whereas Baum usually kept any ugly opinions he had >to himself, Thompson instead has the unfortunate tendency to incorporate material into her work which is racist, sexist, >weightist, and prejudiced against the unattractive. Then you OBVIOUSLY haven't read all of Baum's work, have you? Read "The Woggle-Bug Book" lately? Not the heavily expurgated version included in "The Third Book of Oz," but the incredibly insensitive, racist original. What about the racism in "Dot and Tot of Merryland" in the Valley of the Dolls (again, eliminated in the latest edition)? The Tottenhots in "Patchwork Girl"? The overt racism in Baum's pseudonymous books for teenagers? And Glinda and Ozma, the good characters, are described as being more beautiful than anything, whereas Mombi, the Wicked Witch of the West, the Nome King, Ugu the Shoemaker, and just about every other villain is described as unattractive. If you're going to paint Thompson as prejudiced, apply the same brush to Baum, because he can be just as guilty! (For more details, the "Bugle" had an enlightening article entitled "Ethnic Stereotypes in Baum's Books for Children" by Francis B. Randall in the Spring 1984 issue, and the subsequent commentary from Michael Patrick Hearn and Randall in the Winter 1984 issue.) >For example, the Silver Islanders and Mudgers draw on stereotypes of Chinese and Arabs respectively, the Red Jinn >keeps black slaves and is not censured for this, the Chimney Villians do a groanworthy turn on the slogan "Black is >Beautiful,"... ...a phrase which didn't come into popular use until over thirty years AFTER the publication of "Jack Pumpkinhead"... > Dorothy, who is virtually a rock in Baum's books, is more panicky in Thompson's Examples of both, please? >slights against Foleera and the King of Pompadore because of attractiveness and weight respectively, and so forth. >Given the time period that Thompson lived in, it's not surprising she would have such opinions (indeed, it would have >been remarkable if she had not been so), and though her inclusion of such stuff is intellectually understandable, it does >do much to ruin the enjoyment of otherwise good books. In your opinion. Some of us can enjoy the forest while still examining the trees. Right now (yes, this will be related), I'm happy to have a long-term job in a great class full of smart kids, and I'm reading Edward Eager's "Half Magic" to them. Because of the times he wrote in (the 1950's) and about (the 1920's), some mild sexism crept in. When it pops up, we all snort at it, exposing it for what it is, yet I read on, and the students, both boys and girls, are enjoying the story despite the minor sexist comments. True, I wouldn't read anything with more overt examples to a class, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't read "Royal Book," "Cowardly Lion," or some of Thompson's other books, for the reasons you've cited -- or if I did, I'd go through and make some minor adjustments. But I CAN read other books, recognize prejudices as a sign of the times they were written in, and still enjoy them. Am I the only subscriber to this newsletter who is becoming increasingly disturbed at the direction some of the discussions are headed? This is not "Was," where the ugly underbelly of Oz was split open and laid out in the sun for all to see, whether they wanted to or not. Whatever happened to Oz fans who read the Oz books because they enjoyed them so much, and didn't necessarily want to read little tiny imperfections into everything and tear the whole concept down? Do any Oz fans reading this actually LIKE Oz as is (for the most part)? From: "W. R. Wright" > On 9 Jan, Eric "I'll believe it when I see it" Gjovaag wrote: > > >> > 4) Is Uncle Henry and Aunt Em's last name Gale? > > > >> Doubt it.......since Aunt Em was Dorothy's mother's > >>sister. > > >Where was this, then? (Probably "Dorothy and the Wizard," > >but I'm too lazy to check right now, although I suspect I will once > >I'm off the computer...) > > The following explains the reasoning of why Dorothy Gale's > mother was Aunt Em's sister. > > From: Ozma of Oz, Chapter 1 > Uncle Henry, "...he traveled far away to Australia to visit > his cousins...." > comment #1: This means that Uncle Henry has blood relatives > in Australia. (How they got there is never revealed.) > > From: Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz, Chapter 1 > Zeb says to Dorothy, "Uncle Bill Hugson married your Uncle > Henry's wife's sister; so we must be second cousins." > comment #2: Zeb is nephew of Bill Hugson. He is no blood > relation to Mrs. Hugson, but it is common to refer to > distant "relatives" as cousins even though there is no > direct blood relationship. (Also, young people are typically less > precise in this than older folks.) > comment #3: Aunt Em and Mrs. Hugson are sisters. > comment #4: Uncle Henry is most probably not a Hugson. > (Reasoning: Zeb statement explains the relationship. > If there were a closer relationship, e.g., Uncle Henry was > a Hugson, then Zeb's explanation would not be necessary.) > > From: Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz, Chapter 13 > Dorothy says, "I was born on a farm in Kansas...." > comment #5: Mr. & Mrs. Gale were Kansas farmers, like Uncle > Henry and Aunt Em. Probably. But can this be the ONLY explanation? > From: Patchwork Girl of Oz, Chapter 16 > "...Uncle Henry and Aunt Em -- the only relatives she > [Dorothy] had in the world.--...." > comment #6: This means that Uncle Henry's relatives in > Australia are not her relatives, therefore the blood > relation must be with Aunt Em. (It is unlikely that all the > relatives in Australia have passed away!!!) Baum has contradicted himself before. Maybe Aunt Em and Uncle Henry are the only CLOSE relatives Dorothy has... > comment #7: There is an inference that Mrs. Bill Hugson is > no longer with this world. There is no mention of her in > Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz. No, but we also saw extremely little of Uncle Bill... > I am most interested in other passages from Baum's writings that could shed > light on the familial relationships. If you are aware of other relevant > passages not listed above, please let me know. There was a "Bugle" article laying all this out sometime in the 60's. Unfortunately I don't have it! At any rate, I think I'd prefer to see this drawn out in a family tree or something... --Eric Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:24:57 -0800 (PST) From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-16-96 I should make it clear that all my projects relating to Oz have nothing to do with any company I have worked for or am working for, or anybody with whom I have ever worked, except for my best friend, Gen. Although, Eric, if you see some kid selecting a character in an arcade fighting game and you hear some Darth Vader style voice booming, "YOU'VE SELECTED DOROTHY, WITCH KILLER!" (some babe with burnt-broom nunchuks and ruby stilettos...) you'll know I had absolutely nothing to do with it. (g) Hey, I love the club's maps, I have one of them framed on my wall, I hadn't given it a thought until (the other) Eric made such a big deal about it. I immediately thought of it as the Wogglebug having messed up, and Eric was having none of it. The Tik-Tok endpapers, to him were THE maps, and I had just about the same reaction at the time as you did to my posting. But I've become a lot more interested in it now that one of my projects is the creation of a digital map of Oz, completely dimensional, with detail to a degree limited by my time and resources. Apparently, it won't upset anybody if I focus on a map of Baum's Oz, it'll be hard enough to do justice to it, without attempting to incorporate everybody's. In starting with a slightly different assumption than that taken by James E. Haff and interested parties, that is, what if the Winkies were on the right as published, but still on the West side of Oz, I ended up somewhere I didn't expect to go. I never was satisfied with the idea of Oz being ON Terra, because of Frank Drake's SETI Project Ozma, named "for the queen of the imaginary land of Oz--a place very far away, difficult to reach, and populated by exotic beings." It's real place, just on the other side of a Magic Lantern slide, tuned in through the magic of pen and ink, vacuum tubes, moving picture machines and microchips. -- Ken Cope Ones & Zeroes SurReal Estate ahclem@netcom.com http://www.ozcot.com ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 07:03:16 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-17-96 From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >Actually I decided against calling the cow Bossie in order to purposefully contradict Onyx Madden. Onyx Madden in his >The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz covers the period in Ozma's life soon after she was restored to her natural form and >became ruler of Oz, and documents Ozma's transformation into a perfect person. As this book is historically inaccurate >(it has Tititihoochoo give Ozma the Magic Picture rather than Ozma making it herself, as stated in The Shaggy Man of >Oz), and as I do not consider Ozma to be a perfect person, to the point where in The Woozy of Oz I'm actually writing >about flaws of hers that no one ever mentioned before, I have decided to ignore Madden's book for the purposes of >consistency checking. Hence I am not only ignoring Madden's precedent for calling the Four-Horned Cow Bossie but in >fact making the Cow much more than a dumb animal who exists just to give milk as Madden had her. I think I'll end >here before I leak something about what Plumly does that I want to keep a surprise. But don't you get it? We've been trying to tell you that all this time -- this is YOUR book, you can say whatever you want! So long as there are no major contradictions to the FF, most Oz fans aren't going to care whether or not you contradict someone else's book. OTOH, to PURPOSEFULLY write something just to contradict another author because you disagree with him or her strikes me as being incredibly petty, vindictive, and cowardly. I know Onyx Madden, and many others reading the Digest do, too, and we can all vouch for his love and respect of Oz. So to see him attacked like this is very hurtful. He set out to write an Oz book he wanted to write, you're setting out to write the Oz book you want to write, and that should be that. Those of us who try to collect and read as many books as we can are perfectly capable of discerning between the two books and appreciating them on their own merits, whether they are in agreement or not. --Eric ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 09:27:40 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: l'Oz Vegas Robin asked: >David, where are the $85/night rooms in Vegas? I'm confused. I know it won't be a convention, but I'm getting hungry >for an up-close dose of Oz. I was just there last week and was able to stay at the MGM Grand (immersed in Ozzy things) for all up price of $74 a nite. They are in a slack spell right now and prices are down. They have an 800 #. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 18:34:38 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest From : Tyler Jones It with deep sadness that I learn of the death of Marcus Mebes, Oz author and Oz illustrator. He was the first Oz fan that I ever met (outside of family) and he was a good friend. I will miss him greatly. His last creation, THE HAUNTED CASTLE OF OZ, is almost camera-ready and will be published soon. It seems I opened up a Pandoras box with my silly Oz titles. Hopefully, it has run out of steam. Actually, it hasn't. look two paragraphs down. I would like to go to Vegas for the MGM thing, but time and money prohibit it right now. I hope everyone who does go has a great time. Hint: To have fun cheaply, get about $10.00 of nickels and play nickel video poker. You won't win anything, but you will have hours of fun. Aaron, you aren't by any chance trying to turn Oz into a soap opera, are you? Maybe it's time for MELROSE PLACE IN OZ or 90210 IN OZ. I would love to see Valerie and Brooke join forces with the Nome King and... never mind. I am not sure of all the complexities of copyright law. It is better (and safer) to simply avoid copyrighted characters. Besides, it's more fun to create your own Oz heroes! If we just wait patiently, all the FF will eventually go into the public domain. Ken Cope, if you give your e-mail address, I'll download the Ozzy Digest for December of 1995. It is 296K of text, and has been zipped down to 94K. Apparantly, people are still criticizing the HACC and my efforts at reconciliation and consistency. We (Chris and myself, the builders of the HACC) believe that a reasonable amount of consistency is a good thing. It makes the Land of Oz a more believable place (in our imaginations, of course, although one can never be sure...) and by building on the successes of others, new books are made better, because each book supports and is supported by other books. Take Daves book for example. Using my insights and comments (and those of others as well), Dave has made his story much better. It is still his story, he has written (or will write, I'm not sure) it the way he wants to, yet it melds into the (relatively) continuous whole that is Oz. Our efforts give the Oz books a unified (somewhat) sense of Ozian history, yet also opens the way for great amounts of creativity and inventiveness, which is what began Oz in the first place. I use a lot of qulaifications here and the reason is that I believe that total consistency, with all Oz books written the same, in not an attainable goal and is not a desireable one. I have never, EVER, attempted to reach this goal. The reason is that I believe that the most important element of Oz books is simply writing a good story that other people will enjoy reading. I have ALWAYS believed this. Internal and external consistency is just a small element of the total mix that makes for a good story. I also disagree that our efforts to reconcile contradictions in and out of the FF stifles peoples creativity. I believe that our efforts increase peoples imaginitive writings. By working together, we can create something far better than everybody writing in a vacuum, which would create a (no pun intended, Scraps) patchwork of tales with no relation to each other and no foundation, with the possible exception of the FF. Almost everything in this world is the result of a cooperative effort, created by people working together, combining strengths and talents. "No man is an island". By combining our knowledge and ideas, not only do we make better Oz stories, we also make more Oz stories, as people write stories to explain things. I have already mentioned that March Laumer writes stories to explain apparant contradictions in the FF. If there was no desire at consistency, March Laumers stories would remain unwritten, which would be a bad thing. There are some good points out there about the feasibility of this. The fact is that many titles in the FF were limited press runs, so that very few people can ever read them. Also, it is difficult to share information on this kind of scale. The answer is the internet! We have, right now, a medium that can disperse info anywhere at any time. As soon as I can get my textaul summaries, they will be available to anybody. Until then, we can inform each other of any issues. The purpose of the HACC is not to exclude books. The HACC was built in the hopes of people writing even more Oz books, espcially to explain seeming contradictions. The purpose of the HACC is not to force poeple to write Oz books any one way. The purpose of the HACC is to play a small part in building and fostering a sense of community among Oz enthusiasts everywhere. We believe that achieving some level of consistency is a small but vital ingredient in this effort. To date, our intolerance and hard-line attitude against anybody writing Oz books that are not exactly like we would want has resulted in a grand total of ZERO books being rejected for inclusion in the HACC because they contradicted some other non-FF book. The only books that we have rejected are those that are in direct and major contradiction with the FF itself. In fact they are in direct contradiction with the first six L. Frank Baum books. This number totals six of 217, or just under 3%, not counting comic books and stories published in magazines such as OZIANA. The bottom line was, is and will be (as I have said before) that the most important thing is to write good, fun Oz stories and that people should be able to write them any way they want to. However, I believe that with just a little bit of effort by authors, illustrators and publishers, we can reach a modest level of continuity and make the Oz books even better! I firmly believe that a good balance between fun and consistency can be reached and that such a balance is a good thing. In closing, we have never, are not now, and will not EVER EVER EVER force our view of Oz or anybody elses view of Oz on anybody, nor will we ever "require" anybody to conform in every way to every Oz book that has ever been written. OK, maybe Chris does in the area of sex and violence, but you can't have everything! --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 01:46:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Laumer's tinkering with the status quo and the HACC 1) My coauthor and I have been getting into some pretty strange discussions on how to tamper with the status quo in Oz (we're writing the conclusion of the series; we don't have to worry about people writing 'later' stuff that doesn't reflect such changes), and I decided to ask a few questions since he does tamper with the status quo. Nalrodi the Mind-Reader: I predict that someone is going to tell you not to worry about what Laumer wrote and to just write whatever you feel like. That's nice, Nalrodi, but I don't care to needlessly multiply contradictions, and in any case I've adopted Laumer's name for the Woozy already, so I might as well go in for the rest of his 'augmentations' as well. a) Do Dorothy and her husband (can't remember his name off the top of my head) have any children? b) What subject does Dorothy have a doctorate in? c) Who else does Laumer have age, get married, or have children? Especially interested in knowing about Trot, Betsy Bobbin, Button-Bright, Ojo, Ozma, Glinda, Bob Up, and Robin Brown. (From what Tyler tells me, Ozma getting married seems rather unlikely, but I'd better make sure about it.) d) What does the Woozy do in Laumer's books and in what context is that dreadful name of his (Gwomokolotolint) mentioned? e) Does Laumer ever mention anyone in Oz ever getting divorced? (Definitely a major bone of contention between me and the Royal Literary Critic of Oz whether such an unfortunate event ever happens in Oz. The Critic actually theorizes Jinjur and her husband (does Laumer ever name him?) separating.) f) Are the Nine Tiny Piglets ever given individual names? g) Does anything else happen which would have reprocussions in post-Laumerian Oz? 2) There was some discussion a while ago about making improvements to the HACC, and after some thought I'd like to suggest some more things to put in: a) Availability of books through interlibrary loan. (Considering the size of the series, if I had to buy an Oz book just to read it, I would not have gotten through even the FF yet. I presume that there are other people out there who are likewise not yet rich who would appreciate such information.) b) Laumer's books, except maybe that one with the alternate origin of the Love Magnet unless Tyler comes up with a method of reconcilling it with The Shaggy Man of Oz. c) Historical importance and changes in status quo data. I know of five people who subscribe to this digest who are writing or have written Oz books which impact on the early history of Oz (e.g., my The Woozy of Oz gives information on the past of the Woozy, Ozma, and Mombi), and four which change the status quo (e.g., Eric Gjovaag's Queen Ann in Oz introduces a fleet of birds whose job it is to carry messages). Such information would be definitely useful, though I'm not sure if it belongs in the HACC or not. If such information doesn't get in when the HACC is next revised, don't be surprised if I start asking people to 'nominate' books for a list of historically important/status quo changing list. (Come to think of it, that would give me a reason to make a home page...) d) More apostrophes. 3) I know this may sound silly, but is Merry Go Round male or female? I simply can't remember. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Wednesday 17-Jan-96 22:45:52 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Tyler wrote: >Take Daves book for example. Using my insights and comments (and those of others as well), Dave has made his >story much better. It is still his story, he has written (or will write, I'm not sure) it the way he wants to, yet it melds into >the (relatively) continuous whole that is Oz. I'm gratified that used my book as an example! :) The book is finished, and I'm very grateful to you for all your help! -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 19, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 11:31:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Pessim Do we have any indication of how long Pessim was stuck on his island before Trot, Cap'n Bill, and the Ork came there? I've got this really neat story idea that would end with Pessim being abandoned on his island, but the catch is that I want events in my story to happen at the same time as those in The Patchwork Girl of Oz. According to the HACC, that would put Pessim's pre-Trot stay on his island at less than 2 years. Somehow that seems a little short... Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 20:57:24 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-18-96 Aaron (I think it was Aaron): Merry Go Round is female. The nine tiny piglets are given names in OZIANA...I think in '93's edition. Aaron (definitely Aaron): Please reread Eric's comments to you. His tone is more moderate than mine might have been (I tend to get witchy when aggravated) and I suspect he's speaking for several of us in the DIGEST. I'm sure you don't intend to be hurtful, but you do criticize others' writings rather sharply. That sharpness is uncomfortable to read. "Piglet": The discussion of Dorothy's relationship to the Gales is in an article by James E. Haff in an old BUGLE. I think it was in the '70s, but I can't check at the moment since I can't find my BUGLE INDEX and don't feel much like going through ten years' worth of BUGLES to find it. If you'd like, I'll look it up for you later. Thanks for the info about the MGM Grand. Surprisingly (amazingly!) cheap. Eric: Don't forget one of Baum's most racist gaffs in P.GIRL. Victor Columbia Edison plays what was then known as (ugh) a "coon" record, complete with dialect and racist commentary. I was startled to note upon skimming lately that even the BOBBSEY TWINS series used black dialect. I hadn't noticed it as a kid, which is something surprising since I wouldn't have accepted it as standard Negro speech back in the '50s (when I read 'em.) I knew better. MARY POPPINS had a story with black dialect (the one about the magic compass..."Bad Tuesday," I think). It's been rewritten. The black tribal folk in it are now, I think, anthropomorphized animals. Emma Speed Sampson, the gal who continued the MARY JANE series for Baum, had her own very popular MISS MINERVA series. Absolutely loaded with dialect and stereotypes. Even Shakespeare was sexist. Check out Portia's speech to Brutus in J.Caesar. Something like "I grant that I am only a woman, but...." and she goes on to justify herself by reminding him how well-connected she is to men (Cato's daughter, the great Brutus' wife....) Lady Macbeth wants the spirits to "unsex" her. Lots of examples of such in the bard's work. Lots. Thompson and Baum reflected their times. Sad, but true. ============================================================================= Date: Friday 19-Jan-96 01:02:39 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Baum and Thompson's racism From: Robin Olderman >Eric: Don't forget one of Baum's most racist gaffs in P.GIRL. Victor >Columbia Edison plays what was then known as (ugh) a "coon" record, >complete with dialect and racist commentary ... >Thompson and Baum reflected their times. Sad, but true. I'm afraid that's to be expected. I did hear from someone that in the new BoW edition of _Patchwork Girl_, some of the text as been altered to remove any racist or other derogatory passages. Does anyone know if this is true? I loathe the degradation of any sex, religion, or race! -- Yet at the same time I feel uncomfortable about altering an author's existing text. It's a bit of an inner conflict for me. -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 20, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 06:50:23 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-19-96 From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Do we have any indication of how long Pessim was stuck on his island > before Trot, Cap'n Bill, and the Ork came there? I've got this really > neat story idea that would end with Pessim being abandoned on his island, > but the catch is that I want events in my story to happen at the same > time as those in The Patchwork Girl of Oz. According to the HACC, that > would put Pessim's pre-Trot stay on his island at less than 2 years. > Somehow that seems a little short... "The Scarecrow of Oz" is readily available from many bookstores and libraries, and also the International Wizard of Oz Club. Go out and buy or borrow a copy and read the chapters that take place on Pessim's island, and come to your own conclusion! From: Robin Olderman > Aaron (I think it was Aaron): > > Merry Go Round is female. The nine tiny piglets are given names in > OZIANA...I think in '93's edition. I once gave a quiz on "Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz" out here in Oogaboo, and one of the questions was "What are the names of the Nine Tiny Piglet (make 'em up!)?" We got some HILARIOUS answers, and everyone got an easy nine points... > "Piglet": The discussion of Dorothy's relationship to the Gales is in an > article by James E. Haff in an old BUGLE. I think it was in the '70s, > but I can't check at the moment since I can't find my BUGLE INDEX and > don't feel much like going through ten years' worth of BUGLES to find > it. If you'd like, I'll look it up for you later. Well, I've got MY "Bugle" index here, let me run and check... (Eric dashes off to his Oz collection in the other room.) Here we go. "Dorothy's Family" by James Haff, Christmas 1973 issue, pages 14-15. > Eric: Don't forget one of Baum's most racist gaffs in P.GIRL. Victor > Columbia Edison plays what was then known as (ugh) a "coon" record, > complete with dialect and racist commentary. Um, I did mention "Patchwork Girl" (but not the reference), didn't I? > I was startled to note upon skimming lately that even the BOBBSEY TWINS > series used black dialect. I hadn't noticed it as a kid, which is > something surprising since I wouldn't have accepted it as standard Negro > speech back in the '50s (when I read 'em.) I knew better. > > MARY POPPINS had a story with black dialect (the one about the magic > compass..."Bad Tuesday," I think). It's been rewritten. The black tribal > folk in it are now, I think, anthropomorphized animals. > > Emma Speed Sampson, the gal who continued the MARY JANE series for Baum, > had her own very popular MISS MINERVA series. Absolutely loaded with > dialect and stereotypes. Er, it was the "Mary Louise" series, Robin. > Even Shakespeare was sexist. Check out Portia's speech to Brutus in > J.Caesar. Something like "I grant that I am only a woman, but...." and > she goes on to justify herself by reminding him how well-connected she is > to men (Cato's daughter, the great Brutus' wife....) Lady Macbeth wants > the spirits to "unsex" her. Lots of examples of such in the bard's work. > Lots. I think Jugh Lofting is another example. In the earlier editions of "Doctor Dolittle" he has an African prince who wants to be white. This was later cleaned up and changed in later editions, although I think BOTH versions are available. Fascinating discussion in rec.arts.books.childrens there a while ago about this... From: Dave Hardenbrook > I'm afraid that's to be expected. I did hear from someone that in the new > BoW edition of _Patchwork Girl_, some of the text as been altered to remove > any racist or other derogatory passages. Does anyone know if this is true? > I loathe the degradation of any sex, religion, or race! -- Yet at the same > time I feel uncomfortable about altering an author's existing text. It's > a bit of an inner conflict for me. I feel the same way. (Yes, it was changed for the new BoW edition. "My Coal Black Lulu" became "My Cross-Eyed Lulu.") While I certainly understand why the change was made, and it is quite minor, I do worry about how this may effect other books (not just Oz books),and that we'll have much larger parts of books rewritten, perhaps to the extent that plot and characterization will be altered, by some well-meaning editor, to the point that it's a whole new book. "1984" may be coming later than we think. --Eric ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 13:40:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Invisible Giants in Oz Robin, sorry about the harsh language. I will endeavor to work towards keeping my internal supply of mean applied only to my writing (so far Ozma, Glinda, the Woozy, Bastinda, the Scarecrow, Scraps, the Phonograph, Captain Fyter, Kiki Aru, Gigemma, the guard for Dorothy's old house, Plumly, and all the mortals in Oz have undergone mental or physical pain, and Mombi's slated to be the next victim) and not to actual human beings. Back to consistency checking: Are there any reported incidents of giants turning invisible? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 10:44:20 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Weblinks I now have a functioning "weblinks" page at my website. Any recommendations for links that should be added will be welcomed. See URL: http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/weblinks.htm Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 10:41:38 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Dorothy's Family Robin wrote: >"Piglet": The discussion of Dorothy's relationship to the Gales is in an >article by James E. Haff in an old BUGLE. I think it was in the '70s, >but I can't check at the moment since I can't find my BUGLE INDEX and >don't feel much like going through ten years' worth of BUGLES to find >it. If you'd like, I'll look it up for you later. I have the index, and am aware of the article you mention. However, I just don't have access to all those Bugle back issues. To bad they all are not available in an electronic file somewhere. I heard last year that someone had started a project to put them all on cdrom. Does anyone know what the status of this is? Meanwhile, the Bugle articles are: 73:17:3:14-15 and 86:30:3:16. If anyone has access to these and can make them available online (or fax to 206-313-0231), thanks ever so much. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 16:37:23 -0500 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 1/19/96 - BOW "Patchwork Girl" Dave, Page 244 of the BOW edition of Patchwork Girl, lines 5 and 6 have been changed from "Their skins were dusky and their hair stood straight up, like wires, and was brilliant scarlet in color", to "Their hair stood straight up, like wires, and was brilliant scarlet in color", referring to the Hottentots. DIXNAM@aol.com (Dick Randolph) ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 21, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 13:30:52 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest As for the racism etc. in the Oz books, I am against censorship of all kinds. I (and others, hopefully) are intelligent enough to recognize that kind of stuff for what it is and ignore it. I am able to enjoy the Oz stories depsite the presence of stereotypes, although I am disturbed a little bit when Thompson repeatedly describes the skin color of Jinnickys slaves. Yes, Dave, BOW cleaned up some of the P. Un-C. stuff. I am against this myself. Despite the fact that most of us do not share these stereotypical views, that's the way Baum wrote it and that's the way it should be read. We must realize that Baum (like all of us) was a human being with the same imperfections that we all share. From the vantage point of our more enlightened age, it is easy to look down our noses at attitudes like this, but Baum was probably immersed in them his whole life. The important thing to realize is that ALL people, regardless of sex, race, religion or any other background, are equal. If we believe that, then we can read anything and not be poisoned by it. The FF gives no evidence about how long Pessim was on the island, and as far as I can remember, nobody else has ever mentioned him. It seems like he has been on the island for a long time, like Gilligan, perhaps a few years. In an aside, the dates on the HACC from WIZARD to SCARECROW were done that way to account for non-aging of those who made several return trips to Oz, or nearby countries. There is also no clue as to whether he came from another fairy country like Ev or arrived here accidentally from the "real" world. I really must get an index going, so that somebody can ask "Where has Pessim been mentioned?", and I can respond "Ah, yes. He was in BILL GATES VS. DILBERT IN OZ". I have already figured a way around the different names for the four-horned cow! Animals usually have a given name and a birth name, which are usually very different. Also, Tip and Mombi did not get along, so maybe Tip made up a new name for the cow in a symbolic attack on Mombis authority. I am a little uncomfortable with the idea of one person going out of their way to contradict someone else just because they don't like their story. Each of you should write the Oz book you want wihtout making it into a contest. I still claim that some effort should be made to avoid major contradictions with each other, although the FF is still the baseline. I am not disturbed by the direction this discussion is taking place. People may not always agree on everything, and a little arguement is to be expected. Oz "as it is" is an innocent place of happiness and joy and I believe that all of us understand that and love Oz for what it represents. I for one do not think that our discussions are ruining that atmosphere. I have sent the December Ozzy Digest to Ken Cope. For some reason, I could not send the ZIP file, so I sent the text version instead. Enjoy! OK, Aaron, here's some more March Laumer stuff! Note that spellings of his names are guesses at best. I can look them up later. I like the idea of a discussion file that mentions which books mention historical events and which change the status quo (like a change of rulers). Maybe we can tie that in with my textual summaries. Dorothys husband (according to March Laumer) is Zippiochoggolak. I do not think they have any children. I forgot what Dorothys field of study is. I can check later. Are you ready for this? Laumer noticed that Button-Bright was not mentioned after GLINDA OF OZ until the Neill books. Actually, he was given a slight mention at the end of COWARDLY LION. According to Laumer, he fell in a molasses pit and was lost for decades. The magic picture was useless as it just showed a field of blackness, similar to Ozma in the peach pit in LOST PRINCESS. During this time, he forgot to make his "birthday wish" every year and grew up. They finally rescued him, but he realized that, as an adult, he no longer belonged in Oz, so Ozma sent him back to Philly. Years later, he accidentally returned to Oz. he decided to stay and got married to... GLINDA! Yes, it's true. Weird, but true. The Woozy does not "do" much in Laumers books, except that a strong friendship grows between him and Lignum, the Sawhorse. That's all, though, just friends. Ozma does not get married in Laumers books, for the reason that I told you last time. Diorce is never mentioned, nor are the Nine Tiny Piglets named (I think). However, there is a BIG thing that changes the status quo in Oz. In A FAREWELL TO OZ, which was Laumers own attempt to end the series, pollution is creeping into Fairyland. Dorothy goes to America to try to help us get enviornmentally wiser. When that fails, Ozma and the Wizard put a huge dome over Oz to keep everything out. It is probably not necessary to keep the dome thing going, as it causes a lot of logistical problems. I would just ignore it and we can assume that Ozma removed the dome after installing an invisible filter system over Oz that removes pollution. Laumer did something similar to Eric messenger bird in THE CROWN OF OZ. He had a bicycle corps of people riding around Oz, delivering messages. I would consider these to be changes to the status quo. They are minor at best. ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 06:48:23 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-20-96 From: Eric Gjovaag > I think Jugh Lofting is another example. Oh, gads, THERE'S an embarassing typo! I mean HUGH Lofting, of course... From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Robin, sorry about the harsh language. I will endeavor to work towards > keeping my internal supply of mean applied only to my writing (so far > Ozma, Glinda, the Woozy, Bastinda, the Scarecrow, Scraps, the Phonograph, > Captain Fyter, Kiki Aru, Gigemma, the guard for Dorothy's old house, > Plumly, and all the mortals in Oz have undergone mental or physical pain, > and Mombi's slated to be the next victim) and not to actual human beings. You're really trying to tick all of us old-time, old-fashioned Oz fans off with this book, aren't you? Well, if I can stand to read "Barnstormer," "Was," and "Dorothy and the Lizard," I can probably stand to read this one... > Back to consistency checking: Are there any reported incidents of giants > turning invisible? None that I know of, but there's always a first time. (You can always alude to some adventure that hasn't been written yet, as well...) From: "W. R. Wright" > I now have a functioning "weblinks" page at my website. Any recommendations > for links that should be added will be welcomed. > See URL: http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/weblinks.htm I have quite a few good URLs to check out in my FAQ, and you can always type "Wizard of Oz" into any good search engine (my wife has become a big fan of Lykos) and see what pops up. From: DIXNAM@aol.com > Dave, > Page 244 of the BOW edition of Patchwork Girl, lines 5 and 6 have been > changed from "Their skins were dusky and their hair stood straight up, like > wires, and was brilliant scarlet in color", to "Their hair stood straight > up, like wires, and was brilliant scarlet in color", referring to the > Hottentots. Ah, another relatively small change that I can probably live with. (Why didn't I think to check the Tottenhot chapter earlier? BTW, they are Tottenhots in Oz, and the Hottentots are an African tribe. But I'm sure the similarity is not coincidental...) --Eric "Happy birthday, Laura Gjovaag and George Burns" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 09:53:51 -0500 From: michael f burns Subject: Patchwork Girl... Not! My one question for the day is actually 2-part. Part 1: How could Peter Glassman who professes to love Baum's Oz over all others allow this travesty to take place? Part 2: When does Books of Wonder plan on putting out the true facsimile of The Patchwork Girl of Oz? Make that a 3-part question: How can we trust them not to make changes to the rest of the books? The possible excuse that they got the family's permission doesn't fly. The only one who has the right to change the book is the author and he is dead. I am appalled and furious that this bastardization of a classic work was perpetrated! Has no one heard of reading a book and making allowances for the social mores of the time in which it was written? Mike Burns(who is going to think long and hard before he rushes out to buy anything else from Books of Wonder) ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 20:05:10 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Oz Books to France Ref my earlier messages regarding a young woman at the University of Angers, France, who is desperately seaching for Oz reference books to support her thesis research. I am quote here a message from the Director of the American Library in Angers, who has offered to support a book loan effort. --------------------begin quote---------------------- Date: 19 Jan 96 11:12:30 EST From: Marshall-Raimbeau <100751.727@compuserve.com> To: Bill Wright Subject: Re : book loans Dear Mr. Wright, I would like to apologize for the delay in sending this letter and thank you for the help that you have extended to Catherine Charrier who, being so far away from the US, was getting frustrated in trying to locate books. I am the director of the American Library in Angers, one of 4 branches of the American Library in Paris. We do not have a "policy" for overseas interlibrary loan, but I would certainly extend a garantee for Catherine and could address her requests under the name of the American Library in Angers. We would reimburse any shipping costs incurred by sending books and I am sure that she would be very grateful, as well as emmensely relieved, to be able to have access to a number of titles. Could you recommend to whom I should address my requests to.. and we will proceed from there. Sincerely, Phoebe Marshall-Raimbeau Director, American Library in Angers --------------------begin quote---------------------- The mailing address is: Mrs. Phoebe Marshall-Raimbeau Director, American Library 60, rue Boisnet 49100 Angers France I am sending her two books: Attebery: The Fantasy Tradition in American Literature Kolbenschlag: Lost in the Land of Oz Anyone else who could provide a loan of an Oz reference book would be most appreciated. ============================================================================= Date: Saturday 20-Jan-96 21:10:04 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy things Tyler wrote: >As for the racism etc. in the Oz books, I am against censorship of all >kinds ... Yes, Dave, BOW cleaned up some of the P. Un-C. stuff. I am against >this myself ... I think I agree...if once you start altering this word or that phrase in this or that book, where does it end? Fahrenheit 451??? Besides, I'm starting to think all this tinkering with text to "avoid offending anyone" is a substitute for working to eradicate sexism, racism, etc. in real society where it counts. >I like the idea of a discussion file that mentions which books mention >historical events and which change the status quo (like a change of rulers). >Maybe we can tie that in with my textual summaries. So do I...I'm really warming up to the idea of our all working together and compiling a comprehensive "Encyclopedia Oziana"! -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 22, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 07:10:04 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-21-96 From: Tyler Jones > As for the racism etc. in the Oz books, I am against censorship of all > kinds. I (and others, hopefully) are intelligent enough to recognize that > kind of stuff for what it is and ignore it. I am able to enjoy the Oz > stories depsite the presence of stereotypes, although I am disturbed a little > bit when Thompson repeatedly describes the skin color of Jinnickys slaves. Doesn't Thompson also describe Jinnicky as being dark-skinned? And it sure would have been an improvement if she'd said "servants" instead of "slave." (Neill's pictures of Ginger don't help, I might add.) Here's something else to consider, however. Slavery did not end with the end of the American Civil War. It is still going on, in many forms, throughout the world. In a weak defense of Thompson, she may have used the word slaves in an effort to call up images of exotic foreign lands, where there was still some form of slavery in the 20's and 30's. Don't forget, a djinn is a character from Arab legend, and Jinnicky is one of my favorite Thompson characters. > Yes, Dave, BOW cleaned up some of the P. Un-C. stuff. I am against this > myself. Despite the fact that most of us do not share these stereotypical > views, that's the way Baum wrote it and that's the way it should be read. > We must realize that Baum (like all of us) was a human being with the same > imperfections that we all share. From the vantage point of our more > enlightened age, it is easy to look down our noses at attitudes like this, > but Baum was probably immersed in them his whole life. The important thing > to realize is that ALL people, regardless of sex, race, religion or any other > background, are equal. If we believe that, then we can read anything and > not be poisoned by it. Not everyone believes that, unfortunately, nor do some people believe that we are capable of believing that. And many people ARE offended by offensive stereotypes, no matter what the context. "Huckleberry Finn," a book about the evils of slavery and racism, is often attacked for its liberal and historically accurate use of a racial ephitet that starts with "n" (which I personally find so offensive that I will not type it). > I am a little uncomfortable with the idea of one person going out of their > way to contradict someone else just because they don't like their story. > Each of you should write the Oz book you want wihtout making it into a > contest. I still claim that some effort should be made to avoid major > contradictions with each other, although the FF is still the baseline. And I still claim that that is impossible, what with the relatively small press run and general unavailability of many privately published books. Don't worry about it! Just don't contradict the FF and you should be fine. > I am not disturbed by the direction this discussion is taking place. > People may not always agree on everything, and a little arguement is to be > expected. Oz "as it is" is an innocent place of happiness and joy and I > believe that all of us understand that and love Oz for what it represents. > I for one do not think that our discussions are ruining that atmosphere. It's not the discussion that offends me, but the atmosphere and attitude brought to the discussion. Some people here just seem to be plain disagreeable, and want to take the mickey out of anything anyone might want to say. If you're going to disagree, do it agreeably. > Laumer did something similar to Eric messenger bird in THE CROWN OF OZ. He > had a bicycle corps of people riding around Oz, delivering messages. Actually, Karyl created the messanger birds. (I DID have a co-author on "Queen Ann," and I will bring it up every time it comes up.) As for Laumer, I consider his Oz books to be a part of their own, separate Oz series, not part of the "regular" series, since his Oz is so much more different, and he introduces so many of his own ideas that don't jibe with the rest of the books. It's a parallel Oz, if you like. From: michael f burns > My one question for the day is actually 2-part. Part 1: How could Peter > Glassman who professes to love Baum's Oz over all others allow this travesty > to take place? Because he is also a publisher, who is trying to make some money and get the Oz books out to as wide of an audience as possible. He has power that we don't have and is using it. Perhaps he is also PERSONALLY offended by the altered passages. > Part 2: When does Books of Wonder plan on putting out the > true facsimile of The Patchwork Girl of Oz? Peter Glassman has NEVER claimed that these books are true facsimiles. There are minor changes from the first editions to accomodate modern design, printing methods, etc. The cover of "The Marvelous Land of Oz" is now on two lines instead of the original three, to give one example, the metallic green ink in the color plates of "The Emerald City of Oz" was too expensive to reproduce, so he went with a green-gold mixture, and I suspect the colored paper in "The Road to Oz" won't fade anywhere NEARLY as quickly as it did in the original. > Make that a 3-part question: > How can we trust them not to make changes to the rest of the books? Because he IS an Oz fan. Listen everybody, I find the idea of censorship abhorrent as well, but in Peter's defense he did what he had to do. The changes are VERY SMALL, and do not affect the actual story ONE BIT. It's all well and good for us white liberal idealists to say "Down with censorship," but have you been to an Oz convention lately? Have you seen how racially diverse it ISN'T? If this is what it takes to make Oz fans of people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds -- many of whom would be justifyably offended by the unaltered texts -- I say so be it! > The possible excuse that they got the family's permission doesn't fly. The > only one who has the right to change the book is the author and he is dead. Then you don't know beans about the publishing industry. It's the publisher, not the author, that has the power, and the publisher can do whatever he pleases with a manuscript, because it's HIS nickel on the line. BoW made some unsolicited changes in "Queen Ann in Oz," some to tighten it up, some to remove some extraneous references, and yes, some to remove some potentially offensive remarks. To his credit, Peter cleared them with Karyl and me first. No, he couldn't do that with "Patchwork Girl," nor would he need to clear it with the Baum family, as "Patchwork Girl" is now in public domain, anyway. But in an era when entire books -- including "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" -- are being banned from schools and libraries because people are offended by the language and ideas they may contain, a few small changes to a text are not out of line. > I am appalled and furious that this bastardization of a classic work was > perpetrated! Has no one heard of reading a book and making allowances for > the social mores of the time in which it was written? Yes, many people have, but unfortunately many people do NOT feel this way as well. And who's to say which belief is right and which is wrong? I do think that it would have been courteous for BoW to print a small notice on the copyright pages of "Patchwork Girl" and "Dot and Tot" to the effect that small alterations had been made to the text and why. But that could open another can of worms... > Mike Burns(who is going to think long and hard before he rushes out to buy > anything else from Books of Wonder) Then you will be missing out on a lot of GREAT Oz stories. If it offends you so much, don't buy "Patchwork Girl" or "Dot and Tot," that is your right. But BoW also publishes lots of other Oz books, both classic and original, which have NOT been altered, and they are quite good and faithful to the spirit of Oz. (No, this is not a plug, "Queen Ann in Oz" is only one of many.) Am I the only one who thinks a lot of people are WAY overreacting to this? From: Dave Hardenbrook > Tyler wrote: > >As for the racism etc. in the Oz books, I am against censorship of all > >kinds ... Yes, Dave, BOW cleaned up some of the P. Un-C. stuff. I am against > >this myself ... > > I think I agree...if once you start altering this word or that phrase in > this or that book, where does it end? Fahrenheit 451??? This is why we readers and true lovers of Oz need to be vigilent, and not let it go overboard. I don't think we've gotten to the point of "Fahrenheit 451" or "1984" yet. OTOH, if we say, "No, no alteration whatsoever," it's entirely possible that "Patchwork Girl" and "Dot and Tot" wouldn't have been reprinted at all! It's a fine line to tread, but I for one think BoW is doing a good job with it. (And as far as I can recall, we probably don't have to worry about any of this happening to any other Baum Oz book.) > Besides, I'm starting to think all this tinkering with text to "avoid > offending anyone" is a substitute for working to eradicate > sexism, racism, etc. in real society where it counts. I see it as part of it, not a substitute. Unfortunately for some it's a lot easier to change words than ideas. --Eric ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 12:24:18 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-21-96 ************************************************************************* My 2 cents worth: DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT change the text of books without the author's permission. Leave Baum's writing as it is: with racism, sexism, and (chuckle) covert communist theory in place. At most, include an explanatory preface. But, DO NOT CHANGE THE TEXT TO REFLECT OUR MODERN MORALS. Scott ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 13:09:26 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-21-96 1) How am I supposed to be consistent with How the Wizard Came to Oz AND Oz and the Three Witches AND The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz when these three are in contradiction with one another AND still deal with with Ozma's early history? I can't pull out the parts dealing with Ozma's history without killing the exploration of Ozma's relationship with Glinda, which is something I wanted to do in the first place. And delving into the psychology is way too much fun to give up (and comes out nowhere near like Madden if you really think about, and also we get to throw in a neat explination about why Ozma's hair is is ruddy gold in The Marvelous Land of Oz and black in the illustrations in Ozma of Oz). Hence I choose consistency with How the Wizard Came to Oz since it is (as far as I can tell) the most historically accurate and ignore the other two. 2) Plumly is what the Four-Horned Cow calls herself. What Tip and Mombi called her I never revealed. As a side note, the Brown Pig is named Fran. 3) Button-Bright marrying Glinda? He must have really matured mentally for that to happen. Now I'm going to have to modify one of Glinda's arguments in her fight with Ozma. 4) In my own defense, I must note that putting characters in traumatic situations is nowhere near new in the series. In The Wonderful Wizard of Oz alone we have: 1) Gigemma gets crushed by a falling house. 2) The Scarecrow is 'abandoned' on a pole in the middle of a cornfield and taunted by crows. 3) Nick Chopper is cut many times by an enchanted axe. 4) Nick Chopper, after becoming completely tin, is rusted in a rainstorm and has to stand around for a year doing nothing. 5) The Cowardly Lion is suffering from a phobia. 6) Bastinda disassembles the Scarecrow, severely mangles the Tin Woodman, imprisions the Cowardly Lion, and makes Dorothy scared for her own life. 7) Bastinda gets melted. 8) The Wizard is scared out of his wits of the remaining wicked witches. What I'm doing shouldn't be much worse than any of these. Besides, if I don't think up some new troubles for the Ozites to face, what's the point of writing the trilogy in the first place? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 11:04:43 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Oz Index Tyler Jones wrote: >I really must get an index going, so that somebody can ask "Where has >Pessim been mentioned?", and I can respond "Ah, yes. He was in BILL GATES >VS. DILBERT IN OZ". Tyler, the index is already there. See my website. I challenge you to find any person, place, or thing from Baum's 14 not in the index. And Aaron's question about Pessim could have been looked up there. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 14:10:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Old Ozzish Before I forget, I have made some progress in the study of Old Ozzish. I make the assumption that English is spoken mostly in Oz these days because someone tried casting a spell to allow him/her to speak and understand the language of someone visiting from the Outside World and ended up enchanting everybody in the Inside World instead. (Probably the Asmard of Ix did it. He's known for making severe magical mistakes, such as irreversibly changing Slarino the Marquis of Seventon into a giant slug by accident.) It was also probably spoken over most of the continent of Imagination as well. Most of the information I have is derived from names. 1) The suffixes -us and -ma, the former which explicitly makes the noun it is attached to male and the latter female. 2) The basic form of a personal name must end in -a (e.g., Singra, Pajuka, Pastoria, Bastinda, Glinda, Jellia). 3) Personal names may also have have the explicit gender suffixes may be affixed instead of -a (e.g., Gloa -> Gloma, Gigema -> Gigemma, Hoka -> Hokus, Pastoria -> Pastorius). Pleasee note that after transformin Pastoria's daughter into a boy, Mombi called the child Tippetarius (explicitly male) rather than the neutral Tippetaria, probably in order to dissociate herself from the disappearance of the girl. Note: When the Anglification Spell was cast, many people dropped the suffixes from their names (Mombia -> Mombi, Ojous -> Ojo). We have at least one name in both truncated Old Ozzish and translated into English, Ombia Ambia, which got butchered into Omby Amby and translated into Wantowin Battles. 4) The titles Oz, Ev, and Soforth. Oz/Ozma is originally a title for the ruler of what was once called the Four Lands. When the Wizard came to power, he called himself Oz in English, which was further compounded by him being called Oza in Old Ozzish (which is still spoken from time to time, especially by stuckup people). This gave Pastoria's daughter enough precedent to call herself Ozma rather than by her real name. Ev may also be a royal title turned name, or rather name component, as everyone from the royal family has a name beginning with Ev, with the exception of Langwidere, who never was highly respected due to her extreme vanity, leading everyone to decide that she was not worthy of being called Evlangwidere. Soforth, the surname of the ruling family of Oogaboo, probably originally was a term for the ruler of a kingdom. As all the men in Oogaboo are named Jo (originally Jol), and as the king doesn't raise any crops, the king of Oogaboo probably was originally named Jol Soforth just so he had a last name. 5) The assorted words nuffet, jemkiph, and glegg. 6) Derived from Omby Amby's name: om ("to want"), bi ("to win"), and ambi ("battle"). Distinct verb conjugations and plurals of nouns are so far unknown in Old Ozzish. 7) I suspect the genitive is formed by prefixing the object to the main noun, based on the name of the Rose Princess, Ozga, which probably means "rose of Oz"). This would indicate that the citizens of the Rose Kingdom, though heartless, still have an appreciation for puns. 8) The directional names gilli ("north"), kwad ("south"), munch ("east"), and wink ("west"). 9) The ethnic suffixes -kin, -ling, and -i, hence Gillikin, Quadling (Kwadling), Munchkin, and Winkie (Winki). 10) The term ezia ("capital"), hence the name for Bastinda's capital of the Winkie Country, Winkiezia. Aharonshlomoa Adelmana adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 13:33:27 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: For da Digest Hi, Dave, I gotta couple of questions, if you could slip them into the next edition of "The Ozzy Digest." 1. Does anybody out there have a copy of the 1901 "Wizard of Oz"-wannabe "Zauberlinda the Wize Witch"? Turgid book, I can see why it didn't catch on like "Oz" did, but my copy is missing the last few pages or two (it ends on page 254), and I'd like to finish it, please, if somebody could e-mail me what's on the final pages or send xeroxes... 2. Now that it's a little oever ten years old now, I've been wondering to myself, do I like "Return to Oz"? I'm still not sure, after all this time. There is much to recommend it -- Fairuza Balk's Dorothy, Brian Henson's Jack Pumpkinhead, the Nomes and Nicol Williamson's Nome King, the final (and all-too-brief) scenes in the Emerald City with all the celebrities, Billina and the Gump's jokes, the costumes, the inventiveness, and the sets all come to mind. They're all very Ozzy. On the other hand, the script is a bland amalgamation of two of the BEST books in the series, the direction is dark and gloomy, and there wasn't ENOUGH humor and goodness. Oh, and Ozma was pretty bland (good thing her part was so small). Borrowing the Ruby Slippers and the Kansas/Oz connections (Dr. Worley/the Nome King and the nurse/Mombi) was an out-and-out mistake if they didn't want this to be compared to the MGM movie (which was bound to happen anyway), and the hospital scenes at the beginning were not only out of place, they were disturbing. All this was definitely NOT Ozzy. So, I'm just not sure whether I like "Return to Oz" or not. See what I mean? I'm not asking for input here, I'm just venting, but I would like to hear what others think. --Eric "I do tend to ponder these things, dunno why" Gjovaag "Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'" --The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 19:03:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Scarecrow Alternate explaination of how the Scarecrow came to life before he was put on the beanpole: He didn't. He remembered events that his inanimate form had experienced. For comparison, I would like to note that Benny (the live statue) remembered standing in the park before he was brought to life. While I'm at it, what is the name of the Medicine Man? I have a fuzzy memory that it's Herbie, but I'm not sure. Also: Does Laumer have Trot, Betsy, and Ojo grow up and get married or not? (Not neccessary polygamously.) Nalrodi the Mind-Reader: Probably they all grow up. Betsy marries Prince Reddy of Rash (from The Hungry Tiger of Oz). Interesting guess, Nalrodi, but you also thought that Trot would end up marrying Button-Bright, Dorothy Ojo, and Nickadoodle a butter churn. What do we know about this Zippiochoggolak character anyway? The name sounds suspiciously familiar, but I'll hold off guessing until I can get my hands on some of Laumer's books. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 16:35:18 -0800 From: glassman@ix.netcom.com (glassman ) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >Peter Glassman, why are you attacking people for things which have already >been settled? I removed Jenny Jump from The Woozy of Oz, and I do not >intend to use any of Neill's characters in the future with the possible >exception of a blatant parody of Neill's FF books, which as I understand >the situation would not be subject to the same restrictions as using >Neill's characters. (Someone stop me from writing that parody if I'm >wrong in that belief.) Everyone has undibsed everything they had dibsed. >As for trying to reconcile apparent or possibly real contradictions, why >not? This in itself can be a source of new stories, and aren't telling >stories what literature is all about? Please don't flame. I have already >surrendered to Tyler's army of silly ozbuls. WHOA!!! Put your paranoia in check! None of my comments were aimed at you personally and none were meant as a flame. Talk about being overly sensitive! As to the fact that others had already responded to these issues, I (like many others who post to this group) cannot read the digest every day, but I still wish to participate and do so when my hectic schedule allows. Personally, I have no concerns with what you write in your stories. If any of them do infringe on copryrighted material which my company is obliged to protect, we will deal with that if and when your stories are published. So go have a nice soothing cup of tea and calm down, for Ozma's sake! From: Eric Gjovaag >From: "Aaron S. Adelman" >> Peter Glassman, why are you attacking people for things which have already >> been settled? Please don't flame. I have already >> surrendered to Tyler's army of silly ozbuls. > >Aaron, don't be so paranoid! Peter is not personally attacking you, he's >merely adding to the debate that's already gone on before. Be thankful >that he's here, he's the most authoritative authority available, since he >has to deal with these issues all the time. Since he is so busy, he >can't read his mail every day like some of us, and so he may have missed >some of the later replies to your earlier questions. Thank you, Eric! It's ironic that I just posted a very similar response to Aaron's posting. It's nice to know that my contributions are appreciated by others. >Right now (yes, this will be related), I'm happy to have a >long-term job in a great class full of smart kids, and I'm reading Edward >Eager's "Half Magic" to them. Good for you, Eric! "Half Magic" is the book that truly turned me on to reading. I agree that some of the attitudes toward women are a little dated, but the story is the best! We still sell hundreds of copies of this title and its sequals each year (both hardcover and paperback). >Am I the only subscriber to this newsletter who is becoming increasingly >disturbed at the direction some of the discussions are headed? This is >not "Was," where the ugly underbelly of Oz was split open and laid out in >the sun for all to see, whether they wanted to or not. Whatever happened >to Oz fans who read the Oz books because they enjoyed them so much, and >didn't necessarily want to read little tiny imperfections into everything >and tear the whole concept down? Do any Oz fans reading this actually >LIKE Oz as is (for the most part)? Well, I certainly like Oz - in fact, I love it! But I must agree with you that I don't enjoy all the nit-picking either. Oz is about unbridled imagination and joy, not demeaning other people's work. Especially not the work of such a good people as John R. Neill (who's contributions to Oz cannot be exagerated)or Jim Nitch (aka Onyx Madden, the author of "Mysterious Chronicles of Oz"). Finding fault in other people's work, tearing them down and making them look bad is not difficult. What is challenging is building them up, passing on a kind word and looking for the good in what they have done. It would seem to me that the latter is in the true spirit of the Oz books, not the former. From: Dave Hardenbrook >I did hear from someone that in the new BoW edition of _Patchwork Girl_, some >of the text as been altered to remove any racist or other derogatory >passages. Does anyone know if this is true? I loathe the degradation of any >sex, religion, or race! -- Yet at the same time I feel uncomfortable about >altering an author's existing text. It's a bit of an inner conflict for me. Yes, it is true, we did change a few words in our new edition. The reason for the changes was not censorship, but to make sure as many children as possible read Baum's story. The changes to the text are very minor. The lyrics played by the record player originally read: "Ah wants mah Lulu, mah coal-black Lulu; Ah wants mah loo-loo, loo-loo, loo-loo, Lu! Ah loves mah Lulu, mah coal-black Lulu, There ain't nobody else loves loo-loo, Lu!" They were changed to read: "Ah wants mah Lulu, mah cross-eyed Lulu; Ah wants mah loo-loo, loo-loo, loo-loo, Lu! Ah loves mah Lulu, mah cross-eyed Lulu, There ain't nobody else loves loo-loo, Lu!" As you can see, the changes were extremely minor, changes none of Baum's plot or characterizations, and yet manages to avoid offending anyone. On page 244, Baum describes the Tottenhots as follows: "Their skins were dusky and their hair stood straight up, like wires, and was billiant scarlet in color." The reference to skin color was dropped so it now reads: "Their hair stood straight up, like wires, and was billiant scarlet in color." Once again, Baum's plot and the personalities of the Tottenhots is not changed, just an offense phrase removed. Though I realize this may bother some, it is important to understand that we are not publishing these books only for existing Oz fans, but that our main hope is to reach a new generation and introduce them to the wonders of Baum's Oz. If the minor changes made were not made, there is a good chance that rather than receiving the positive reviews we have gotten and selling hundreds of thousands of Oz books, we would instead have found ourselves in an impossible to win debate about Baum's attituds towards race. Fortunately, these are few and far between in the Oz books and with a litttle, delicate editing (something Baum himself never objected to) Baum's stories, characters and magic can be presented to a new generation and preserved for many more. From: michael f burns >My one question for the day is actually 2-part. Part 1: How could Peter >Glassman who professes to love Baum's Oz over all others allow this travesty >to take place? Part 2: When does Books of Wonder plan on putting out the >true facsimile of The Patchwork Girl of Oz? Make that a 3-part question: >How can we trust them not to make changes to the rest of the books? >The possible excuse that they got the family's permission doesn't fly. The >only one who has the right to change the book is the author and he is dead. >I am appalled and furious that this bastardization of a classic work was >perpetrated! Has no one heard of reading a book and making allowances for >the social mores of the time in which it was written? > >Mike Burns(who is going to think long and hard before he rushes out to buy >anything else from Books of Wonder) Mike, I'm sorry you feel so badly about the minor changes we made. But, the reality is that NO author's text ever reaches a printing press without being edited. In fact, Baum's editors had him drop an entire chapter from "The Patchwork Girl of Oz," so it is very likely that Baum would have readily approved these changes had it been pointed out to him that it would offend anyone. I am not going to bother answering your obviously sarcastic questions, but I will state that although I regret losing your support of our books, I would rather loose your support than offend even one young black child - or worse still, make him or her feel that Oz is not a place where they would be welcome. The sad reality is that in Baum's day there were all too few middle class African-Americans and even fewer who were in a position to buy Baum's Oz books. But today, these children have every bit as much right to feel at home in Oz as do white children. And I feel confident that Baum would be the first to agree and the first to remove anything from his texts that he thought would hurt anyone's feelings. From: Dave Hardenbrook >Tyler wrote: >>As for the racism etc. in the Oz books, I am against censorship of all >>kinds ... Yes, Dave, BOW cleaned up some of the P. Un-C. stuff. I am against >>this myself ... > >I think I agree...if once you start altering this word or that phrase in >this or that book, where does it end? Fahrenheit 451??? This seems a rather extreme extrapolation. Again, let me state that NO author's text gets into print without being edited first (Eric Gjovaag can vouch for this). Although I myself would frown on unbridled rewriting of an author's text, removing a few minor words which add nothing to the story but would inevitably lead to the book being banned in many schools, libraries and bookstores seems to me the better course of action. - Peter Glassman Books of Wonder ============================================================================= Date: Sunday 21-Jan-96 19:00:54 From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things From: Eric Gjovaag >Doesn't Thompson also describe Jinnicky as being dark-skinned? And it >sure would have been an improvement if she'd said "servants" instead of >"slave." ... I would have thought that only bad guys (e.g. The Nome King) would have slaves... >Don't forget, a djinn is a character from Arab legend, and Jinnicky is one of >my favorite Thompson characters. I looked up "Djinn" in the unabridged dictionary, and it is synonymous with "Genie" (which I gather is just an anglicization). So Jinnicky is a "Genie", then? (He isn't "All-Powerful", though?) >Am I the only one who thinks a lot of people are WAY overreacting to this? Well, I'm certainly not about to boycott BoW over a few altered words... >2. Now that it's a little oever ten years old now, I've been wondering >to myself, do I like "Return to Oz"? I'm still not sure ... Nor am I. >... the direction is dark and gloomy, and there wasn't >ENOUGH humor and goodness. Yes, it was on the whole too "Oz Noir" for my taste...I like my Oz light and upbeat. :) >Borrowing the Ruby Slippers and the Kansas/Oz >connections (Dr. Worley/the Nome King and the nurse/Mombi) was an >out-and-out mistake if they didn't want this to be compared to the MGM >movie ... I think they were making a conscious effort to make "Return" a direct sequel to the MGM film...Remember, the Nome King even tries to get rid of Dorothy by offering her the Ruby Slippers (which in this movie replace the Magic Belt) and reminding her that "There's no place like home"! >... and the hospital scenes at the beginning were not only out of place, >they were disturbing. All that about Auntie Em taking Dorothy to get shock treatment is total b---s--t in my opinion! (At any rate, quite un-Ozzy.) On the whole, I'd say "Return" is a movie that I might watch, say, every February 29th, but not a big movie for me. Peter Glassman wrote: >>I think I agree...if once you start altering this word or that phrase in >>this or that book, where does it end? Fahrenheit 451??? >This seems a rather extreme extrapolation. Again, let me state that NO >author's >text gets into print without being edited first (Eric Gjovaag can vouch for >this). Although I myself would frown on unbridled rewriting of an author's >text, removing a few minor words which add nothing to the story but would >inevitably lead to the book being banned in many schools, libraries and >bookstores seems to me the better course of action. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to draw an "end of civilization as we know it" conclusion... :) As I said before, this is an issue on which I'm torn... From: Aaron >Interesting guess, Nalrodi, but you also thought that Trot would end up >marrying Button-Bright, Dorothy Ojo, and Nickadoodle a butter churn... I for one think Dorothy ending up with Ojo and Trot with Button Bright is *MUCH* more logical, and frankly, appealing...I'm actually starting to think that there *IS* a point when each of Oz author should write what feels right to *HIM* and not worry about what someone else has written... :) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 23-4, 1996 Hi Everyone! I apologize for there being no Ozzy Digest for yesterday! I've had a cold, and my E-mail has just been piling up for the last couple of days. :) Anyway, the messages in this issue are for the 23rd and 24th. -- Dave ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 03:33:35 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Return to Oz Eric, my vote on Return to Oz is: thumb down. It was explicitly a sequel to the MGM movie (which I also rate as a thumb down, as I believe that movies based on books should be loyal to the books) and it was too hybridish. Instead of doing either The Marvelous Land of Oz or Ozma of Oz they had to try and combine the two (G-d only knows why), resulting in such wierd things as rolling Mombi and Langwidere into one character. This type of absurdity merits mockery, and I think I'd better not say another word on this topic because I see I'm starting to get mean and might get struck by lightning or something if I keep it up. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 07:45:24 -0500 From: michael f burns Subject: Oz Digest Isn't it funny how everyone assumes I am white! Can a person of color not also be offended by censorship? How does changing Coal Black Lulu to Cross Eyed Lulu make it less offensive? I guess Helen Keller style humor is still okay. And I can certainly find more offensive terms for dark-skinned people than "dusky". How about "shit-colored"? Used by Toni Morrison in her book The Bluest Eye. When the writer Rex Stout was still alive, he was asked his opinion of writers who wrote books using other writers' characters. He said they were no better than cannibals and they should roll their own. This did not stop his family from hiring someone after his death to continue his Nero Wolfe mystery series. So assigning traits to Baum along the lines of well he would agree to the changes if he were alive today is nonsense. Peter, I'm sorry you thought I was being sarcastic. I wasn't. How can we teach our children about the evils of racism if it so easy to rewrite our books and history to the point that there is no longer any historical record of it? I think I'll go back to lurking. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 07:40:07 -0600 (CST) From: jvandern@neosoft.com (Jim Vander Noot) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-22-96 One minor comment on the Patchwork Girl controversy. I take exception to the change of: "Their skins were dusky and their hair stood straight up, like wires, and was billiant scarlet in color." There's nothing at all in this statement that conveys any potential offense and I don't understand why it was changed. ??????????????????????????????????????? Does anyone know of a source for Oz stickers or return address labels?????? ??????????????????????????????????????? Jim Jim Vander Noot ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 08:42:25 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-22-96 From: Dave Hardenbrook >Tyler wrote: >>As for the racism etc. in the Oz books, I am against censorship of all >>kinds ... Yes, Dave, BOW cleaned up some of the P. Un-C. stuff. I am against >>this myself ... > >I think I agree...if once you start altering this word or that phrase in >this or that book, where does it end? Fahrenheit 451??? >This seems a rather extreme extrapolation. Again, let me state that NO >author's >text gets into print without being edited first (Eric Gjovaag can vouch for >this). Although I myself would frown on unbridled rewriting of an author's >text, removing a few minor words which add nothing to the story but would >inevitably lead to the book being banned in many schools, libraries and >bookstores seems to me the better course of action. > >- Peter Glassman > Books of Wonder I see a BIG difference between having the editors of R&L change the text of Baum's UNPUBLISHED manuscript and having the forcces of "political correctness alter the text of a well-loved children's classic some 80 years later. I just don't believe that these few lines make that much of a difference for the Oz books turning aways today's readers. Do modern African-American children really find these phrases offensive? Of course we all know that modern over-sensitized highly-educated academics are offended by history's racism. But are the kids? Can't we just keep the Oz books in the historical context in which they were written? Do today's kids, who live in a society where women are offered more opportunities in the power structure than ever before, really understand the humor of The Marvelous Land of Oz? If the Oz books DON'T translate to modern culture, then maybe we shouldn't force them to! I view the Oz books as turn-of-the-century childrens' books. I think that this is a fascinating debate, and I am very interested in other's opinions. I'm glad that Peter in online, since his view on these matters is obviously relevant. Are there any other examples of recent revisions in Oz or Baum texts? I (for one) enjoy a conversation "string" that involves something OTHER than this seemingly endless debate about a consistent storyline in 250+ Oz books. Scott Cummings H.M. T.E. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 13:44:49 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Again, since it is Monday, I have three digests to respond to: But before that, I was going to say something about a digest from about a week ago. Aaron said he wanted to see more apostrophes in the HACC. This is a pet peeve of mine, this unbridled use of superfluous apostrophes. The apostrophe denotes a contraction, as in isn't, don't, can't Ann Soforth (this time, a pun IS intended!) Most people and companies use them because they look cool, but about half the time you see one, it shouldn't be there. It can also be used as a possesive if the word ends in s or if there is a "double-s" sound, like Tyler Jones's computer, but it is Dave Hardenbrooks CD-ROM. Ye's, thi's i's a petty thing and there more important issue's out there to di'scu's's, but thi's is a 'small sticking point with me, so there will be no major rewrite to the HACC ju'st to put in apostrophes that should NOT go in there. OK, that's my small petty issue for the day! As far as I know, there are no cases of giants turning invisible. I do not see why this should be handled any differently than other people turning invisible. Take it to the hoop! Although, did someone mention an invisible giant in KABUMPO IN OZ, when Sir Hokus was trying to find a giant to fight? Nate Barlow WIZ@CMU.EDU is working on a project to put all the Baum Bugles on CD-ROM. I do not know the status of this project. I really hope he gets it finished. This would be an AWESOME research tool! Yes, Herby is the name of the Medicine Man. You obviously cannot completely agree with HOW THE WIZARD CAME TO OZ, THE MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES OF OZ and OZ AND THE THREE WITCHES, since they all contradict each other. I still maintain that these contradictions are minor and can be explained away. However, just do the best you can and tell your story the way you want to. This gets back to what I have been saying all along that TOTAL consistency is impossible and not desireable. I believe that with diligent research, you can get very close and still tell your own story, and have a fun time doing telling it. Personally, I LOVED Oz and the Three Witches and Mysterious Chronicles. They were not the standard Ozian fare, but they were excellent. HOW THE WIZARD CAME TO OZ is also a good story, but not "as good". I think that the best solution is to read all the books (which you obviously have), and write your story without deliberately contradicting any of them. If it comes to a choice between writing something that you want to write and some minor detail of another author, choose your own story! I cannot remember Laumers other marriages. Unimportant anyway. Ignore them. Zippiochoggolak is the son of the Wizard Wam (full name Wamopavirachuk). There have been many kinds of slavery in the world. In our own country, it was the most brutal type. People were simply owned by someone else who got every possible last ounce of sweat out of them. Other kinds were almost of a family relationship, often with the slave buying his freedom and establishing an estate of his own. I still don't like the idea of someone being owned by someone else, however. I did not really like RETURN TO OZ. Disney said that this would not be an MGM clone and then they went out of their way to make it as much like the MGM film as possible. They melded the next two books (two of the best that were ever written) and the result was less than fantastic. Fairuza Balk did an excellent acting job, however. Dave H. said that there is a point where you end the research and quest for consistency and just write your own story. That is certainly true, and that time comes sooner than many people think. Aaron, the most important thing is to be consistent with the FF. After that, I believe that a little looking into the other books is also a good idea. It may give you some other ideas and it will help the flow of overall Oz history. However, it seems to me that you are worrying too much over the tiniest details of other peoples works. It is not that important to agree completely with all that stuff, and in my opinion it is impossible. Over 90% of writing Oz books is just writing a fun story that everyone will enjoy. In my opinion, consistency checking with non-FF books is a very small part of the work, unless we are dealing with pre-Dorothean history, and even then only a tiny minority of FF and non-FF books deal with this. This is helped out by the unwritten rule not to change the status quo in Oz too much. "After The Tin Woodman and Scarecrow were destroyed by Ojo, the Shaggy Man took over the Land of Oz and appointed Kabumpo as the new Emperor of the Winkies". This, for example, is just a little TOO weird... The only way to be TOTALLY consistent with all Oz books that have ever been written is to take all the Oz books, scrap them (no pun intended) and rewrite them from the ground up under the guidance of one publisher and possibly an "accuracy committee". Even if the copyright issues were resolved, this AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! No Way. I am torn on the censoring issue, but Peter Glassman made a very good point when he said that children comprise a very large chunk of our target audience. The idea here is to get children interested in reading Oz books and other books, too! It would be impractical to print TWO versions of The Patchwork Girl of Oz, one with the racist stuff and one without. It must be remembered that even though most of the people on this newsgroup are adults, Oz books are primarily childrens books (and for the young at heart:)). I still oppose alterations that change the plot, but the ones that BOW did were very minor. Maybe children need to be sheltered a little bit until they can be educated and trained to be fully independent thinkers and can recognize stuff for what it is. I am still at odds with myself over this issue. Where's Rush Limbaugh when I need him? BTW, Eric, how old are the kids in your class? Overall, now, I am detecting a level of hostility that does not need to be there. yes, people will disagree. Some people don't like MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES, some don't like the Neill books. There are disagreements on how much consistency checking should be done. None? Total? Somewhere in between? While some level of this is a good thing, too much is detrimental to the spirit of Oz. We should be trying to build each other up and advance Oz as a wonderful land full of stories to be told. Let us not forget what Oz means and represents. I hope that the person who may dump BOW will reconsider. They publish many fine Oz books (Yes, this is a plug for QUEEN ANN (which had two authors, by the way) and others!). To be blunt, there are not many of us (Oz-book readers) and the last thing we need to do is fight amongst ourselves. BOW is one of the few places that publish Oz books, and we need to stick together. Oz is a place of timeless innocence and joy, and I hope that we will all keep that spirit in this digest. --Tyler "Eric, who are you calling "liberal""? Jones ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 18:36:45 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-22-96 From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Before I forget, I have made some progress in the study of Old Ozzish. I > make the assumption that English is spoken mostly in Oz these days because > someone tried casting a spell to allow him/her to speak and understand the > language of someone visiting from the Outside World and ended up > enchanting everybody in the Inside World instead. (Probably the Asmard of > Ix did it. He's known for making severe magical mistakes, such as > irreversibly changing Slarino the Marquis of Seventon into a giant slug by > accident.) It was also probably spoken over most of the continent of > Imagination as well. Most of the information I have is derived from > names. [various speculation on names, words, roots, etc. deleted] You have too much time on your hands, don't you? From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > While I'm at it, what is the name of the Medicine Man? I have a fuzzy > memory that it's Herbie, but I'm not sure. Yeah, it's Herbie. > Also: Does Laumer have Trot, Betsy, and Ojo grow up and get married or > not? (Not neccessary polygamously.) WHO CARES????? Whoever said you had to be constrained by what Laumer (or any other author) wrote??? From: Dave Hardenbrook > From: Eric Gjovaag > >Doesn't Thompson also describe Jinnicky as being dark-skinned? And it > >sure would have been an improvement if she'd said "servants" instead of > >"slave." ... > > I would have thought that only bad guys (e.g. The Nome King) would have > slaves... So Geore Washington and Thomas Jefferson were villains, eh? > I looked up "Djinn" in the unabridged dictionary, and it is synonymous with > "Genie" (which I gather is just an anglicization). So Jinnicky is a "Genie", > then? (He isn't "All-Powerful", though?) Yes, a genie in a jar instead of a lamp. > >2. Now that it's a little oever ten years old now, I've been wondering > >to myself, do I like "Return to Oz"? I'm still not sure ... > > Nor am I. > > >Borrowing the Ruby Slippers and the Kansas/Oz > >connections (Dr. Worley/the Nome King and the nurse/Mombi) was an > >out-and-out mistake if they didn't want this to be compared to the MGM > >movie ... > > I think they were making a conscious effort to make "Return" a direct sequel > to the MGM film...Remember, the Nome King even tries to get rid of Dorothy by > offering her the Ruby Slippers (which in this movie replace the Magic Belt) > and reminding her that "There's no place like home"! But that's the problem! I think much of the time they were trying to consciously NOT make a sequel, and never advertised it as such or made a lot of mention of the previous film. I seem to even recall some articles and interviews that flat out said it WASN'T a sequel. Then they pull out the Ruby Slippers? >boggle< And now, if I may add some fuel to the fire of this whole "censorship" debate: Which would you rather see, the rather mild alterations in the current edition of "Patchwork Girl," or the offending episodes deleted entirely? Which would you rather see, the rather mild alterations in the current edition of "Patchwork Girl," or NO current edition of "Patchwork Girl" at all? Those are the choices, folks! --Eric "Really, it's not the end of civilization!" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:11:33 -0600 (CST) From: jvandern@neosoft.com (Jim Vander Noot) Subject: FW: the Wiz Dave, I'd like to toss this out to the group for answers. Jim >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 21:00:49 PST >From: International Wizard of Oz Club >Subject: FW: the Wiz >To: jvandern@NeoSoft.Com >X-UIDL: 822420465.000 > > >--- On Sun, 21 Jan 96 08:27:37 0800 Shaula Evans > wrote: >I am playing Dorothy in a production of The Wiz that will run >the first two weeks of March, 1995. I >have been looking around the net and was thrilled to find >your fabulously informative site. I >would like to communicate over the next two months with >anyone else who has played Dorothy >on the stage, especially in productions of "The Wiz" in >particular; do you have any suggestions on >how I might find other actresses? > >Best regards, > >Shaula Evans >a/k/a Dorothy >Kelowna, B.C., Canada >sevans@awinc.com > > > > > > >-----------------End of Original Message----------------- > >------------------------------------- >Name: International Wizard of Oz Club >E-mail: International Wizard of Oz Club >Date: 1/22/96 >Time: 9:00:49 PM > >This message was sent by Chameleon >------------------------------------- > > > Jim Vander Noot ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 16:32:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Zippiochoggolak Can anybody tell me anything about Zippiochoggolak? I have serious doubts about being able to use him in The Woozy of Oz, as Laumer is still alive and thus his characters under copyright, so right now my coauthor and I are trying to resolve how to write around him (since Dorothy appears in the story, this is inevitable). The Royal Literary Critic of Oz's solution: Have Dorothy and Zippiochoggolak get divorced. This has the nice advantage that we don't even have to mention Zippy's name, as Dorothy is in a state where "she doesn't want to talk about it". On the other hand, it introduces a completely new type of problem into the Oz world that I don't particularly want to deal with. I would have assumed instead that if two potentially immortal people are going to get married that they're going to do a much better job at making sure they really want to do this than two people who are scheduled to die in about 50 years. My solution: Have Zippy off visiting his parents or something to that effect. This makes it trickier to avoid mentioning his name, but should be able to be pulled off. (Come to think of it, would the copyright laws allow his name to be mentioned or not?) However, I'm going to need someone out there to tell me enough about Zippy so that I don't inadvertently contradict Laumer (such as where Zippy comes from). (Please help!) On to less serious ideas: Two more silly Oz book names: Pinky and the Brain in Oz ("Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, Brain, but doesn't Keretaria already have a king?" "No, you idiot! With that magic belt, we would have enough power on our hands to take over the Inside World!") Sigmund Freud in Oz (Probably would have a field day analyzing Ozma and Nick Chopper. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:12:25 -0500 From: Athos4@aol.com Subject: Oz Revisionism With respect, Mr. Glassman, you ought to put yourself on the sidelines in any discussion about changes made to the original Oz books, because you're part of the problem, don't you see? Ever since the very first publisher it has been your (plural) wont to view the fruits of artistic endeavor as mere commodity to be bought and sold. The publisher is at heart a salesperson concerned primarily with sales and profit. While it's perfectly true that the author and/or publisher can tinker endlessly with a tale in its formative stages, the point here is that the Oz books have been published for a long time, going on a hundred years now. When a book is put out for the general public, then you have other people involved, like it or not: the buyers and the readers. No man is an island, and when many people come to view a particular story as a part of themselves then you can't deny them the opportunity to express themselves when you change it. The subject of revisionism is bigger than Books of Wonder or Peter Glassman, but this is supposed to be an Oz newsgroup, so I'll try to confine it to that. Your legal position is firm; you have a perfect legal right to tinker with Oz as much as you like. Well, I doubt very much whether there are very many people here or elsewhere who think that a legal system founded solely on man-made laws provides justice in every circumstance, so I'm not going to expand on that issue. But with the Oz books having been around so long in a particular form, literally thousands and perhaps many more have become comfortable with them as they are. When you tinker with the books, you tinker with the hearts and minds of such people. Can you blame them when they become upset? Can you blame them if some of them are beset with negative thoughts about you and/or your firm? Your changes were minor in your view. Perhaps they were. Well, you thought it might increase the sales appeal of the Oz books to non-whites, and it probably will. No argument there -- Oz is for all those who are young at heart. The whole debacle is more a matter of style than anything else. Instead of making such changes unannounced, it would not have injured your reputation or your sales, either, if you had merely put in a little note something like: "This book has been modified somewhat from its original form in order to remove certain ethnic references. Readers to whom this may be of more than passing interest are referred to the 1913 (or whatever) edition." Children aren't going to pay any attention to an announcement like this, and any adults are supposed to have sense enough to know whether or not they are going to be offended by it. To say that white buyers would be particularly offended by such a caveat or that non-white buyers would be afforded thereby a special incentive to buy the book is to slight the intelligence and good will of a lot of people on both "sides." The trouble with revisionism is that it's so open-ended. It starts with one word. If no one's ethnic feathers are ruffled by that, then it expands to two words, then three, and on and on until the original form and content of whatever-it-is is completely altered and vanished. I disagree with what Books of Wonder did. I will not buy any of any of its editions which I know to have been altered. But that doesn't mean I will never buy anything else it publishes, nor does it mean I would look upon you with a snarl if we should meet in person. (Ha, as if I ever moved in your circles!) No, I wouldn't boycott BOW or try to organize a vendetta against your corporate "family." But I do think you made a mistake, and would hope that in the future you do the right thing. Maybe you really rationalized that you were doing your part to foster togetherness and racial harmony. If so, you are to be commended for that, at least. Sadly, though, there are enough extremists on every "side" so that I truly think that racism per se will never be totally eradicated. Like the flu, it will be always with us. This commentary has been well meant. You are helping to bring Oz to many who otherwise would remain ignorant of the pleasure and joy of visiting there. Continue the good work! Athos4@aol.com (Warren Baldwin) ============================================================================= Date: Tuesday 23-Jan-96 19:33:50 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Can we all get along? Eric wrote: >From: Dave Hardenbrook >> I would have thought that only bad guys (e.g. The Nome King) would have >> slaves... > >So Geore Washington and Thomas Jefferson were villains, eh? Dave (Very patiently): Er, um, in the fanciful fairy world were the "bad guys" all wear black and have funny moustaches, I meant... :) Tyler wrote: >Overall, now, I am detecting a level of hostility that does not need to be >there. ... We should be trying to build each other up and advance Oz as >a wonderful land full of stories to be told. Let us not forget what Oz >means and represents. ... To be blunt, there are not many of us (Oz-book >readers) and the last thing we need to do is fight amongst ourselves. ... >Oz is a place of timeless innocence and joy, and I hope that we will all >keep that spirit in this digest. AMEN!!! -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 25, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 21:39:40 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Bugle CDROM Tyler Jones wrote: >Nate Barlow WIZ@CMU.EDU is working on a project to put all the Baum Bugles >on CD-ROM. I do not know the status of this project. I really hope he gets >it finished. This would be an AWESOME research tool! I don't see Nate's name on this email digest list. Anybody know why? Could someone who has his current email asking him to tune in and tell us what is happening on this project and what state it is in? Thanks, Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 00:43:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-24-96 >> Also: Does Laumer have Trot, Betsy, and Ojo grow up and get married or >> not? (Not neccessary polygamously.) >WHO CARES????? Whoever said you had to be constrained by what Laumer (or >any other author) wrote??? I do. Laumer hasn't done anything to offend me, and from what I've heard his ideas about Oz are for the most part compatible with my own, as opposed to certain others which I've mentioned before whose works I don't care to be consistent with because their views of Oz are incompatible with mine. Hence I'm going out of my way to try not contradict Laumer. This is why I'm turning into a complete nudge when it comes to getting information onf Zippiochoggolak. (Non-FF authors I've read material by who I'm not intent on contradicting either: Martin, Abbott, Carlson & Gjovaag. Sprague I'm not sure of yet. I read his The Nome King's Shadow in Oz, and I really enjoyed it (especially one of Billina's chicks going on a secret mission), but unfortunately it has some historical problems, one of which affects The Woozy of Oz, namely the Wogglebug's secretary. If the Asmard's spell has a certain effect on the Wogglebug, logic would demand it have the same effect on the giant butterfly as well. I'm not sure I want to mention there being a whole host of giant insects in Oz. But I digress.) On the other hand, if Laumer hasn't set any precedents for what these characters do, I'll go out of my way to marry them off in ways that will draw less criticism than Laumer's marriages. For example, barring precedent, I plan to have Betsy marry Prince Reddy of Rash (what's his full name again? I don't own a copy of The Hungry Tiger of Oz yet). Ojo I have plans for which I do not intend to discuss here for the reason that it would leak too much information. Trot I'm not sure what to do with yet, and would really appreciate suggestions for who she should marry, though Kiki Aru is off the list since I have him regain most of his memory, leave the Emerald City, and spend most of his time driving pintons into the side of Mount Munch. Maybe Woot the Wanderer. Come to think of it, maybe Queen Ann and the Shaggy Man might try to get Salye and Wiggy (full name: William Sigmund Mann) together... Side note: A borrowing from Madden has already crept into The Woozy of Oz (Ozma calling the Four-Horned Cow Bossie, though the Cow insists her name is Plumly), and I accepted Pendexter's form of Pastoria's name (Pastorius Oz) as a legitimate variant for my work on Old Ozzish. I must be mutating. Though I still can't see Quox extorting hot coals from villiagers... As for me having too much time on my hands, most of the material I came up with for Old Ozzish I worked out one night when I couldn't sleep. Being human, I had to think about something... And as for the apostrophe discussion: Grammar aside, the title of the Sprague book I read (The Nome King's Shadow in Oz) had the apostrophe on the cover and the title page. I would assume that would be enough reason to spell it with the apostrophe in the HACC. Also: The HACC attributes The Nome King's Shadow in Oz to Abbott when the book itself attributes it to Sprague. I was under the impression that there was no book called Rinkitink of Oz, but that Baum wrote one called Rinkitink in Oz. And what is a rewolf? As for the invisible giants thing, I actually was planning on making that part of a lie said by Kiki Aru which is not believed because "Everyone and their second cousin Martha knows that giants can't turn invisible!" probably due some sort of quirk in the way magic works. Isn't Wam the guy who planted the traveller's tree? What is molasses supposed to be anyway? (I know something of the physical properties, but I can't recall what it's made from.) Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 21:50:52 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Slavery Ref the following comment: >There have been many kinds of slavery in the world. In our own country, it >was the most brutal type. People were simply owned by someone else who >got every possible last ounce of sweat out of them. Other kinds were almost >of a family relationship, often with the slave buying his freedom and >establishing an estate of his own. I still don't like the idea of someone >being owned by someone else, however. Slavery is a terrible thing, and I wish to God we never had it in our country. But let's not lose a real grip on the realities of history. Slavery has existed in the world as long as there has been a written record. And it still exists today. I think it may be a bit of an overstatement to say the form that existed in America was the "most brutal" type. Maybe it depends on what you mean by brutal, but by and large slaves in America were commercial property worth a lot of money. In other places and other times, slaves were expendible, very cheap. They had little value so you can imagine just how brutal their existence was. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 01:21:54 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Offensive Material in Oz Ugh, me and my big mouth.. Might as well pitch my two cents in. I'm going to have come in on the side against altering the original texts, for reasons already discussed here by others. I am, however, concerned about children picking up things from what they read, and so come the fateful day I do have kids, I am inclined not to let them read _The Patchwork Girl of Oz_ and other such books that have been discussed here recently until they have developed their critical-thinking skills to the point where they can read past that stuff. Last I heard, parents were supposed to at least keep an eye on what their kids were reading (and listening to and watching on TV...), and if there was something in their they were no quite ready for yet, they were supposed to help them understand or turn it off where appropriate. I suppose one could argue that expurgated editions like Books of Wonder's edition of _Patchwork_ allow one to introduce kids to an otherwise excellent story without exposing them to the problematic material, but this still rubs me wrong. There are plenty of wonderful Oz books out there that don't have problematic material in them, so my preference would be to simply wait and if the child in question is still interested in Oz when he/she is older, let him/her read them then. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 00:32:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Nathanel J. Barlow" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-24-96 Excerpts from mail: 23-Jan-96 Ozzy Digest, 01-24-96 by Dave Hardenbrook@delphi. > Nate Barlow WIZ@CMU.EDU is working on a project to put all the Baum Bugles > on CD-ROM. I do not know the status of this project. I really hope he gets > it finished. This would be an AWESOME research tool! I know what the thing is going to look like; I just need to get Visual C++ on a machine (my own computer is currently not working) so I can actually do the program. A couple of data processing programs have already been written. On Return to Oz: I loved it, though I didn't care for the mixing of the two books. Nate RociNate -- wiz@CMU.EDU * Red Sox, Patriots, Steelers, Celtics -- nb2b+@andrew.cmu.edu * Bruins, Whalers, Pens, UConn, FRINGE ___________________________________________________________________________ |"I've got a bad feeling about this."|"Don't ask me, I'm just improvising"| | --(Take your pick) | --Rush, _Presto_ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- O N T H E E D G E ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 13:36:02 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy digest Now that we have sufficiently "trashed" RETURN TO OZ, we can move on. Actually, the sense I got was that people did not really hate the movie, we simply objected to it being an MGM-clone, not true enough to the books, and the cross-breeding thing with books two and three. I am on the sidelines for old Ozzish and will NOT put my two cents in, but I will slightly reverse myself on the censorship issue. There is one more "choice" of available books, with or without censoring: Leave the text as is, and it can provide a starting point for a discussion of racism and other failings in our past and present. We are not perfect, and perhaps Oz may point us in the direction of true elightenment, which is to face our imperfections and strive to be better. I believe that children are more resilient thatn we give them credit for. I believe that a child of any race or sex) can read things that are overtly or covertly racist, sexist, etc. and (with help from other people) realize that it is not true and that people of all backgrounds are equal. I am almost to the point of taking one of Erics suggestions about the Laumer books. He once suggested that they be treated as a "different" Oz. These stories do not contradict the FF, but they are written very differently from others and it is a different Oz that is presented here, much like the Volkovian Oz, although that series DOES contradict the FF. Which reminds me, the name of the Frogman is Frederick Fraukx. At a summer camp that I used to go to, there was a different literary or film "theme" each year. One year was the Wizard of Oz (MGM-based). The campers split up into teams and the highlight was each group doing a short skit of a part of the movie. Ironically, this was the one year that I did not go to camp, so I can't help you. Eric, I did not quite understand your comments about RETURN TO OZ. Did you mean that they tried to duplicate the MGM-movie too much or not enough? I don't remember too much about Zippy (to use his nickname), but I seem to think that he was just a stock character. He did not really do much, and you would be better off not mentioning him at all, and we can assume a divorce or that he was off somewhere else. You are falling into the trap where you assume that you must agree with every book 100%. Also, don't fall victim to "Thompson Syndrome" which states that an Oz book must have as many characters from earlier books as you can possibly cram into the pages. There is no need to mention everybody in every book. Even if this were possible under copyright law, it would not be practical. I applaud your research and efforts at consistency, however, but you may be trying too hard. Now that I think of it, it is just possible (if I remember correctly) that Zippiochoggolak is the real name of Tommy Kwikstep from Baums book THE TIN WOODMAN OF OZ. Maybe. I also would not worry about other marriages (if any) from the Laumer stuff. Dave asked me for advice on how to help quell the rising tide of anger that is beginning to permeate this digest. I thought I would make my answer (such as it is) public. I have no advice (hard-core advice, that is). People will be who they are and it not practical to try to change them forcibly. We all need to remember the purpose of this digest. It is to offer communication between Oz fans all over and to be an exchange of information and ideas. Even in Oz, there will be disagreements and arguements. This can be a good thing, as it generates discussion and thought and will hopefully lead to even better ideas. (and, of course, more Oz books!") However, this is supposed to be in a spirit of friendship and I believe it is possible to be in friendly disagreement and still be unified by our love for the magical Land of Oz. Perhaps this flashback to "Cheers" may help. Frasier is upset, because a paper that he has published has come under criticism from a rival psychiatrist. Sam: Frasier, instead of turning this issue into a contest, can't we simply agree that this is an honest disagreement between two intelligent and capable scholars? (Frasier gives a deep thoughtful look, as if he just heard something profound and life-changing). Frasier: Oh, poop-doodle, Sam. The man's out to massacre me! --Tyler "Four days to the Super Bowl" Jones p.s. AND NO MORE BUD-BOWLS!!!!!!!! ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 16:02:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Miracles happen Got The Green Dolphin of Oz by March Laumer today through ILL, believe it or not. So far in my reading it's been totally and utterly wierd, mostly through taking unusual things and talking about them totally oblivious of their unusualness. It took me some time to even realise that Rodney was a horse. Expect a more comprehensive critique when I get done with it. By the way, what is a furry anyway? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 22:57:00 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-24-96 > From: jvandern@neosoft.com (Jim Vander Noot) > > One minor comment on the Patchwork Girl controversy. I take exception to > the change of: > > "Their skins were dusky and their hair stood straight up, like wires, and was > billiant scarlet in color." > > There's nothing at all in this statement that conveys any potential offense > and I don't understand why it was changed. Jim, "dusky" was a commonly used euphemism for "brown" or "negroid." Peter Glassman wrote: > NO author's text gets into print without being edited first I agree, but Baum didn't come to you as a publisher, knowing he'd be edited. I certainly can understand why the editing was done,and--for the record--I think the way you edited the text was superlative, BUT I'm very, very uncomfortable with it and I do see it as censorship. Censorship is usually done with the very best of intentions but, even if we agree with those intentions I hope we don't agree with the act of censorship. Well-meaning censorship is, indeed, the first step to FAHRENHEIT 451. But it is a shame that the racist stuff is there in the first place. From: Tyler Jones > Overall, now, I am detecting a level of hostility that does not need to be > there.... We should be trying to build each other up and advance Oz as > a wonderful land full of stories to be told. Let us not forget what Oz > means and represents. >.... To be blunt, there are not many of us (Oz-book > readers) and the last thing we need to do is fight amongst ourselves. BOW is > one of the few places that publish Oz books, and we need to stick together. > Oz is a place of timeless innocence and joy, and I hope that we will all > keep that spirit in this digest. Amen! (Gee, I just saw that Dave said the same thing. Well, that's two of us, then.) From: Eric Gjovaag > > And now, if I may add some fuel to the fire of this whole "censorship" > debate: > > Which would you rather see, the rather mild alterations in the current > edition of "Patchwork Girl," or the offending episodes deleted entirely? > > Which would you rather see, the rather mild alterations in the current > edition of "Patchwork Girl," or NO current edition of "Patchwork Girl" at > all? > > Those are the choices, folks! Nope. The other choice is an edition true to the original, although it certainly would be appropriate for Peter to have commented about the issue in his own "blurb." From: Athos4@aol.com > With respect, Mr. Glassman, you ought to put yourself on the sidelines in any > discussion about changes made to the original Oz books, because you're part > of the problem, don't you see? I strongly disagree. Peter has certainly got a right to express himself actively on this issue. How can anyone even suggest he essentially disenfranchise himself here? >Ever since the very first publisher it has > been your (plural) wont to view the fruits of artistic endeavor as mere > commodity to be bought and sold. The publisher is at heart a salesperson > concerned primarily with sales and profit. Yes, true. But this publisher (BOW) loves the Oz books. Peter's position is, to say the least, a very difficult and ambiguous one. He's on a tightrope. As you can see from my statements above, I feel he made a misstep with the revision in P.GIRL, but that's all it was, at most. Your suggestion is essentially what I had in mind for a blurb. Children who notice the problem in the first place probably WILL pay attention to such an announcement. Bottom line: In spite of some things I view as error, I'm awfully glad that BOW has made so many books available to the public. IWOC is trying to do the same thing, and so is BUCKETHEAD. Let's just be glad that Oz is still being published. --Robin Olderman ============================================================================= Hi everyone! Before I send out today's Digest, I want to send you all my new list of guidelines for the Digest. I am getting very worried about the increasing tension in some of our discussions, and I especially don't want to "turn off" all our newcomers (of which there are a lot, as I'll mention in the Digest). So I am setting down these new rules for posting messages in the hopes that we will maintain a friendly, courteous, and Ozzy atmosphere for the Digest (these guidelines will also be sent to the new people): 1) DO NOT post any abusive, profane, or inflammatory messages. Everyone this list deserves courtesy and respect. 2) DO NOT post any but very brief (5 lines max.) quotes from published materials (Oz books or otherwise). 3) If you are yourself an aspiring Oz author, please DO NOT post any of your own writing without speaking to me privately about it first! It is not really the intent of this digest to publish original works, and I feel that posting writing that you indend to publish to a public forum is extremely risky anyway! (However, I might consent to posting brief original writings if the author consults me privately first.) 4) When replying to another person's message, instead of quoting the ENTIRE original message, please try to quote only the parts most important and relevant to your response. This will help each Digest from getting too large. 5) "Spams" (messages that by the wildest stretch of imagination have nothing whatever to do with Oz) will NOT be tolerated. So please take your party line numbers elsewhere. I will be moderating the group, so any such messages will not be distributed to list members, and I reserve the right to remove from the list anyone who repeatedly abuses their privileges on the list. I'm sure however that everyone will have a good time discussing Ozzy subjects here, and I look forward to talking with you and all the other Oz fans on the Internet! -- Dave THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 26, 1996 Hello everyone, and an Ozzy welcome to our twenty-seven(!) new members! :) -- Dave Hardenbrook, Ozzy Digest editor ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:19:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Nathanel J. Barlow" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-25-96 Excerpts from mail: 25-Jan-96 Ozzy Digest, 01-25-96 by Dave Hardenbrook@delphi. > Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 21:39:40 -0800 > From: "W. R. Wright" > Subject: Bugle CDROM > > Tyler Jones wrote: > >Nate Barlow WIZ@CMU.EDU is working on a project to put all the Baum Bugles > >on CD-ROM. I do not know the status of this project. I really hope he gets > >it finished. This would be an AWESOME research tool! > > I don't see Nate's name on this email digest list. Anybody know why? Could > someone who has his current email asking him to tune in and tell us what is > happening on this project and what state it is in? > Thanks, > Bill W. I am on the list. wiz@cmu.edu is an alias for my actual address, nb2b@andrew.cmu.edu. I don't usually have much time to write in posts. Nate RociNate -- wiz@CMU.EDU * Red Sox, Patriots, Steelers, Celtics -- nb2b@andrew.cmu.edu * Bruins, Whalers, Pens, UConn, FRINGE ___________________________________________________________________________ |"I've got a bad feeling about this."|"Don't ask me, I'm just improvising"| | --(Take your pick) | --Rush, _Presto_ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- O N T H E E D G E ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 00:06:55 -0800 (PST) From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-24-96 For Colored Girls Who Sing The Blues When The Rainbow Isn't Enough "You have a perverted taste," snapped Margolotte, much annoyed at this frank criticism. "I think the Patchwork Girl is beautiful, considering what she's made of. Even the rainbow hasn't as many colors, and you must admit that the rainbow is a pretty thing." I never saw the play, but the title should be dedicated to Scraps, the celebrated Patchwork Girl of Oz. Somehow, I think the story of Scraps could be taught to describe the ludicrousness of racism in all of its pernicious forms, including the misguided beneficence of political correctness courtesy of the Ministry of Trooth. Nobody should ever second guess an author, especially one on record as supportive of violence towards native peoples. (I have only read about, but not read, Baum's reputed editorializing towards "solutions" for the "Indian Problem" nor did Baum draw pictures of the Grand Galipoot) I do know that Scraps was intended to be a servant; that Ojo acted in opposition to what he perceived as expected behavior when he insured an overabundance of 'Cleverness' to be the lot of Scraps. I also know that L. Frank Baum was from Show Biz. At that Fin de Siecle time, AmeriKan Show Biz contained a lot of Black Faced Entertainment. There were Minstrel Shows that had lilly-white casts. Tin-Pan Alley cranked out toons sung by whites trying to sound black. Al Jolson (much later) was a Jewish Performer who sang "Mammy" in Black Face. Groups like McKinney's Cotton Pickers or Louis Armstrong certainly weren't recording until the twenties. When I read Patchwork Girl for the first time as an adult, sometime in 1990, I pictured the singer of "Coal-Black Lulu" to be a sort of 1914 Pat Boone Blackface, performing Tutti-Frutti and selling more records than the 1914 edition of Little Richard. I'm sure it sounded at least as bad, and, as racism, sold well. In short, whether for good reasons or bad, Baum didn't like the Pop music of the day, any more than he liked mechanical music from "Musickers." Don't get me started, but some other time, ask me what Bosco, Step 'N Fetchit, and Mickey Mouse have in common. The ideal purpose of a posthumous editor is annotation, not revisionism. Clearly, Peter is creating good work in good faith with the best intentions; we do not know what battles he fought to win this Pyrrhic victory. Sadly, I don't think the text alterations achieved the laudable intent. At least, Scraps still encounters the queerest strangers she ever did see. And if anybody ever asks Peter to lose the poppies, I hope he has the good sense to just say no. The most disgusting and disturbing is around me always; I trust no one to view it for me and shield me from that which they deem too much for me to bear for fear of what I might become. -- Ken Cope Ones & Zeroes SurReal Estate ahclem@netcom.com http://www.ozcot.com ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 08:21:23 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-25-96 ****************************************************************** I (for one -- maybe the only one?) enjoyed RETURN TO OZ. I agree with most of the common complaints about the film; too dark, Ozma's minor role, scary electroshock scene. But, I still enjoyed the film. Loved that claymation. Scott Cummings ****************************************************************** ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 06:53:15 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: For the Digest People, I do NOT appreciate getting personal e-mail about this whole censorship issue. Fine, you disagree with me (and I probably agree with you more than you realize), that is your right. But if you have a point to make, make it here in the Digest, unless you have a PERSONAL bone to pick. This is seriously threatening to turn into a flame war, which is the surest and fastest way for me to unsubscribe from this list. So, for the moment, here is what I think we ALL need to agree on: 1. Censorship is not a good idea. 2. Perhaps Peter Glassman overstepped his bounds as a publisher by altering the texts of "The Patchwork Girl of Oz" and "Dot and Tot of Merryland." 3. Now that that's happened, however, you can choose not to buy either book if you are offended by the changes. 4. We must be on the lookout for future changes, especially ones that actually later the story. THERE! Can we let it drop now? --Eric "Proper responses to the last few Digests when I have spare time" Gjovaag "Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'" --The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:49:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Green Dolphin of Oz Finished reading The Green Dolphin of Oz, and my determination to be consistent with Laumer went way down. I now understand why Chris Dubalone calls him "sick", "evil", and "anti-Baum", and frankly the book was more demented than I expected it to be. Among the things I wasn't particularly fond of in The Green Dolphin of Oz were: 1) The New Teaching cult(?): This group is exceedingly sexually permissive, engaging sometimes also in nudity and perhaps bestiality. As a rabbinical student my religious sensibilities were offended, but even putting religion aside, this struck me as something that does not belong in an Oz book. 2) A talking animal and multiple magic workers in the Outside World. 3) L. Frank Baum living in Oz after he had died. (I cannot comprehend how such a thing could happen.) It is no wonder then that I gave in to the Royal Literary Critic's demands yesterday to ignore Laumer's marriage precedents yesterday and proceeded to remove Laumerisms from The Woozy of Oz, which now has marriages as my alter-ego Nalrodi envisioned them, except for that thing about about Nickadoodle and a butter churn. While I'm at it, I took the liberty of assuming that a grown up Trot and Button-Bright would start using their real names (Mayre and Saladin respectively), especially the latter. How is "Mayre" supposed to be pronounced anyway? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 17:30:29 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest I forgot that Nate has a couple of e-mail addresses. Apparantly, at least one of these is on the mailing list. Any ETA on the final product, Nate? Who cares about being consistent with Laumer? Hopefully, at least some people do. Laumers books ruled, with one exception, which I will talk about a little later. I will do my level best this weekend to get the dirt on Zippy/Zippiochoggolak/Tommy Kwikstep. I believe Laumer may also have gone into a little more detail on the identity of the person who gave Tommy all those legs. If memory serves, it may have been the Wicked Witch of the East, Gingemma. Kiki Aru returns! At least in Aarons book. He has not been heard from since MAGIC OF OZ. It makes sense that his memory would return (at least most of it). There was some theorizing done a few years back that said that the Nome Kings recovery of memory twice did NOT set a precedent for Kiki to recover HIS memory. Why? Here is the reasoning. The Nome King is not a flesh-and-blood person, although he does eat and sleep. As a fairy-type creature, he may have been able to get rid of the fountains effects eventually. In both cases, The Nome King was in familiar surroundings. The first time, Ozma sent him home. The second time, he was in the Emerald City. Even though there were no other Nomes to remind him of his wickedness, he knew many of the Oz people well and remembered anyway. Kiki was in totally unfamiliar surroundings. He knew nobody and nothing. Of course, it can be argued that Kiki was not wicked anyway. He simply desired to get off Mount Munch and when his parents said no, he got rude and unsociable. Once he got off the mountain and away from the influence of Ruggedo, he could go back to being a nice person. All this will be moot once Aarons story comes out (assuming that you decide to keep Kiki in there). Quox is known as a slightly disobient dragon, so he may have bullied people into giving him hot coals, although this would definitely be out of character from somebody who lives in the land of Ti-Ti-Ti Hoo-Choo. Yes, the official title of THE NOME KING'S SHADOW IN OZ has the apostrophe, but I just can't bring myself to put it in there. In a related story, I was working on the 4th edition to the Cruenti Dei rules (A Play-By-Mail game) and did a search and deliberately took every single one of them out of there! Rinkitink in/of/for/with/to/above/and Oz? Maybe. I was a little sloppy in that department. I will also check the author of NOME KINGS SHADOW. Yes, Wam is the guy who planted the tree, in 1120 O.Z. Laumer did some speculation on that date. I will look it up for you. I think that it is the date of the start of some dynasty or something. Laumer at this point gives us some OLD OZZISH! So hold on for this info, Aaron! I am not entirely sure what molasses is. The dictionary says it is a thick, dark syrup produced during the refining of sugar. I believe it is some kind of sweetener. OH, NO! Not THE GREEN DOLPHIN. Aaron, believe me, this is his most un-Ozzy and most poorly written book. I too started with this one and was very disappointed. I thought that Rodney could morph into a man or a horse. They don't even get to Oz until the very end of the story. His other books are much much much (add a few extra muches) better. Way much, dude. I believe that "furry" is an ancient European word meaning "fairy" or a close relative of a fairy. Nobody should be on the sidelines in a discussion of censorship or any other issue. As James T. Kirk said in that episode with the Yangs and the Coms, "They must apply to EVERYBODY, or they are meaningless". ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 14:15:00 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Drool, drool, drool... Does anyone out there have a pricing guide? One of the local used bookstores has what appears to be a first edition of _The Tin Woodman of Oz_ in relatively decent condition. I have been drooling over it for about a week, and had it cost an amount equal to or less than the amount of cash I had at the time, I would have bought it up in a minute. Unfortunately, the asking price was $75, and I am wondering if this is a fair price and worth saving up for or is someone gouging. Does anyone have a reference for "A Murder in Oz"? I am thinking of ILLing it. ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:10:56 -0500 From: michael f burns Subject: Oz Digest- Oz Squad update The December issue (#9) has hit the newstands and contains the 1st part of the adventures of Nick Chopper, who is currently trapped in his own past at the time he first became the Tin Woodsman. Some really nice details: The Ev-Ix War and the rise of the Tin Smythes, and IMHO the single best explanation of why some of the Historians mix up directions. Simple, elegant, and most of all very Ozzy! Think of an island floating on a sea of sand, with a 10 year rotation cycle. The art is great. The duel between Queen Zixi and King Everette. Great stuff! Mike Burns (The Watchdog of Oz) ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 21:22:27 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Oops! Correction to Oz Squad #9 summary The historical events leading up to the creation of the Tin Woodman start in Oz circa 1200 AD Earth time. The King of Oz is named Everette and is a despot deranged by the death of his unnamed mother who first banished the Phanfasms to Mount Phantastico. The king plans to expand his empire to the borderlands surrounding Oz. His army conquers Ev, the Nome Kingdom, Noland and he intends to subjugate the Phanfasms and use their power to resurrect his mother. The Army of Oz is made nearly indestructible by the use of ancient Nome magic that allows the Tin Smythes to replace lost body parts with tin. Ev is used as the staging area by the king's forces. The army is stopped when they reach Ix and the superior magic of the 2000 year old Queen Zixi, who kills King Everette in a famous duel despite the power of his mother's magic sword which is powered by wishes. Zixi forces the king's daughter Padroingo to sign a peace treaty and to banish the Tin Soldiers from Oz and to curse them with a human lifespan. The soldiers eventually die off and then events flash forward 700 years to the time of the witches' rebellion and Nick Chopper, who is having a secret affair with Amy who is the servant of the Witch of the East. Nick is officially the Witch's lover. She has used her power to make herself young and beautiful. When the Witch discovers Nick's affair, she destroys his family, sends Amy to the war's frontlines, and curses Nick's ax.The Tin Woodman, due to the crash of Smith and Tinker's time train has been stranded in his own past before Nick Chopper loses all his humanity and becomes the Tin Woodman. The future Nick meets the past Nick and takes him to the Tin Smythe's when past Nick cuts off his other arm. Once there, we discover the presence of Smith and Tinker who put out fake stories of their own demise and are secretly working on some project. At the end of Act One of the Tin Woodman's origin story, he steals a rocket Smith and Tinker made and heads off to try and save his beloved Amy. Great storytelling, great art, and again plenty of neat touches: Oz as an island floating on a sea of sand, rotating once every 10 years, which neatly solves the Historians' problems with directions by saying that all of the Historians were right. Tiny dinosaurs that are native to the Gillikin/Munchkin border. This series is quickly approaching near-canonical status for me, especially for the work in developing the pre-Dorothean history of Oz which makes for interesting and illuminating reading and stays remarkably close in spirit to Baum's own work. Yes, there is still lots of depicted violence. But Dorothy did kill hundreds, if not thousands of Nomes trying to rescue the royal family of Ev. So it was not dwelt on in Ozma of Oz, but it still happened. Anyway, it all works to lend a greater texture and reality to Oz and the lives of its inhabitants which IMO is for the good. Mike Burns ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 27, 1996 Here it is at last! Sorry for the delay, everyone! -- Dave ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 09:39:27 -0500 From: David A Gerstein Subject: Peter Glassman vs. Scraps, round one Good to know someone has started this mailing list -- how long has it been going? Great to have BAUM BUGLE-style discussion on the Web. I'd previously been enrolled in some other Oz mailing group, but it tended to linger over the 1939 movie most of the time (not that I don't like that film, but I figure there are a lot of less-well-trodden subjects for our discussion.) Anyway... just what havoc did Peter Glassman wreak on THE PATCHWORK GIRL OF OZ? That's always been my favorite book in the series, and I suspect that it was the Living Phonograph's dialogue about "coal-black Lulu" that got the axe. Also, (I don't have my reference here) is that also the book in which a Tottenhot, as they're called in Oz, is referred to as a lower form of a human being? Hope nothing about the Woozy was changed. I'm curious knowing that someone is writing THE WOOZY OF OZ -- a project I began at the grand old age of ten, but never finished. David Gerstein <96dag@williams.edu> P. S. If Peter Glassman tried to write his own version of the lost "Garden of Meats" chapter, then we'd really be in for it... (Not that I don't generally appreciate Glassman's usually-more-faithful reproductions. How about his doing FATHER GOOSE, even if he altered parts of it a little? How about *anyone* doing FATHER GOOSE?) [NOTE: I E-mailed David privately to fill him in on BoW & _Patchwork Girl_ -- Dave] ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 10:10:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Various 1) Nate, I could not get into your Oz FTP site using the directions in Eric's FAQ. Is there a typo there? 2) If any of Laumer's other books are more Ozzy and less offensive and problematic than The Green Dolphin of Oz, I'll be more inclined to be consistent with him, though the Green Dolphin of Oz will remain considered by me 'not to be included in consistency checking'. Anybody out there know of any libraries that have Laumer books? Out of 4 books requested so far via ILL, two (The Good Witch of Oz and The Magic Mirror of Oz) were not stocked at all, one (Aunt Em and Uncle Henry of Oz) was in two libraries but not sent by either, and only the afformentioned "sick, evil, anti-Baum" book came through. Aunt Em and Uncle Henry of Oz not coming through is especially disappointing since both the Royal Literary Critic of Oz and I wrote jokes about Urfin Jus and his wooden soldiers and I was curious about which of us was more accurate. (Probably the Critic. He at least had Urfin Jus as a character. I wrote a recipe for urfin juice.) Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 10:21:33 -0500 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 1/26/96 Scott Cummings, you are not alone! I too enjoyed RETURN TO OZ. Despite the obvious errors and dark overtones, I thought it was a much better representation of Baum's works than the WoZ 1939 musical, which I saw the week it opened in NYC. I had read the book during the previous year, and, at age 10, was furious with the ruby instead of silver slippers, Glinda, the witch of the North, etc. (yes, I'm one of those old folks). RETURN TO OZ's Wheelers, Tik-Tok, the Gump and the claymation impressed and delighted me. Yes, Barry Adelman, $75.00 for a 1st edition TIN WOODMAN is certainly gouging. Please advise me of the location of this unscrupulous book store, and I will deal with them personally! (perhaps you could privately send me their phone number, ASAP) DIXNAM@aol.com (Dick Randolph) ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 10:17:26 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Oz Squad Mike, if I read your postings correctly, the mixing up of directions comes about because Oz (or perhaps all of Imagination) rotates. Wouldn't this reverse north and south as well? I think it somewhat more likely that Ruth Plumly Thompson was flipped over through the fourth dimension by a demented higher-dimensional creature and never managed to get right and left (and hence east and west) straight again. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 07:38:09 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Names Aaron wrote: > How is "Mayre" supposed to be pronounced anyway? It's a fine old southern name that is pronounced "may-ree"; two distinct syllables. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 13:09:45 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-26-96 >Does anyone out there have a pricing guide? One of the local used bookstores >has what appears to be a first edition of _The Tin Woodman of Oz_ in relatively >decent condition. I have been drooling over it for about a week, and had it >cost an amount equal to or less than the amount of cash I had at the time, I >would have bought it up in a minute. Unfortunately, the asking price was $75, >and I am wondering if this is a fair price and worth saving up for or is >someone gouging. A decent copy of a first edition of Tin Woodman is worth much more than $75. Go for it! Check with Bib. Oziana to be sure it's REALLY a first, though. Many people call many printings "firsts" because (technically) they are first EDITIONS. But generally we consider only first PRINTINGS to be true "firsts" for Oz books. Scott ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 14:29:13 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the 76 GOP freshmen (I mean the 27 Oz chat line freshmen) to Daves Ozzy Digest! Check out these cool Ozzy Web Sites: International Wizard of Oz Club: http://www.neosoft.com/~iwoc Piglet Press: http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/ Ozcot: http://www.ozcot.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/tyler_jones That last one is my personal home page, but the Oz section is right on top! My web page must be addressed by all lower case letters, and that :80 thing may not be necessary. Eric Gjovaag may know of some more Ozzy Web Sites. Hopefully, this infusion of new blood will branch out our discussions. Lately, we have been focused on only a few topics. To continue this, if ANYBODY out there knows anybody else who would like to partake in an on-line discussion of the Land of Oz in all its aspects (written, film and collectible), have them mail Dave and get put on the list. Aaron, let me again plead the case of March Laumer. GREEN DOLPHIN is without a doubt his worst effort. The others are so far above it, it's like... well, I can't think of a comparison, but PLEASE try to find some more before you pass judgement. Eric G, please do not unsubscribe from the list! Your input is highly valuable, even though we do not always agree on everything. I hope that the people flaming you are not too harsh. Our group would be much stronger with you than without you. Dave asked us not to put large quotes of published (or unpublished) works in the list, but I believe that a short description of MURDER IN OZ will not violate the Prime Directive, and I won't even give away the ending! Several of the celebs are in Glindas palace. They are discussing the philosophy, ramifications and possibility of committing a murder in Oz. Suddenly, they realize that Ozma has been murdered! Who? How? Why? It turns out that... (e-mail me privately for the answer). This looks to be one of my shorter posts. For the new members, if you wish to look at our previous chats, Ken Cope and I have the entire December Ozzy Digest available for e-mailing. I also have Januarys up to and including yesterdays release. Decembers digest in ASCII form is 296,000 bytes, while Januarys (so far) is 348,000. That amounts to nearly 200 pages of stuff! --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 22:17:21 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-24-96 > Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 03:33:35 -0500 (EST) > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Return to Oz > > Eric, my vote on Return to Oz is: thumb down. It was explicitly a sequel > to the MGM movie (which I also rate as a thumb down, as I believe that > movies based on books should be loyal to the books) and it was too > hybridish. Instead of doing either The Marvelous Land of Oz or Ozma of Oz > they had to try and combine the two (G-d only knows why), resulting in > such wierd things as rolling Mombi and Langwidere into one character. > This type of absurdity merits mockery, and I think I'd better not say > another word on this topic because I see I'm starting to get mean and > might get struck by lightning or something if I keep it up. You are taking both the movies and the books too seriously here, methinks. What I want to know is, does "Return to Oz" stand up ON ITS OWN, as a film? Sure, comparison to the books and the MGM film are inevitable, but putting some of that aside, how is it? I'm still fair-to-middling myself, as you may be able to tell from my original post... > From: michael f burns > Subject: Oz Digest > > Isn't it funny how everyone assumes I am white! Can a person of color not > also be offended by censorship? Of course not. When I said "white liberal," I meant it more as an attitude than as a literal description. (Myself, FWIW, I'm a white left-leaning moderate.) > How does changing Coal Black Lulu to Cross > Eyed Lulu make it less offensive? I guess Helen Keller style humor is still > okay. Um, that you'll hae to ask Peter Glassman about... > Peter, I'm sorry you thought I was being sarcastic. I wasn't. How can we > teach our children about the evils of racism if it so easy to rewrite our > books and history to the point that there is no longer any historical > record of it? I think I'll go back to lurking. Were BoW the ONLY distributor of "Patchowork Girl," and they were also rounding up all the old copies with the now-un-PC wording and estroying them, then yes, they'd be trying to rewrite history. But seeing as how there are at least two other currently available unexpurgated editions, and plenty of older copies out there as well, saying that there is no longer a historical record of it is silly. (And no, I am NOT advocating that Del Rey and Dover change their editions to match BoW's, and that all pre-BoW editions should be destroyed...) > From: cummingss@kenyon.edu > Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-22-96 > > >I think I agree...if once you start altering this word or that phrase in > >this or that book, where does it end? Fahrenheit 451??? And how does it follow that this WILL happen? Yes, it's possible, but highly unlikely, especially if we speak out as much as we are now! > >This seems a rather extreme extrapolation. Again, let me state that NO > >author's > >text gets into print without being edited first (Eric Gjovaag can vouch for > >this). Although I myself would frown on unbridled rewriting of an author's > >text, removing a few minor words which add nothing to the story but would > >inevitably lead to the book being banned in many schools, libraries and > >bookstores seems to me the better course of action. > > > >- Peter Glassman > > Books of Wonder > > I see a BIG difference between having the editors of R&L change the text of > Baum's UNPUBLISHED manuscript and having the forces of "political correctness" > alter the text of a well-loved children's classic some 80 years later. I just > don't believe that these few lines make that much of a difference for the Oz > books turning aways today's readers. Do modern African-American children > really find these phrases offensive? Of course we all know that modern > over-sensitized highly-educated academics are offended by history's racism. > But are the kids? What about their parents? Regardless of whether or not the kids are offended, or even affected, their parents may be, and do not want to expose their children to what they find offensive. And most of the time it is the parents, not the kids, who buy the books. (I am NOT saying this is right, just that that's the way it is.) > Can't we just keep the Oz books in the historical context in > which they were written? I can. You can. But many people can not. > I think that this is a fascinating debate, and I am very interested in other's > opinions. I'm glad that Peter in online, since his view on these matters is > obviously relevant. Are there any other examples of recent revisions in Oz or > Baum texts? Yes, the recent "Bugle" review of BoW's "Dot and Tot of Merryland" pointed out that some references to the unreliability of chocolate nannies or dark-skinned dolls (i.e. blacks) were deleted, and the version of "The Woggle-Bug Book" in "The Third Book of Oz" HEAVILY rewrites some EXTREMELY dated and stilted speeches written in dialect for a number of characters, most notably for the black washwoman. > I (for one) enjoy a conversation "string" that involves something OTHER than > this seemingly endless debate about a consistent storyline in 250+ Oz books. Now, if we could only find something more PLEASANT to talk about as well... > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > But before that, I was going to say something about a digest from about a > week ago. Aaron said he wanted to see more apostrophes in the HACC. > > This is a pet peeve of mine, this unbridled use of superfluous apostrophes. > The apostrophe denotes a contraction, as in isn't, don't, can't Ann Soforth > (this time, a pun IS intended!) Most people and companies use them because > they look cool, but about half the time you see one, it shouldn't be there. > It can also be used as a possesive if the word ends in s or if there is a > "double-s" sound, like Tyler Jones's computer, but it is Dave Hardenbrooks > CD-ROM. So, you're saying that there is more than one Dave Hardenbrook? If so, which one owns the computer? I have ALWAYS learned that 's denotes ownership, no matter what letter the thing doing the owning ends with, and I have NEVER heard of this rule. If you can point it out to me in some style or grammar book, I will acquiesce, but I will also feel free to present counter-examples. But even if you stick by your guns on this, I would say, go with what the author has, even if you personally think it's incorrect. Isn't changing "The Nome King's Shadow in Oz" to "The Nome Kings Shadow in Oz" the same (although much less dramatic, and liable to cause fewer arguments) as changing "Coal-Black" to "Cross-Eyed"? You are changing what the author wrote to suit your own sensibilities. > You obviously cannot completely agree with HOW THE WIZARD CAME TO OZ, > THE MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES OF OZ and OZ AND THE THREE WITCHES, since they > all contradict each other. I still maintain that these contradictions are > minor and can be explained away. I still maintain that these minor inconsistencies don't NEED to be explained away, they can exist quite nicely on their own... > Personally, I LOVED Oz and the Three Witches and Mysterious Chronicles. They > were not the standard Ozian fare, but they were excellent. HOW THE WIZARD > CAME TO OZ is also a good story, but not "as good". "How the Wizard" also has no mention whatsoever of Mombi, or her involvement with the Wizard and Ozma, which always rubbed me as being either a MAJOR oversight or revisionist... > I did not really like RETURN TO OZ. Disney said that this would not be an > MGM clone and then they went out of their way to make it as much like the > MGM film as possible. Did they? I don't remember any big song-and-dance musical numbers, and the set designs were COMPLETELY different... "Return to Oz" is an uncomfortable mishmash of one man's dark, pessimistic view of the books and elements of MGM, IMHO. > They melded the next two books (two of the best that > were ever written) and the result was less than fantastic. Fairuza Balk did > an excellent acting job, however. I've seen Fairuza Balk in a number of films since "Return to Oz," and she's been excellent in every one of them. She's a very good actor, and she's also been my favorite Dorothy for almost eleven years now. > I am torn on the censoring issue, but Peter Glassman made a very good > point when he said that children comprise a very large chunk of our target > audience. The idea here is to get children interested in reading Oz books > and other books, too! It would be impractical to print TWO versions of The > Patchwork Girl of Oz, one with the racist stuff and one without. It must be > remembered that even though most of the people on this newsgroup are adults, > Oz books are primarily childrens books (and for the young at heart:)). May I just butt in here for a moment and ask that we no longer use the term "censorship" with regards to what BoW has done to "Patchwork Girl"? Not publishing it at all because of possibly racist content, that would be censorship. Banning, burning, removing it from shelves, or otherwise making it generally unavailable, that would be censorship. Altering a few words, that is NOT censorhsip, that is editing. Whether it's right or not, that's why we're having this whole debate in the first place. > I still oppose alterations that change the plot, but the ones that BOW did > were very minor. Maybe children need to be sheltered a little bit until they > can be educated and trained to be fully independent thinkers and can recog- > nize stuff for what it is. I am still at odds with myself over this issue. > Where's Rush Limbaugh when I need him? BTW, Eric, how old are the kids in > your class? This is a fourth/fifth grade split, and it's a slightly accelerated program for good learners. (I hesitate to say "gifted," as there are other programs in Seattle schools that more accurately fit that term, and while these kids are bright, they're not that much more advanced than their peers, from what I've observed.) I, too, am at odds over this issue, I feel the need to make clear. While in principle I am opposed to any alterations of an author's works once it's published without the author's consent and input, I do understand why BoW did it, and the changes were small enough that I can live with them. I do not necessarily believe that this is the end of the world as we know it, as some people seem to be somewhat obliquely implying . But working in an urban school district with a wide variety of students, teachers, and parents has made me sensitive to the need to try to include all people in one's thinking -- although I like to think I also got some early training in accepting diversity from the Oz books! I probably would not raise too big of a hue and cry over any other small changes in future Oz books, but I would be one of the first in line to object to major, wholesale changes! > Overall, now, I am detecting a level of hostility that does not need to be > there. yes, people will disagree. Some people don't like MYSTERIOUS > CHRONICLES, some don't like the Neill books. There are disagreements on how > much consistency checking should be done. None? Total? Somewhere in between? > While some level of this is a good thing, too much is detrimental to the > spirit of Oz. We should be trying to build each other up and advance Oz as > a wonderful land full of stories to be told. Let us not forget what Oz > means and represents. Let us also remember that we can not all agree on everything, and that does not mean that one person is right and another is wrong. It's okay to be different, as long as we can disagree agreeably. > --Tyler "Eric, who are you calling "liberal""? Jones Again, to clarify, I meant it more as an attitude than as a strict label. Although yes, I did make that crack about the ethnic make-up of Oz fans... > From: Athos4@aol.com > Subject: Oz Revisionism > > With respect, Mr. Glassman, you ought to put yourself on the sidelines in any > discussion about changes made to the original Oz books, because you're part > of the problem, don't you see? Ever since the very first publisher it has > been your (plural) wont to view the fruits of artistic endeavor as mere > commodity to be bought and sold. The publisher is at heart a salesperson > concerned primarily with sales and profit. While it's perfectly true that the > author and/or publisher can tinker endlessly with a tale in its formative > stages, the point here is that the Oz books have been published for a long > time, going on a hundred years now. When a book is put out for the general > public, then you have other people involved, like it or not: the buyers and > the readers. No man is an island, and when many people come to view a > particular story as a part of themselves then you can't deny them the > opportunity to express themselves when you change it. This is completely and utterly wrong! Peter Glassman published the edition of "The Patchwork Girl of Oz" that started this whole thing, and now you're saying he can't be a part of the discussion??? What planet are YOU orbiting? He can't defend his actions? (Or, for that matter, admit maybe he was wrong, should he change his mind?) Like it or not, he's involved himself just by being a publisher of Oz books, and we are NOT some sort of royal committee sent down from on high to pass judgement on him. And to accuse Peter Glassman and BoW to be in it solely for the money is, frankly, insulting. Sure, the $$$ must be taken into account, but if that were the ONLY reason Peter Glassman were a publisher, he sure wouldn't be printing books that sell as poorly as Oz books! Peter Glassman was an Oz fan long before he was a publisher, and there's nothing you or I or he can do to change that. Instead of vilifying him as an artistic Shylock, we should be thanking him for publishing new and classic Oz books at all! Some of us remember the old days when all you could get in a bookstore were cheap paperbacks of the Baum books. > > The subject of revisionism is bigger than Books of Wonder or Peter Glassman, > but this is supposed to be an Oz newsgroup, so I'll try to confine it to > that. Your legal position is firm; you have a perfect legal right to tinker > with Oz as much as you like. Well, I doubt very much whether there are very > many people here or elsewhere who think that a legal system founded solely on > man-made laws provides justice in every circumstance, so I'm not going to > expand on that issue. But with the Oz books having been around so long in a > particular form, literally thousands and perhaps many more have become > comfortable with them as they are. When you tinker with the books, you tinker > with the hearts and minds of such people. Can you blame them when they become > upset? Can you blame them if some of them are beset with negative thoughts > about you and/or your firm? Can you then, in turn, see that some of us, while being loyal Oz fans who do love the books, can accept that perhaps some small changes are perhaps necessary for today's modern readers, many of whom have NOT read the books dozens of times like we have? Can you not see that Oz is bigger than a few altered words on the page, and that the beauty and goodness of the books is still there for everyone to enjoy? Of course you have every right to be upset, but some of us aren't making such a big deal out of it, and see that there are bigger issues involved here. > Your changes were minor in your view. Perhaps they were. Well, you thought it > might increase the sales appeal of the Oz books to non-whites, and it > probably will. No argument there -- Oz is for all those who are young at > heart. The whole debacle is more a matter of style than anything else. > Instead of making such changes unannounced, it would not have injured your > reputation or your sales, either, if you had merely put in a little note > something like: "This book has been modified somewhat from its original form > in order to remove certain ethnic references. Readers to whom this may be of > more than passing interest are referred to the 1913 (or whatever) edition." While not a bad idea, there are two potential pitfalls with such a notice. One is that some readers will overreact and say "Oh, why did they ever change one iota of such a classic work?" Then they'd get all indignant and self-righteous and demand new, unexpurgated editions and threaten to boycott the entire company. (Not too far-fetched, judging from what's been going on here the past few days, eh?) The other problem is that some readers will let their imaginations run riot and see all kinds of things that were altered that actually weren't, and we'd get all kinds of weird rumors about the Shaggy Man molesting Ojo or the Hoppers and the Horners originally being a parable about Ireland that BoW cleaned up or things like that. This also is less far-fetched than it may seem. Look at the pervasiveness of urban legends (like the hanging man in the MGM movie), net rumors, etc. > Children aren't going to pay any attention to an announcement like this, and > any adults are supposed to have sense enough to know whether or not they are > going to be offended by it. To say that white buyers would be particularly > offended by such a caveat or that non-white buyers would be afforded thereby > a special incentive to buy the book is to slight the intelligence and good > will of a lot of people on both "sides." And what about those on both sides whe aren't so intelligent, or who are just more sensitive? > The trouble with revisionism is that it's so open-ended. It starts with one > word. If no one's ethnic feathers are ruffled by that, then it expands to two > words, then three, and on and on until the original form and content of > whatever-it-is is completely altered and vanished. While I certainly understand how and why this could happen, I still don't see how this would automatically follow. > I disagree with what Books > of Wonder did. I will not buy any of any of its editions which I know to have > been altered. That is, of course, your right. > But that doesn't mean I will never buy anything else it > publishes, nor does it mean I would look upon you with a snarl if we should > meet in person. (Ha, as if I ever moved in your circles!) Come to an Oz convention some day and you very well could meet him! (Really, he's a nice guy in person...) > No, I wouldn't > boycott BOW or try to organize a vendetta against your corporate "family." > But I do think you made a mistake, and would hope that in the future you do > the right thing. The right thing IYHO, that is, correct? I'm sure BoW also think they've done the right thing. > Maybe you really rationalized that you were doing your part to foster > togetherness and racial harmony. If so, you are to be commended for that, at > least. Sadly, though, there are enough extremists on every "side" so that I > truly think that racism per se will never be totally eradicated. Like the > flu, it will be always with us. Yes, but like the flu, the effects can be lessened. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Can we all get along? > > Eric wrote: > >From: Dave Hardenbrook > >> I would have thought that only bad guys (e.g. The Nome King) would have > >> slaves... > > > >So George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were villains, eh? > > Dave (Very patiently): Er, um, in the fanciful fairy world were the "bad guys" > all wear black and have funny moustaches, I meant... :) Of course. But real life isn't quite that cut-and-dried black-and-white, is it? (Neither, for that matter, is the whole editing debate...) --Eric ">SIGH< Only two more Digests to respond to..." Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 23:09:04 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-25-96 > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: Offensive Material in Oz > > Last I heard, parents were supposed to at least keep an eye on > what their kids were reading (and listening to and watching on TV...), and if > there was something in their they were no quite ready for yet, they were > supposed to help them understand or turn it off where appropriate. Trust me, though, as an elementary school teacher I've seen too many kids whose parents can't or won't do this. > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy digest > > I believe that children are more resilient thatn we give them credit for. True. > I believe that a child of any race or sex) can read things that are overtly > or covertly racist, sexist, etc. and (with help from other people) realize > that it is not true and that people of all backgrounds are equal. But what if those kids don't have an adult who can help them realize this? It's sad but true, they are out there. > I am almost to the point of taking one of Erics suggestions about the > Laumer books. He once suggested that they be treated as a "different" Oz. > These stories do not contradict the FF, but they are written very > differently from others and it is a different Oz that is presented here, > much like the Volkovian Oz, although that series DOES contradict the FF. In fact, Laumer INCORPORATES the Volkov-esque Oz (it's not really Volkov's Magic Land, but an Ozzified version). > Eric, I did not quite understand your comments about RETURN TO OZ. Did you > mean that they tried to duplicate the MGM-movie too much or not enough? Neither! They seemed to do a half-hearted job of it, then tried to claim they really weren't. IMHO, ALL MGM stuff should have stayed out so it could be taken seriously as a movie on its own, without bringing in the baggage of the most famous movie of all time as well. (Enough critics did that for them, anyway.) > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Miracles happen > > Got The Green Dolphin of Oz by March Laumer today through ILL, believe it > or not. So far in my reading it's been totally and utterly wierd, mostly > through taking unusual things and talking about them totally oblivious of > their unusualness. It took me some time to even realise that Rodney was a > horse. Expect a more comprehensive critique when I get done with it. Don't take "Green Dolphin" as typical of Laumer, it's weirder than most of the rest of his work, and I don't even think it gets incorporated into his other books at all. Feel free to ignore it. (I'm quite surprised, however, that it was available though ILL.) Robin Olderman said: > From: Eric Gjovaag > > > And now, if I may add some fuel to the fire of this whole "censorship" > > debate: > > > > Which would you rather see, the rather mild alterations in the current > > edition of "Patchwork Girl," or the offending episodes deleted entirely? > > > > Which would you rather see, the rather mild alterations in the current > > edition of "Patchwork Girl," or NO current edition of "Patchwork Girl" at > > all? > > > > Those are the choices, folks! > > Nope. The other choice is an edition true to the original, although it > certainly would be appropriate for Peter to have commented about the > issue in his own "blurb." Yeah, sorry, I blew it... --Eric "Dave, feel free to spread my responses out over several issues, if that would help even things out" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 23:29:14 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-26-96 > Hello everyone, and an Ozzy welcome to our twenty-seven(!) new members! :) Hey, how'd we do THAT all of a sudden??? (Oh, yeah, welcome!) > From: cummingss@kenyon.edu > Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-25-96 > I (for one -- maybe the only one?) enjoyed RETURN TO OZ. I agree with most of > the common complaints about the film; too dark, Ozma's minor role, scary > electroshock scene. But, I still enjoyed the film. Loved that claymation. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it, too, but there's enough that I DON'T enjoy that I'm not sure if I LIKE it...Know what I mean? I don't really have an overall opinion about the film, only likes and dislikes of parts of it. >sigh< As inaccurate as it is (and if certain drafts of the script had gone to production it would have been even worse), I still think the Judy Garland movie is the most faithful adaptation of Oz to the screen to date. (Too bad Rob's film will never get made, though...) > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: Drool, drool, drool... > > Does anyone out there have a pricing guide? One of the local used bookstores > has what appears to be a first edition of _The Tin Woodman of Oz_ in relativly > decent condition. I have been drooling over it for about a week, and had it > cost an amount equal to or less than the amount of cash I had at the time, I > would have bought it up in a minute. Unfortunately, the asking price was $75, > and I am wondering if this is a fair price and worth saving up for or is > someone gouging. If it is a true first of "Tin Woodman" (12 color plates, Reilly and Britton publishing imprint), then $75 is a VERY good price, and you should snap it up. Most Baum first editions -- and even many Thompsons now -- sell well into the three digits, and some even four, depending on condition, number of surviving color plates, whether or not there's a dust jacket, etc. (Best Oz book buy I ever found: "Kabumpo," not first but still early edition, with all plates and dust jacket, $80. That book QUICKLY became mine...) >Does anyone have a reference for "A Murder in Oz"? I am thinking of ILLing it. "A Murder in Oz" is a short story, not a novel, and the only book edition came out a couple of years ago from Buckethead Enterprises of Oz, so it's extremely unlikely that you could get it on ILL. But if you can't afford to buy "The Best of the Baum Bugle 1957-1961" (where it was reprinted), you can always see about getting THAT on ILL... > From: michael f burns > Subject: Oz Digest- Oz Squad update > >The December issue (#9) has hit the newstands and contains the 1st part of the >adventures of Nick Chopper, who is currently trapped in his own past at the >time > he first became the Tin Woodsman. Some really nice details: The Ev-Ix War and > the rise of the Tin Smythes, and IMHO the single best explanation of why some >of > the Historians mix up directions. Simple, elegant, and most of all very Ozzy! > Think of an island floating on a sea of sand, with a 10 year rotation cycle. > The art is great. The duel between Queen Zixi and King Everette. Great stuff! I just picked this up as well, and it's converted me into a big fan of the current direction "Oz Squad" is going. An extremely interesting story that takes place in the Oz I seem to know and love (unlike earlier issues), yet told in a very mature and adult manner, with lots of wonderful extrapolations and early Ozian history. (Did the tin soldiers remind anyone else of the Cybermen from "Doctor Who"?) --Eric "Whoa, TWO really good Oz comic book series" Gjovaag ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 28, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:22:00 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Oz Books Ref my earlier notes regarding assisting a college student doing a thesis on Oz. So far there has been no response from anyone who would be willing to loan a book to the library there so the student would have access to it. I have sent the only books that I physically have. So it occurred to me that perhaps someone has a spare book they would be willing to sell. If you haveany on that are on the bibliography list (see http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/books8.htm), and would be willing to part with them for a reasonable price, please send me a private email (piglet@piglet.com). I would buy it from you and loan it to the library. thanks, Bill Wright ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:20:17 -0600 (CST) From: Barbarian Subject: On the meaning of things > From: Tyler Jones > I am not entirely sure what molasses is. The dictionary says it is a thick, > dark syrup produced during the refining of sugar. I believe it is some kind > of sweetener. That's a fair definition for molasses. It's somewhere between syrup and honey in terms of sweetness, and is slightly thicker than most syrups. If you try it, and I recommend that you do if you can, it goes very well on hot-fresh baked biscuits. Probably the easiest place to find molasses would be your local grocery store, or if you're lucky enough to have one, a nearby "soul-food" restaurant. Humm. This is making me hungry. > I believe that "furry" is an ancient European word meaning "fairy" or > a close relative of a fairy. Furry in what connotation? I hear the word furry most often used to mean an anthropomorphicized animal depicted in comics or other sf/fantasy material. A. D. Fosters "Quozl" for example, or almost anything by Doug Walker. (Ask about on the net, his work is easy to find.) Warning: Most furry artwork tends to be very explicit, often erotic. Barbarian - The Minister of Barbarism for the Nation of Marvin. Do Something Good For Yourself and Your Country - Vote "Third Party" or Independant. Visit Vinland - http://www.tezcat.com/~brbarian/index.html ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 18:56:02 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Comments on the Ozzy Digest of 1/26 Great to see the return of an Internet line of communication for Oz fans! I really enjoyed the brief period back between Ozma's birthday and Labor Day when we had the repeater through Chris Heer, but I guess he had hardware problems that still aren't fixed. Scott Cummings: I, too, enjoyed RETURN TO OZ, despite the fact that all the criticisms of it are quite valid. The Oz books have also been criticized in quite valid ways - and the fact that, despite the validity of the criticism, many quite intelligent people love both the books and RETURN must mean that they have some positive characteristics that outweigh their flaws. I haven't watched RETURN as often as I have the 1939 WIZARD - but I've watched it (on tape) more often than I've watched the other one in the years since it appeared. And my wife, who doesn't even like the Oz books (except for mine) loves RETURN, too, and has watched it even oftener than I have. Aaron Adelman: I've always assumed that "Mayre" was a fancied-up spelling of "Mary", pronounced the same. The only other possibility would be like "Mayor", and I've never heard of any such name. Since Baum didn't otherwise give his mortals unique names (though some were unusual), I've felt pretty safe thinking of it as "Mary". Unless somebody knows for sure? Tyler Jones: I don't personally feel any need to be consistent with any Oz book that hasn't been professionally published. If Laumer's fall into that category, who published them? I've never so much as seen a copy of one, even at an Oz convention dealer's table; requiring consistency with anything that's that hard to locate seems a bit much to me. The Famous Forty, of course. The subsequent books by the IWOOC, yes. The Emerald City Press books, probably - at least they pay their authors, if not very much, and they're all readily available to anyone who wants to buy them. Beyond that, I feel no need. If I'm in the middle of writing an Oz book and somebody comes out with a story in OZIANA that flatly contradicts something in my story, I'm not going to worry about it. Nor am I going to worry about whether someone wrote a book sometime in the past that's almost impossible to find now that contradicts my story. I'll leave it to you and those who accept your all-inclusive attitude to worry about resolving the inconsistencies. What do you have against the possessive apostrophe? THE NOME KING'S SHADOW IN OZ was by Gilbert Sprague, incidentally, who also wrote THE PATCHWORK BRIDE OF OZ for ECP. You're not sure what molasses is? Are you serious? It's a dark syrup that comes in varying degrees on intensity, from the very dark blackstrap (used mostly in cooking) to a light sorghum that's a good substitute for maple syrup on pancakes. Barry Eshkol Adelman: If that's really a first edition of TIN WOODMAN, $75 is a super-bargain. If it even has all the color plates, in any edition, $75 is a bargain. I don't have a price guide, but I've shopped enough for Oz books to know that. Mike Burns: Rotating Oz every ten years wouldn't solve the inconsistency in the east-west locations of the Munchkin and Winkie countries. Rotation would then put the Quadling country in the north and the Gillikin/ken/kan country in the south, and that never happened. Switching east-west without switching north-south required reflection, not rotation. New Comments: Emerald City Press published three new Oz books last year. One of them I wrote, so about it I'll only say that I think George O'Connor is the best artist besides Shanower to illustrate one of their books; I was very pleased with his artwork. I would, however, be interested in the opinions of any of the rest of you who've read it. Of the other two, I found THE SPECKLED ROSE OF OZ the worst of Abbott's books and probably the worst Oz book ECP has published. Part of it was due to excessive irritation at the constant reference to Sir Wiley Gyle (wasn't he a character in the play) as "Sir Gyle". The proper form is "Sir Wiley" or "Sir Wiley Gyle", but never "Sir Gyle". But in any case it just wasn't a very good book, in my opinion. Robin Hess's CHRISTMAS IN OZ, on the other hand, was a very pleasant read. I could have wished for more conflict - the machinations of the Wicked Blue Witch of the East were too transparently trickery and not magic, so there wasn't really any tension - but Chris herself is a well-drawn character, and it was fun to see her meeting her great-uncle Saladin who disappeared all those years ago. I seem to remember Robin telling me that the book had had to be cut down a bunch from its original size (I can relate to that, though GLASS CAT was only cut about 20%); that may have had something to do with the lack of tension. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 14:50:42 -0800 (PST) From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-26-96 Thoughts on a couple of recent Digest topics: I applaud the inventivenes of the "rotating island in the sand" yarn, but rotation would reverse North/South as well, which has never been confused. I'm furtively following the Oz Squad/Oz comix also, though I haven't been able to bring myself to buy any; Books of Magic and Sandman are more to my taste. There is a trade poster of the new Sandman character drawn by Michael Zulli, The newest incarnation of the Endless is wearing an emblematic and magical emerald, and is seen standing in a garden of poppies, holding a seed pod. There is a definite suggestion of relatedness to Ozma, especially in a scene in one of the recent comics where he creates a wise-cracking Gardener by planting a pumpkin seed and growing it magically. Jack Pumpkinhead with a cigar. I have mixed feelings about Return to Oz. I just recently tracked down a mint laserdisc copy that I do watch. It was the swan song of the Big Muppet Movies if you ask me, and is every bit as dark as the film out about the same time, Dreamchild, about Alice Liddel grown up and contemplating death at the centenarry of Lewis Carroll. Both Oz and Wonderland, done Noir. I didn't care for the Jungian meanderings, If Oz isn't a dream it isn't a psychosis either. I love the soundtrack, and am grateful that it wasn't a musical. Surprisingly enough, Will Vinton had to be convinced that it was a good thing to animate the villain. The humorlessness was the worst of all. Diz dropped RTO like a hot potato, it went the way of the Black Hole, the Black Cauldron and Tron. Dave Hand, the archivist at the Disney Studios is an Oz fan from way back, and described the production as sort of a race with Disney's film rights to the series with the Public Domain, a race the Studio lost. I've looked at a lot of the early editions of Oz books at the Imagineering resource center, and the checkout cards going back to the thirties are an autograph hound's who's who of the studio's animators and filmmakers. As I think is so typical of the studio, they achieved such an amazing look while so completely mangling the spirit of the stories. Look at the overhead map of Disneyland, even the first presentation color painting for the investors had the basic Oz map with the castle in the center, they even portrayed a hot-air balloon arriving from out of the clouds. If people don't like the way Turner has nearly monopolized the MGM property, I think we can be grateful that Return to Oz was not the basis for Disney writing and administering the "charter of Oz." Judging by the film, you'd think they were trying to kill it off for good, (heh, that'll wrap it up for some children's market we couldn't crowd off the shelves with our own stuff) Fortunately, Oz is strong and resilient enough to withstand multiple interpretations and retellings; It's a place we've all spent time in, and what we each saw there and brought back to tell each other about is a treasure nobody can hoard. -- Ken Cope Ones & Zeroes SurReal Estate ahclem@netcom.com http://www.ozcot.com ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 17:08:00 -0500 From: Athos4@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-25-96 Begin quote . . . > With respect, Mr. Glassman, you ought to put yourself on the sidelines in any > discussion about changes made to the original Oz books, because you're part > of the problem, don't you see? I strongly disagree. Peter has certainly got a right to express himself actively on this issue. How can anyone even suggest he essentially disenfranchise himself here? End quote . . . You're right. I should have kept my whole comment on an impersonal level. Athos4@aol.com (Warren Baldwin) ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 01:12:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-27-96 1) Laumerisms are now back in The Woozy of Oz, final status depending on how I like the next book of his I get my hands on (G-d willing, I get my hands on another one...). OK, OK, I couldn't stand to let the Woozy's name (Gwomokolotolint) not get mispronounced Guacamolilint for humorous effect. 2) Because of what I said in #1, if anyone knows anything of what happens to Trot, Betsy, and Woot the Wanderer in the Laumer books, please tell me for consistency checking purposes. Spoil me privately by E-mail if need be. My discussions of plot with the Royal Literary Critic of Oz are now getting into what happens in the second book of the trilogy (provisionally titled Trot of Oz by him and Hiergargo and the Queasy in Oz by me), and the Critic has written a chapter already for this book in which Trot and Woot appear. 3) Eric, Oh! In that case, it was alright. Nice special effects with the non-human characters, except for Tik-Tok. His legs look suspiciously unclockworkish, but then again maybe I'm being too serious about that... (: 4) > "How the Wizard" also has no mention whatsoever of Mombi, or her > involvement with the Wizard and Ozma, which always rubbed me as being > either a MAJOR oversight or revisionist... That's because the Four Wicked Witches deposed Pastoria, Mombi disposed of Pastoria, Pajuka, and Ozma, Tattypoo deposed Mombi, and Glinda deposed Singra all before the Wizard came. Ozma reappears and is taken to Mombi by the Wizard after Glinda's manipulations have gotten the Wizard firmly established as ruler of the Emerald City. Hence Mombi and Ozma/Tip don't appear in How the Wizard Came to Oz. Or at least that's one interpretation. (Then again, I was the guy who came up with the interpretation that Mombi was really Mrs. Pastoria...) 5) David, the only things I have changed about the Woozy (so far as I know, as I'm working mostly off of memory since the vast majority of my brother's and my Oz books are in Charleston, SC at the moment) is that he has taken to eating gumdrops (especially the yellow ones) as a substitute for honeybees and sometimes joins Scraps in playing practical jokes on people. Mostly the Royal Literary Critic of Oz and I have taken to exploring his past history, some of which I leak from time to time on this mailing list. 6) Memory gap filling in request time: (I got to buy some Thompson books!) Someone please fill in the following gaps in my memory. a) What the the names of the people in Ojo's family, including the real name of Unk Nunkie and the full name of the bear (OK, so the bear's not real family)? b) Where do Dr. Pipt and Margolotte end up living? (As I said, most of my brother's and my Oz books are in Charleston, SC at the moment.) c) Where in the Gillikin country does Joe King live? d) Who invented learning pills? I think it's the Wizard, but I'm not sure. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Saturday 27-Jan-96 20:41:48 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Buckethead and other stuff Aaron worte: >Out of 4 books requested so >far via ILL, two (The Good Witch of Oz and The Magic Mirror of Oz) were >not stocked at all, one (Aunt Em and Uncle Henry of Oz) was in two >libraries but not sent by either, and only the afformentioned "sick, >evil, anti-Baum" book came through ... I have a feeling the only way you're going to get them is through Laumer himself. I am still awaiting his return to the states so he can sent us his books. I asked him which of his books were still in print, and here's the list he gave me: GREEN DOLPHIN OF OZ ( "Yes Dave, we all know about *THIS* one already!" :) ) AUNT EM AND UNCLE HENRY IN OZ CHARMED GARDENS OF OZ A FAIRY QUEEN IN OZ THE UMBRELLAS OF OZ A FAREWELL TO OZ Could someone perhaps fill us in a little about what each of these books is like? Aaron wrote: >I think it somewhat more likely >that Ruth Plumly Thompson was flipped over through the fourth dimension >by a demented higher-dimensional creature and never managed to get right >and left (and hence east and west) straight again. Hmmm...someone's been reading _Flatland_! :) ( So here's another silly Oz title: A. SQUARE IN OZ :) :) ) Well, my big news of the day is that I've sent away for some books from Buckethead ( the publisher of *MY* book if all goes well :) )...Their books have such interesting titles, including _The Healing Power of Oz_, _Sail Away to Oz_ (written by a fan of singer Enya), and _Sinister Gases in Oz_! One other thing I noticed was the book _Lurline' and the White Ravens of Oz_ with "Lurline" spelled with a French accent! Is this right, and the Queen of the Fairies' name is pronounced "Lewr-lan-AY", Messieurs et Mesdames? -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 29, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 00:04:56 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Eric wrote: > Peter Glassman was an Oz fan long before he was a publisher, and there's >nothing you or I or he can do to change that. Instead of vilifying him >as an artistic Shylock, we should be thanking him for publishing new and >classic Oz books at all! Right on!! Thank you Peter.........keep up the good works. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 00:23:54 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Learning Pills Aaron asked: >d) Who invented learning pills? I think it's the Wizard, but > I'm not sure. Correct.....the Wizard. This is related in "The Emerald City of Oz" when Dorothy and her Aunt & Uncle visit the Royal Athletic College. You can get the details for the pills from the Encyclopedia Oziana at http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/ozthing.htm Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 10:21:52 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 01-28-96 Barry: I'm not sure if you got my e-mail to you or not, so I guess I will take up space in the DIGEST after all. I'm a dealer and long-time collector and, as such, can assure you that the dealer is not gouging with $75 for a 1st. of TIN WOODMAN. It's a first if it bears the Reilly & Britton imprint. Easy book to identify as a first! Buy the thing even if it's got a few problems. As you may have figured out by now, any number of us would be more than willing to buy it from you. APOSTROPHES: No, companies don't use them because they're "cool." Most of the time, they're overused because carelessly educated folks insist on using them to make plurals. An apostrophe is VERY rarely used to make plurals. If you want 'em, I can post apostrophe rules for you. I've taught English for almost twenty years; I know 'em. In brief, the most common uses of an apostrophe are for possessive notation or as a signal to the reader that one or more letters have been dropped out of (a) word(s). Local T.V. station secretaries know my voice because I frequently call to tell the stations when they've misused an apostrophe. ...can't help it, I gotta fight back! How can I expect my students to learn the right way if they're constantly bombarded with incorrect visuals? DISNEY OZ: Oh yes, Ken, we're lucky the Disney machine didn't gobble up Oz, although a part of me has always had the wistful desire to see what all that talent, money, and imagination could do with it. Unfortunately, I fear what they would have done TO it, not WITH it. They've changed several classics, and I hate that. I love Disney, and I love Oz; I'm glad RETURN TO OZ is all they attempted. It was a botched job, although I do like bits and pieces of it. The mirrored hall/parade of characters is spectacular and very satisfying. The worst part for me is, of course, the terrifying electroshock sequence. Or maybe the gurney ride TO that scene is worse. On t'other hand, I loved the claymation. If anyone is interested in further discussion, John Fricke has a good article on it in a BUGLE. DAVE: Thanks for doing all this for us. I know you know we're greatful, but it doesn't hurt to remind you of it once in a while. --Robin ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 11:58:40 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-27-96 ***************************************************************************** Some questions regarding the current OZ COMIC BOOKS SERIES: I've seen (at least) two different Oz comic book series in the stores: "The Oz Squad" and one simply called "Oz." Does anyone have a complete list of issues? Current Oz Squad is #8 or #9? And there is also one just out called "Oz Squad #1" by the Millenium (the other Oz Squads are from Patchwork Press). How does this fit in? The "Oz" series is up to #12 or so, plus #0 just came out and some other "special" issues. Anyone have a complete list? Is Weird Heroes/Oz Encounter something different? Thanks, Scott ***************************************************************************** ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 13:41:44 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Drool, drool, drool, part 2 I appreciate all the input on the copy of _The Tin Woodman of Oz_ I found, especially as I don't have a copy of _Bibliographia Oziana_. Now that I have a better idea what to look for, I'll go check to see if it is a real first edition. David Gerstein, _The Woozy of Oz_ is a book my brother Aaron and I are working on which is supposed to be the first of a trilogy. The plot revolves around the ultimate source of magic and what one baddie tries to do with it, but all sorts of things like Ozma's background, where the Woozy came from, and the internal politics of the Munchkin and Gillikin Countries are being dragged in, and at the rate things are going the series may have to be expanded to five or six books to explore them all. Pester Aaroon personally if you want mor details. On _Return to Oz_, liked the production (except for the Scarecrow, which looked too phony), did not care for the script, would have liked to see them make their Tin Woodman do something other than walk. Dick Randolph, calm down. Let me double check on whether it is a real first edition. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 14:05:41 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 01-28-96 It seems that this discussion group has been around for quite a while, but I only found out about it a couple of days ago. I can see some of what went on in the recent past from the quotes in Eric's message of 1/27; I'll have to see if I can figure out how to download the last couple of months' postings. Regarding the alterations in the BoW editions of PG and D&T, I'd rather they hadn't happened, but don't regard such minor changes as a major crime. It does mean that I'll hang onto my older editions more seriously, though my old PG doesn't have color and my old D&T has a binding in poor condition. Aaron Adelman: To answerf your questions near the end of your letter: 1. Snuffer's full name is Snufforious, Buxorious, Blundorious Boroso. Ojo's father is Ree Alla Bad. Unk Nunkie is Prince Steven. His mother is Isomere. 2. As far as I know, Dr. Pipt and Margalotte end up living in the Emerald City. At least, Glinda sent Dr. Pipt out with Ojo and Unk Nunkie to search for Ozma in LP, and we know Ojo and Unk Nunkie were living in the EC at the time. I seem to remember a specific reference, perhaps in a Neill book, to Dr. Pipt living in the EC, but won't swear to it. 3. Joe King lives in Up Town, capital of Upland. 4. Yes, the Wizard invented the learning pills. Dave Hardenbrook: Lurline's name never had an accent in any of the Famous Forty, but without doing a lot of research I can't be sure that R&L ever used diacritical marks anywhere in their books. (If they did, then the absence would mean something, but if not, it might not.) I've never heard an Oz fan pronounce any way but rhyming with "mine", though. But I haven't been around Oz fans all that much; somebody like Eric or Robin would be a better source. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 14:23:56 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Oz series consistencies and what not It is interesting (to say the least) to see how other fans read this series. To some it is just a pleasant diversion, a fond childhood memory. To others it is an ongoing history of a real place. And some see it as a combination of the these two and I am sure that other people see the series in ways I lack the imagination to describe. For me, Oz was a place as real as the house I lived in, when I was a child. It was a definitely better place to end up in than Heaven. Inner consistency wasn't a requirement and seemingly contradictory passages I could either ignore, accept as part of the magic of the place, or write off as either a Historian's attempt to fictionalize the story or say they just must have misheard or didn't understand fully the nature of the people and places they were transcribing from eyewitness accounts. When I make choices about what to accept as "canonical", I go by my own rather arbitrary guidelines. Is the writing at least as good IMO as the books of my childhood? Does the "spirit" of the originals exist in the newer material? Does it add to my picture of Oz as a real place? If the answers are yes, then IMO, its "canonical". So far, the famous forty and the IWOC books work for me. So does Eric Shanower. A large part of the Oz Squad comic series works for me too. And if I find a part of the canon that doesn't quite ring true (e.g. the Scarecrow as Chang Wang Woe, the Emperor of the Silver Islands) then I start to think about ways that RPT could have been mistaken and how things could have "really" happened that would not seriously contradict anything that she and the characters believed to be true. For me, the Oz Squad's depiction of Oz as an island floating on a sea of sand works very well for fixing the directional mixups. Other writers' have suggested that Oz is on a retrograde planet. Whatever floats your boat! The Island Idea fits "my" criteria. It is simple, says all the Historians are right, and could easily be a detail that natives would overlook and non-natives might not know about. Above all, it is sufficiently "Ozzy". I've read some though not all of the Emerald City Press books (not Queen Ann yet, so don't take offense Eric {or his equally talented co-writer for that matter}). And for the most part, they seem rather slight. Almost like outlines for the real books. I don't know how much of this is due to dropping expectations for children's literacy or to cost of production. I own a copy of the Mysterious Chronicles and the writing style more than anything else put me off. That and the wierd names for things. Land of the Sky Blue Mountains? That's a beer commercial isn't it? And Tedrow's book was just badly written Christian propaganda, IMO. And sharing the same last name as the first Historian is no guarantee either. I don't have any access to the HACC whatever that is, or Buckethead so for my purposes, they can be safely ignored. As can March Laumer. I fully respect the rights of others to disagree with anything I say. I don't have a whole lot of contact with other fans and most of the ones in town are more in the Judy Garland is a Goddess camp (if you know what I mean, and I think you do ;) ) I have nothing against The Movie. I think Baum would have been and is probably still ecstatic whereever he is. I liked Return to Oz in spite of the flaws. When all the negatives are taken into account, they still made the Gump fly and my heart sang at the sight. And I just realized I have lost track of any point I was trying to make. If anyone out there finds it, let me know. I miss it. Bye! mike ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 11:37:57 -0800 (PST) From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 01-28-96 The entire Ozzy Digest through Dec. 31, 1995, in one gargantuan file, can be obtained using the following url: ftp://ftp.best.com/pub/tiktok/OzzyDigest.TXT Most lines scroll off to the right toward infinity on my copy of Netscape; I'll have to see what can be done about that, and will most likely start the habit of backing up each week as a seperately downloadable file, r.s.n. -- Ken Cope Ones & Zeroes SurReal Estate ahclem@netcom.com http://www.ozcot.com ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 12:04:09 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-27-96 > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Oz Squad > > Mike, if I read your postings correctly, the mixing up of directions > comes about because Oz (or perhaps all of Imagination) rotates. Wouldn't > this reverse north and south as well? I think it somewhat more likely > that Ruth Plumly Thompson was flipped over through the fourth dimension > by a demented higher-dimensional creature and never managed to get right > and left (and hence east and west) straight again. Then the same thing happened to L. Frank Baum, as he was the first one to mix up east and west, not Thompson. > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the 76 GOP freshmen > (I mean the 27 Oz chat line freshmen) to Daves Ozzy Digest! Check out > these cool Ozzy Web Sites: > > International Wizard of Oz Club: http://www.neosoft.com/~iwoc > Piglet Press: http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/ > Ozcot: http://www.ozcot.com > http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/tyler_jones > > That last one is my personal home page, but the Oz section is right on > top! My web page must be addressed by all lower case letters, and that :80 > thing may not be necessary. Eric Gjovaag may know of some more Ozzy Web > Sites. I do, they're in my FAQ, and once I do a few revisions of that I'm probably going to post it (who wants to keep the archive copy???), since I'm actually getting very little feedback. BTW, does anybody have any suggestions for appropriate newsgroups I can post the FAQ in, besides rec.arts.books and rec.arts.books.childrens? > Eric G, please do not unsubscribe from the list! Your input is highly > valuable, even though we do not always agree on everything. I hope that > the people flaming you are not too harsh. Our group would be much stronger > with you than without you. Well, I can only take so much of the sniping and ill will that WAS going on here. (Look at what happened with JMS and the "Babylon 5" newsgroup.) But things seem to have settled down again, and I think I've convinced the transgressor not to e-mail me again when his views should be seen here by all. So there's no imminent danger of my leaving. > Dave asked us not to put large quotes of published (or unpublished) works > in the list, but I believe that a short description of MURDER IN OZ will > not violate the Prime Directive, and I won't even give away the ending! > > Several of the celebs are in Glindas palace. They are discussing the > philosophy, ramifications and possibility of committing a murder in Oz. > Suddenly, they realize that Ozma has been murdered! Who? How? Why? > It turns out that... ...THE BUTLER DID IT! Oops, sorry... --Eric "Okay, I'm only kidding about the butler" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 15:12:03 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Oz assorted questions and observations 1: Does anyone know if anything still exists of Jack Snow's rumored Over the Rainbow to Oz book? The only thing I've heard is that there was supposed to be something of an outline and the story was to involve Polychrome's adventures with an American boy she eventually brings to Oz. 2: Did anyone else like the concert performance of the Wizard of Oz on TNT? Is the cd of that performance available separately from the package TNT is marketing? I really love Arlen and Harburg's music from the film and would like to have a copy to go with the Royal Shakespeare Company's London cast recording. I also like The Wiz (the musical, NOT the movie) 3: Has anyone read a copy of The Winged Monkeys of Oz? This just came out from a small press and from the brief description on the rec.arts.books.childrens. newsgroup involves Dorothy, Lion, Scarecrow, and Nick on another quest down the Yellow Brick Road and the adventures of a girl from Tacoma, Washington (I think) who finds an injured winged monkey on the beach near her home. Sounded kind of interesting, but don't they all? See what happens when you have a cold and can't go out and play and you have to stay inside alllll day with nothing to do but computer stuff? Bye! Mike ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 12:26:37 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 01-28-96 > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Comments on the Ozzy Digest of 1/26 > > Great to see the return of an Internet line of communication for Oz fans! I > really enjoyed the brief period back between Ozma's birthday and Labor Day > when we had the repeater through Chris Heer, but I guess he had hardware > problems that still aren't fixed. Software problems, actually, and I think he's basically given up. But he's moving soon (and getting a better new job), and may be able to try it again before long, if we're willing to try. But I dunno, this Digest is going so well... > Tyler Jones: > I don't personally feel any need to be consistent with any Oz book that > hasn't been professionally published. If Laumer's fall into that category, > who published them? They were privately printed by Laumer (which is another reason they're their own mini-timeline, IMHO). > Mike Burns: > Rotating Oz every ten years wouldn't solve the inconsistency in the east-west > locations of the Munchkin and Winkie countries. Rotation would then put the > Quadling country in the north and the Gillikin/ken/kan country in the south, > and that never happened. Switching east-west without switching north-south > required reflection, not rotation. This was, of course, the explanation offered by Patchwork Press, not Mike or anybody else on this list. No, it doesn't work, but it IS imaginative. > New Comments: > > Robin Hess's CHRISTMAS IN OZ, on the other hand, was a very pleasant read. I > could have wished for more conflict - the machinations of the Wicked Blue > Witch of the East were too transparently trickery and not magic, so there > wasn't really any tension - but Chris herself is a well-drawn character, and > it was fun to see her meeting her great-uncle Saladin who disappeared all > those years ago. I seem to remember Robin telling me that the book had had to > be cut down a bunch from its original size (I can relate to that, though > GLASS CAT was only cut about 20%); that may have had something to do with the > lack of tension. Robin Hess is a close friend of mine, and I've been following the development of his writing for years now, so naturally I read "Christmas in Oz" first when I was finally able to send in an order. (Don't worry, David, "Glass Cat" is next on the pile. You will be at Winkies for me to get an autograph, won't you?) I have to agree with all of your comments about "Christmas," it's a great little read and a fun Oz story. And it's starting to look like Karyl and I got lucky, very little was cut from "Queen Ann" apart from a few extraneous, superfluous references and a few other little nips and tucks there -- although our epilogue DID have to be cut entirely, which is what the illustrators chose to draw for the endpapers! (Don't worry, the epilogue is not entirely lost -- we're using it as the basis for our follow-up book, if we ever get the time to write it!) From: Dave Hardenbrook >... One other thing I noticed was the book >_Lurline' and the White Ravens of Oz_ with "Lurline" spelled with a >French accent! Is this right, and the Queen of the Fairies' name is >pronounced "Lewr-lan-AY", Messieurs et Mesdames? Right? Maybe, maybe not. It's just that author's interpretation of her name. (I've always pronounced it LUR-line myself, but does that mean I'M right? Who's to say?) --Eric "It's pronounced juh-VOG" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 17:43:35 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Button-Bright If one wanted to write Button-Bright's real name with his nickname inserted into it, would it be Saladin Paracelsus "Button-Bright" de Lambertine Evagne von Smith or Saladin Paracelsus de Lambertine Evagne "Button-Bright" von Smith? With so many names it's hard to tell which are personal names and which are family names. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 23:10:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Dorothy In Laumer's books, what is Dorothy's doctorate in? Nalrodi the Mind-Reader's guess: Magic. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 02:08:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Immortality in the Inside World and the Desert around Oz Everyone in Mo (as of The Magical Monarch of Mo, which I estimate at having occurred in 1899, or maybe earlier) has been immortal for at least long enough for them to realise that they've stopped dying and not long enough for them to forget the existence of death. Since Ozma ascended to the throne of Oz (1903), no one in Oz has died. Are there any references to other countries in the Inside World having 'outbreaks of immortality'? I cannot remember any in the FF, but under Thompson, Ev and Ix became more magical places, and with an increase in magic flux (the best term for it the Royal Literary Critic of Oz and I could come up with), it would not be surprising for people to suddenly stop dying, as definitely happened in Oz and presumably happened in Mo. Side note: In the Woozy of Oz, the standard unit used for measuring magic flux is the lurline, which is about how magic a bacterium in a vacuumn is. In most of Imagination the magic flux is about 10-50 exalurlines. In Mo, about 70-80 exalurlines. In the immediate vicinity of the Magic Machine (in Maetta's basement), 256 exalurlines, which is so magical that Maetta has a device to suppress all the wierd effects that would otherwise happen spontaneously. Unfortunately, the only country in the Inside World besides Mo for which we have an average magic flux is Ix (about 23 exalurlines), so we cannot at this moment do an explicit comparison between the fluxes of Oz, Ev, and Ix. Also: When did Oz become cut off from the surrounding countries? Also: I have heard that a scene was cut froom the MGM movie in which som sort of creature called jitterbugs appear? What are they? (This is probably not for horizonal transfer, with the possible exception of a humorous "lost scene" from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.) Also: I remember reading that in the play version of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, when Pastoria II was in America he got married. What is the name of the woman he married? (This is definitely for horizonal transfer. Pastoria's full name is also getting partially horizontally transfered to Oz Pastoria II. If there could have been more than one Oz Roar (my respelling), why not more than one Pastoria?) Side note: The Shaggy Mann's brother's name from The Tik-Tok Man of Oz (Wiggy) have been horizontally transfered as his nickname, thereby satisfying those who say if Baum set a precedent for it, then of course we follow it. We have also explained it as a contraction of his real name, William Sigmund Mann, thereby satisfying those who say we should make up a new name for him. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sunday 28-Jan-96 18:31:36 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Mike's comments >It is interesting (to say the least) to see how other fans read this >series. To some it is just a pleasant diversion, a fond childhood memory. >To others it is an ongoing history of a real place. I'll go with that second one! :) :) :) >It was a definitely better place to end up in than Heaven. At the risk of sounding blasphemous, I'm still hopeful that when I die, I'll be sent to Oz! >I've read some though not all of the Emerald City Press books (not Queen >Ann yet, so don't take offense Eric {or his equally talented co-writer >for that matter}). And for the most part, they seem rather slight. Almost >like outlines for the real books. MHO: I *like* the the Emerald City Press books, for the most part. The illustrations could be better, but I guess I'm spoiled on Neil, Eric Shanower, and Marcus Mebes. :) >And Tedrow's book was just badly written Christian propaganda, IMO. Which book was this? >I don't have any access to the HACC whatever that is, or Buckethead ... You do now! -- :) Buckethead Enterprises of Oz 1606 Arnold Palmer Loop Belen, NM 87002 (And I'll let Tyler comment on the HACC) :) >I don't have a whole lot of contact with other fans and most of the >ones in town are more in the Judy Garland is a Goddess camp ... I *NEVER* knew *ANYONE* who knew any Oz beyond MGM in the 27 years of by life until I finally came to my senses and joined the IWOC and logged on to the 'Net. :) >And I just realized I have lost track of any point I was trying to make. >If anyone out there finds it, let me know. I miss it. I think your point was: OZMA AND OZ FOREVER!!! (and I second it) :) :) :) -- Dave ============================================================================= THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 30, 1996 Hi everyone! Thanks to the dedicated efforts of Nate, we have another big influx of new members (32) today. Welcome to you all! This brings our membership up to 97! Ozzy days are here again! :) :) :) -- Dave ============================================================================= [This was sent personally to me, but I'm posting it because I think it is of interest to the whole group. -- Dave] Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 08:24:15 -0500 From: OZZILEE@aol.com Subject: Re: The Digest of Oz! This is wonderful and like you I am a lifelong devotee of WOZ.Want to assist with a fantastic project that's totally OZZy? I am on the Centennial COmmittee to prepare for the Grand Celebration of Baum's classic in 2000. In preparation, we are gathering as many electronic ties as possible to spread the word. I need people on my committee. It's exciting and here's what's goin on: A traveling exhibit called The FIrst 100 Years of Oz to hit major cities and museums, a week long convention tentatively planned for Baum's favorite hotel, the Del Coronado in San Diego with a list of celebs you wouldn't believe. A multi-media history project headed by teachers and a Laser disc headed by John Fricke. We need people to assist. The activities are going to be wonderful including a full length musical, an exhibition hall with more than 100 exhibits. I am the person responsible for raising the moneh to do this thing so I am working on a plan. I am selling the license for the 100th ANniversary to those who will want to manufacture products. COllectibles, YIPPEE! This is also a joint proejct with TUrner for some great 1999 things too, There is a ballet, a timeline poster and more. I am on the Bd of DIrectoros of IWOC and I am chairman of the 96 convention which is also OZsome. Keep in touch with me and ket me know if you want to help. I know about the new commemorative poster and the 100th anniversary collector poster, the new US Post office stamp and more. You can helk me to communicate. Typing at major error speed! Forgive. DO you have one of the new metal wastecans with the Airbrush poster on it? Let's talk. Ozzilee ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 08:21:56 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Tedrow's book Tedrow (whose first name I have forgotten) first came to notoriety when he wrote an unauthorized series of sequels to the Little House on the Prairie books in which he treated Laura Ingalls Wilder as a fictional rather than a real person. Critical opinion at the time was that he was trying to foist his own religious views off as something shared with and endorsed by Miz Wilder. Her family was justifiably incensed and at one time were suing him and his publisher. The family later contracted a deal with another relative to continue the series. As far as I can tell, Tedrow's books in that area are now out of print. A couple of years ago, he decided to write a book, Dorothy-Return to Oz, in which Dorothy Gale is a dying old woman living in America whose Granddaughter/namesake finds her old Ruby Slippers and a magic newspaper that only prints news from the land of Oz and uses the shoes to go to Oz which is in danger from the daughter of the Wicked Witch of the West. My copy (which is no where near my shelves of "real" Oz Books) isn't at hand right now but I do remember that Tedrow mixed willy-nilly elements of the books and The Movie. He also gave completely new names to the Wizard and other characters although he claimed in the book to be a big fan of the original material.I say its spinach and I'm not having any. If someone wants to use Willy-Nilly as a character name, feel free. The Oz Squad/Oz comic book series': Oz Squad has had the most erratic publication schedule. They put out the first two or three titles and then there was such a delay before the next issues came out that they reissued the original issues with new covers. There are currently 9 issues in the regular series with 2 separate Specials. The Oz series has I think 11 or 12 issues that did so well that late last year they issued 4 special issues that filled in the history of their Oz prior to the beginning of the regular series, which involves the Nome King's successful invasion of Oz and his subjugation of the Tin Woodman, Lion and Scarecrow who were under a spell that turned them evil. The good witches have been transformed into bric-a-brac, the Wizard was sent back to Earth, Ozma was imprisoned, and Dorothy who has in the ten years since the Nome invasion grown into a young woman rules by the Nome King's side while under another spell. Special Guests: Mombi, the Winged Monkeys, Johnny Dooit and I am sure others will show up too. Three people from Earth and their little dog too have been sent to Oz by a magic tornado the Wizard sealed into a book they unwittingly opened. And that is all I wrote for today! Mike ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 05:47:57 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-29-96 > From: cummingss@kenyon.edu > Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-27-96 > > Some questions regarding the current OZ COMIC BOOKS SERIES: > > I've seen (at least) two different Oz comic book series in the stores: "The Oz > Squad" and one simply called "Oz." > > Does anyone have a complete list of issues? Current Oz Squad is #8 or #9? And > there is also one just out called "Oz Squad #1" by the Millenium (the other Oz > Squads are from Patchwork Press). How does this fit in? The "Oz" series is up > to #12 or so, plus #0 just came out and some other "special" issues. Anyone > have a complete list? I don't have a complete list, but I've been collecting both from the beginning, so I'll see what I can do: OZ SQUAD: First three issues came out from Millenium Press, 4-8 (most recent) plus a "Little Oz Squad" special all came out from Patchwork Press. OZ: Now up to issue #12, plus a five issue mini-series (Oz #0, Scarecrow #1, Lion #1, Tin Man #1, Freedom Fighters #1) that takes place before Oz #1. There's also a "Mayhem in Munchkinland" graphic novel (BoW sells it) that reprints "Oz" #1-5. There's a third Oz publication out there available in many comic shops -- "Oz-Story" #1, Eric Shanower and David Maxine's anthology of all things Oz. > Is Weird Heroes/Oz Encounter something different? Yes, that's a novel. > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: Drool, drool, drool, part 2 > > On _Return to Oz_, liked the production (except for the Scarecrow, which looked > too phony)... Oh, I dunno, I liked him. But maybe it's a good thing he wasn't in the movie any more than he was, so as not to spoil the illusion... > did not care for the script, would have liked to see them make > their Tin Woodman do something other than walk. On those legs? Not likely! (BTW, the actor credited with playing the Tin Woodman, Deep Roy, is a well-known British little person, and his torso and legs were visible between the Tin Woodman's legs before being erased by movie magic. Roy may best be known in the United States for playing Mr. Sin in the "Doctor Who" story "The Talons of Weng-Chiang.") > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 01-28-96 > > Regarding the alterations in the BoW editions of PG and D&T, I'd rather they > hadn't happened, but don't regard such minor changes as a major crime. It > does mean that I'll hang onto my older editions more seriously, though my old > PG doesn't have color and my old D&T has a binding in poor condition. I just got an e-mail from Peter Glassman about all this. He's decided it's not worth getting involved anymore, but he did point out to me that if he hadn't made the changes he did, many bookstores and most libraries would not carry the book at all, no matter how wonderful the Oz books are as a series. He said he'd rather have 99% of Baum's words and 100% of the magic available to as many people as possible. (He also mentioned that a small-press run unexpurgated version would be possible -- at $50 a copy!) And on that note, I think we can consider that the last word from him. [Peter, I hope you don't mind my precising your note here, but your points were just too good not to get into the Digest somehow.] > Dave Hardenbrook: > Lurline's name never had an accent in any of the Famous Forty, but without > doing a lot of research I can't be sure that R&L ever used diacritical marks > anywhere in their books. (If they did, then the absence would mean something, > but if not, it might not.) I've never heard an Oz fan pronounce any way but > rhyming with "mine", though. But I haven't been around Oz fans all that much; > somebody like Eric or Robin would be a better source. What makes ME a better source? I'm just a fellow Oz fan, with maybe a few connections others may not have...and they can get them by going to enough Oz conventions... > From: Michael F Burns > Subject: Oz series consistencies and what not > > I've read some though not all of the Emerald City Press books (not Queen > Ann yet, so don't take offense Eric {or his equally talented co-writer > for that matter}). And for the most part, they seem rather slight. Some are, IMO, written for younger children than the FF are, but that doesn't make them "slight." They're more akin to Baum's "Little Wizard" stories. Others, such as "The Giant Garden of Oz," "Queen Ann in Oz" (I hope), and "The Glass Cat of Oz" (it appears) are more substantial, longer books with more involved storylines. > Almost > like outlines for the real books. I don't know how much of this is due to > dropping expectations for children's literacy or to cost of production. Cost of production is a big part of it, BoW is trying to keep costs low so as many people as possible can afford them. I suspect, in fact, that they're losing money on some of the bigger books, and making up for it on some of the littler ones. > I > own a copy of the Mysterious Chronicles and the writing style more than > anything else put me off. That and the wierd names for things. Land of > the Sky Blue Mountains? That's a beer commercial isn't it? In Jim/Onyx's defense, he did write it as an Oz book for adult fans, not just the kids. > And Tedrow's > book was just badly written Christian propaganda, IMO. Not Christian propaganda, IMHO, but badly written and ill-conceived. Tedrow claims to be a fan of the books -- then his book ("Dorothy: Return to Oz") is a poor sequel to the movie? UGH! > And sharing the > same last name as the first Historian is no guarantee either. Too true... > From: ahclem@netcom.com (Ken Cope) > Subject: Re: Ozzy_Digest, 01-28-96 > > The entire Ozzy Digest through Dec. 31, 1995, in one gargantuan file, > can be obtained using the following url: > ftp://ftp.best.com/pub/tiktok/OzzyDigest.TXT So, Ken, you'd also like to be the keeper of my FAQ, too, right? > From: Michael F Burns > Subject: Oz assorted questions and observations > > 1: Does anyone know if anything still exists of Jack Snow's rumored Over > the Rainbow to Oz book? The only thing I've heard is that there was > supposed to be something of an outline and the story was to involve > Polychrome's adventures with an American boy she eventually brings to Oz. I've ALSO heard that it would involve the early history of Oz. But so far, nothing's turned up, not even an outline. And since Snow was in regular contact with many people who became early members of the International Wizard of Oz Club (I think Russell P. MacFall was the executor of his will), and most of now's papers went to them, it's highly unlikely anything will turn up. > 2: Did anyone else like the concert performance of the Wizard of Oz on TNT? ME! ME! > Is the cd of that performance available separately from the package TNT > is marketing? Dunno. Have you checked with your local music store? > I really love Arlen and Harburg's music from the film and > would like to have a copy to go with the Royal Shakespeare Company's > London cast recording. I also like The Wiz (the musical, NOT the movie) Will that be our next thread, trashing "The Wiz" movie? (Don't get me started...) > 3: Has anyone read a copy of The Winged Monkeys of Oz? This just came out > from a small press and from the brief description on the > rec.arts.books.childrens. newsgroup involves Dorothy, Lion, Scarecrow, > and Nick on another quest down the Yellow Brick Road and the adventures > of a girl from Tacoma, Washington (I think) who finds an injured winged > monkey on the beach near her home. Sounded kind of interesting, but don't > they all? Where's THIS available from? > See what happens when you have a cold and can't go out and play and you > have to stay inside alllll day with nothing to do but computer stuff? Well, there's enough snow and ice here in Seattle that school is closed today, so I don't have to go to work. So here *I* am... > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Button-Bright > > If one wanted to write Button-Bright's real name with his nickname > inserted into it, would it be Saladin Paracelsus "Button-Bright" de > Lambertine Evagne von Smith or Saladin Paracelsus de Lambertine Evagne > "Button-Bright" von Smith? With so many names it's hard to tell which > are personal names and which are family names. FWIW, "von Smith" is his family name in "Christmas in Oz." Lots of fun background info on Button-Bright and his family in that book, in fact. > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Immortality in the Inside World and the Desert around Oz > > Also: When did Oz become cut off from the surrounding countries? So far as we know, Oz has ALWAYS been surrounded by a desert. Although it hasn't always been deadly. > Also: I have heard that a scene was cut from the MGM movie in which some > sort of creature called jitterbugs appear? What are they? (This is > probably not for horizonal transfer, with the possible exception of a > humorous "lost scene" from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.) Read my FAQ, that's one of the questions I answer. --Eric "With an unplanned day off here, I may get to work revising the FAQ soon" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 10:28:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Diactrical Marks in Oz Concerning this diactrical mark debate: Maetta (the good sorceress of Mo) is normally written with an umlaut over the e. As for respelling Lurline with an accent mark on the e, I never realised that she was French. (: Concerning going to Oz instead of Heaven: Be careful what you wish for.If you are not sufficiently meritorious (G-d forbid), you might end up in the wrong sort of Oz, such as in the Winkie Country under the rule of Bastinda, which in The Woozy of Oz resembles Russia under Stalin. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 07:32:20 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: HACC Michael F Burns wrote: >I don't have any access to the HACC.... > If you have a web browser, you can find it at: http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/ozchron.htm Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 10:45:57 -0500 (EST) From: David Parker Subject: posting for OZZY DIGEST Hi Dave, I joined the list last week (I guess I'm one of the famous 27 new members). A word of introduction: I teach US History at Kennesaw State College, a liberal arts school in Northwest Georgia, and have been a fan of the Oz books (especially Baum's) for some time. I'm sure most members of this list are familiar with Henry Littlefield's esssay in AMERICAN QUARTERLY thirty years ago, "The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism." Littlefield suggested that Baum's book was an allegory of late-nineteenth-century politics (and related social and economic issues). It's a good story, but I'm convinced the book is more a reflection of Baum's theosophical beliefs. (Theosophy was a quasi-religious movement with heavy spiritualist/occult overtones. Baum was a card-carrying member of the Theosophical Society.) Hearn and others (John Algeo and William Leach, for example) have done a bit with this, but not much. I wonder if others on the list have any ideas, comments, suggestions, etc.? -- David Parker David B. Parker dparker@kscmail.kennesaw.edu Asst. Professor of History Kennesaw State College (770) 423-6713 (office) 1000 Chastain Rd 423-6294 (department) Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591 (770) 423-6432 (fax) ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:07:12 -0800 From: Jon Childerston Subject: The Ozian Times My wife is interested in getting on your mailing list. She saw your address in the Oz Gazette. Reba Childerston fnbnp@nque.com p.s. Do you know where we can find the "Legends of Oz" software listed in the same gazette? -- Jon Childerston LAN Administrator First National Bank 201 North Dewey North Platte, NE. 69101 Office: (308) 532-1000 Fax: (308) 532-3202 fnbnp@nque.com ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 13:07:29 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-29-96 ************************************************************************ My second 2-cents worth: I agree with Mr. Wright: Hooray for Peter Glassman and the folks at Books of Wonder for their committment to continue Oz publishing. Their books are beautiful. I still disagree with their editing choices, but applaud their efforts. I read somewhere on the Net that BoW has a closet full of early edition Oz books. Is this true? I was in the store once in the late 80's and lost my breath when I saw a bookcase full of gorgeous Oz books. I was in San Francisco last summer, and saw that Acorn Books had a large collection of nice Baum and Oz books. The prices were quite high (it's a large city after all), but more shocking was that many of the books were sitting in the sunlight, just BAKING. I hope someone (with a fat wallet) rescues them soon! ************************************************************************ ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:28:52 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Since I do not log in on weekends, Daves delayed digest did not affect me, although I msut now reply to THREE of the things... The digest began sometime in early December of 1995. Ken Cope has already mentioned that he has the entire December dialogue available. In a few days, I will send him the January dialog. BTW, Dave asked us not to echo back so many messages, in order to keep the filesize down. I hope everyone remembers this :) Aaron, definitely write to Laumer and ask about available books. Dave or I can give you his address if you need it. They are excellent. We've already covered the refelction versus rotating thing enough, so I won't add anything, except that this is what March Laumer does in MAGIC MIRROR. If you hold a map o\up to a mirror, left and right (or east and west) reverses, but north and south stay the same. I hope you can find this one, Aaron. It is excellent, like all of Laumers books, except for GREEN DOLPHIN. Barry, if you haven't by now, grab that TIN WOODMAN! If it really is a first printing in decent condition, $75 is a steal! I really must get off my lazy butt and buy OZ SQUAD! Bill, I will look today and see if there any books I have that this student needs. Aaron, I do not need to spoil the end for you privately. As far as I can remember, Laumer does nothing to the characters you mentioned. Here are some brief hints about the other Laumer books. AUNT EM AND UNCLE HENRY. The spirit of the Wicked Witch of the East slowly takes over Aunt Em. CHARMED GARDENS. Grandmother Gnits brain got a little too scattered, so the Kangaroo (Mrs. Mar Supial) goes looking for it. A FARIY QUEEN. Lurline visits Oz as the purple nature of the Gilikin Land slowly pervades the rest of Oz. UMBRELLAS IN OZ. This was an interesting novel, but I can;t remember what happened. FAREWELL TO OZ. This is Laumers attempt to "end" the series. Pollution is seeping over form the real world. After attempts to halt that fail, the Wizard puts a dome around Oz, which people from the inside and outside are unable to penetrate. Dave, did you really read Flatland? You're the only other person I've heard of that has! All glory to the perfect circles! FYI, I always prounced Lurline to rhyme with "mine" until the late great Marcus Mebes told me it was pronounced Lur-Leen-Uh with the emphasis on the second syllable. Oh, mais oui. Peter Glassman, continue to crank out Oz books old and new? IS your project to reprint the entire FF still alive? If so, when is TIK-TOK due? Mike Burns, I have not heard of THE WINGED MONKEYS OF OZ, but THE MARVELOUS MONKEYS OF OZ has been put out by Buckethead Enterprises. Dave has already posted the address. There are a few references in the FF to non-ozites being immortal. Thompson mentioned that it is impossible to kill the people from Menankypoo and the Octagon Islanders are "liable to go on for centuries". Also, Tandy says that "death comes not to the people of my country" in CAPTAIN SALT IN OZ, in a reference to his country of Ozamaland. We are not sure when Oz became isolated. In THE WIZARD OF OZ, one of the Munchkins says that "no one could live to cross it", referring to the deadly desert. This implies that you could survive contact with it, but is such a hostile enviornment that you couldn't survive the trek across it. In THE LAND OF OZ, Glinda and Mombi have no trouble walking on the sands. It is not until THE ROAD TO OZ that it is definitely stated that to touch the sands means instant destruction. The scene cut from the MGM movie was a dance called "The jitterbug", popular in that time. They decided to drop it because it would date the movie and they wanted it to be timeless. Te Tedrow or something that somebody mentioned is DOROTHY - RETURN TO OZ by Thomas Tedrow. For the record, this is one of the few books that we did not put in the HACC, as it contradicts the FF. It was in RINKITINK IN OZ that the Tottenhott was referred to as a lower form of man. Dave let me comment on the HACC, so here we go! This is also to get the newcomers up to speed. HACC stands for Historically Accurate Chronological Chain. It is a list of all Oz books that are "Historically Accurate". This means that the stories do not contradict the FF and are at least moderately compatible with the other non-FF stories. It is compiled by myself and Chris Dulabone. You can read about the HACC and the rules which we use to build it on my Web Page at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/tyler_jones You can also look at the HACC itself. I have not updated my Web Page for a while, but I will do so soon. You may want to wait about a week before you look at it. The purpose of the HACC is to present a relatively unified version of Oz history and to place the books chronologically with respect to the FF and to each other. There are some good arguements as to why this is not a good idea or even that it is impossible. One of them is that many of these books have been published in very small amounts by non-profit groups and are nearly impossible to find. Therefore, people can't find out what happened. Here is our response: 1. Many of these books are unimportant to the overall flow of Oz history. That is, they are just short generic adventures with some of the early Baum characters and they do not make any major changes to Oz history as a whole. 2. I am working (or will work soon) on textual summaries of all Oz books and put them on the Web. That way, anybody can get at them and see the main points of each Oz adventure. The second arguement is that of stifled creativity. If John writes an Oz book, but later finds that it contradicts Marys Oz book from 30 years ago, what happens? Do we throw one out? Do we force John to re-write it to agree with "our" version of Oz history? The answer is neither. Part of the purpose of the HACC is to encourage writing of Oz books. Even the FF contradicts itself from time to time and with people writing Oz books all over the place with little if any knowledge of each other (most authors have never even read the entire FF!) it is impossible to assume that everybody will write stories that neatly relate to everybody else. The fact is, however, that almost all contradictions are minor and can easily be expalined away. One thing we like to see is another person write a THIRD Oz book to resolve the seeming contradiction between two others. 99% of the time, an author need only be true to the FF and his book will be fine. The only times we need to do a little explaining are when somebody tries to make a major change to the current situation in Oz or something similar. As people have said before, achieving TOTAL consistency in every way is not possible and not desireable. We want people to write Oz books and we want people to write Oz books any way they Another thing is our inclusivity, to paraphrase David Hulan. We make no judgements on the professionalism of the publication. We do not judge Oz books on how well they were written or if they conform to the original spirit of L. Frank Baum. All we ask is that they be textually accurate. This goes back to the fact that we do not want to exclude anybody. The last thing we want to do is reject a book for the HACC because it does not come up to our arbitray standars. To be honest, there are several books in the HACC that I find lame and stupid. But that does not matter because the HACC is not about what I personally like or dislike. To date, Chris and I have rejected a total of ZERO books because they contradicted some other non-FF books or because they were not written "our way". The HACC is essentially a reference tool. As far as what books are canononical, only the FF is. If a book is accurate to the FF, then it is considered Historically Accurate, although it does not achieve full canononical status. I believe that a balance can be achieved between consistency and creativity. In other words, people can still write Oz books the way they want and we can still have a continuous unified flow of Oz history. To me, (in the realm of imagination, of course), Oz is a real place and the people who live their have real lives. I think that trying to discover the truth of their situation to be a noble task. I want to state that we do not seek to force people to write books a certain way. We have never EVER tried to do this and we never will. We feel that the more Oz stories there are, the better Oz is, and if they are relatively consistent, then Oz will be made much stronger. I see this chat line as an opportunity to expand this. By sharing our knowledge and ideas, we can spread Oz all over the world. Administrative note: We do not count stories in OZIANA. We only count actual published books and graphic novels. --Tyler Jones. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 18:54:32 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-29-96 ************************************************************************ The OZ COOKBOOKS: (1) The Wonderful Wizard of Oz Cookbook by Monica Bayley, illustrations by W. W. Denslow. 1981 NY: Macmillan. 128 pages ISBN: 0-02-708530-9 $7.95 (2) The Wizard of Oz Cookbook: Breakfast in Kansas, Dessert in Oz by Sarah Key, Jennifer Newman Brazil, Vicki Wells. 1993 NY: Abbeville Press. 64 pages ISBN: 1-55859-582-1 $7.95. Contains photos from MGM film and illustrations by Denslow. Hope that helps. Scott ************************************************************************* ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 23:11:39 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Drool, drool, drool..., part 3 Yes, Robin, I got your message, and appreciate the input you and everyone else has given me. Finally knowing the distinctive features of a firs-edition copy of _The Tin Woodman of Oz_, I went down to the used bookstore and made sure. The imprint was Reilly & Lee and there were no color plates, so unless it is under enchantment, the book is definitely not a first edition. It still is a nice droolworthy book, though with my slightly reduced motivation, general lack of funds, and the reported existence of another prospecive buyer, it seems that fate is conspiring against me to make sure I don't get it. Out of curiousity, based on the information I have presented, can anyone tell me if the book is still a steal? ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 23:47:17 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Comments on Ozzy Digest, 1/29/94 I'm one who prefers to treat Oz as a real place; I know intellectually that it isn't, but if it only were! This is one reason why I'm fairly selective as to which books and stories I'm willing to accept as canonical. Anything that violates my Visualization of the Ozmic All I pretty much reject out of hand. And anything that I haven't read is clearly outside that Visualization; once I've read it I can add it or not depending on how it feels. I mean, there are clearly books like BARNSTORMER and WICKED that are heretical; I just extend that to other books that more subtly differ from my own concept of the place. To compare it to the religious world where the term "canonical" originated, the Famous Forty correspond to the 39 (66 if you're a Christian) books of the Bible; the IWOC books correspond to the Apocrypha (Maccabees, Tobit, ben Sirach, etc.); and the rest of the corpus corresponds to the Pseudepigrapha like Enoch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jubilees, and the like. And in the last group individuals can pretty much pick and choose what parts they consider useful amplifications of the canon and which they don't, as long as they're consistent with the canonical books. (The above is, of course, IMO, and while I think it's the most rational one I have no heartburn with other people having different positions.) And I find it difficult to imagine a Heaven that I'd find preferable to Oz. Certainly I've never seen one described by anyone else. If I go to Oz when I die, I'll be quite content. I enjoyed the first Oz Squad omnibus that I got, but consider it heretical. If nothing else, the changed character of "Amber Omby" takes it right out of the canon, and there are other inconsistencies. (Jack Pumpkinhead is too sturdy physically, for instance.) As I say, I liked it, but then I liked BARNSTORMER and WICKED, too. But I see no reason why future Oz writers should take the Oz Squad into consideration as background for their books. I've read essentially all of the ECP books (haven't read but the first of the "Silly Oz-Bul" books by Roger Baum, because the first one convinced me that the "silly" part was the only one that was relevant, and they're expensive), and they're pretty variable in quality. I think Baum's DOROTHY, Shanower's GIANT GARDEN, Gjovag & Carlsen's QUEEN ANN, Neill/Shanower's RUNAWAY, and Hess's CHRISTMAS are all very good. I'm not all that enthusiastic about the Abbotts, which started out so-so and have gone downhill from there. Sprague's two books were OK, but slight, and I'd say much the same about MASQUERADE. MAGIC DISHPAN had its moments, but on the whole it didn't feel Ozzy enough to me. Ken Cope: I'll have to admit that so far I've done nothing on the Internet except E-mail. I'm sure that I can figure out how to use AOL's Internet browser to download the Ozzy Digest compendium, given time and effort, but if you (or anyone) could give a set of commands I could use to get the download I'd appreciate it. Otherwise I'll start pursuing it in the "help" files. Eric Gjovaag: When did Baum mix up east and west in his text? I've looked for it, but although I thought I remembered occasions when he did, I haven't found one. That doesn't mean he didn't, just that I missed it. I know the map in LOST PRINCESS shows the Winkie country to the right of the EC, but in the text it says it's the west. He did change which side of Oz the Nome Kingdom was on, though. If someone is E-mailing you unpleasant material, can't you just refuse to read E-mail from that person? That's what I've done in similar circumstances. No point in dropping a whole agreeable area of discourse because of one or two individuals whose inputs are unpleasant. Glad to hear that you're not currently thinking of dropping out. Michael Burns again: No, no, and no. Sorry. (Didn't see the concert on TNT, so have no opinion. Do you have the 2-CD set of the soundtrack of the movie, with Fricke's commentary? If not, you should.) Eric Gjovaag again: I had the impression that Heer's problem was one with his hardware - or, to be more accurate, the software he wanted to use didn't work on the hardware he had. But maybe I'm misremembering; it was a couple of months ago. And the current setup seems fine as long as Dave Hardenbrook is willing and able to keep moderating it. Privately printed Oz books, while no doubt interesting enough in their way, don't seem to me to lie in the realm of books that have to be taken into consideration when writing additional books. They may be excellent, but they haven't had even the first level of peer review, as we say in the scientific community. I realize that the rotation theory was that of the Oz Squad comics, and not Michael Burns's own. But he was the one who said that it made sense to him, and I was responding to that statement by saying that it didn't to me. I currently plan to be at Winkie Conference this year, but things are very much in a state of flux with us right now, so I can't guarantee it. If we're still living on the West Coast, then yes, definitely, I'll be there. But there's about a 40% chance at the moment that my wife will accept a job in Chicago and I'll retire, in which case I probably won't make it back to Winkie - I'll probably do Ozmapolitan instead. I'll keep people posted as to what's going on as I know. But if I THE OZZY DIGEST, JANUARY 31, 1996 ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 08:53:41 -0500 (EST) From: cummingss@kenyon.edu Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-30-96 TIN WOODMAN OF OZ with R&L imprint, and no color plates MIGHT be worth $75, if it is still an early edition and (most importantly) in EXCELLENT condition. There a MANY 1950's reprints out there in very good condition; no need to may too much for them. I generally find very good Oz reprints for $40-$90 on a regular basis. $75? Not sure. Scott ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 10:19:06 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Re: "The Jitterbugs" Since no one else mentioned it, there is still a reference in the MGM movie to the cut jitterbugs scene. When the wicked witch of the west is peering into her crystal ball at our heros in the haunted forest, she remarks to her winged monley captain, "I've sent a little insect ahead to take the fight out of them." The jitterbug scene was at that point. --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 10:23:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Flatland and the Size of Oz Tyler, I did read Flatland. I've even toyed with the idea of a two-dimensional kingdom somewhere in Oz, but I haven't worked out a plot yet that does something original for a two-dimensional story. Also: How big is Oz? I remember that The Wishing Horse of Oz makes Oz 50 times the size of Skampavia and gives the sizes of all the districts of Skampavia, but I don't have a copy of the book so I can't look it up. Also: By the way, how come the HACC doesn't contain books which Baum wrote that definitely occur in the world of Oz (The Sea Fairies, Sky Island, John Dough and the Cherub, The Magical Monarch of Mo, Queen Zixi of Ix)? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 14:31:59 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest WOW! 37 new members and we approach the 100 mark! It looks like we won't need help from the 76 GOP freshman after all, we have plenty of our own! Welcome, all! Just to keep the rookies up to date, here are some Ozzy web pages: International Wizard of Oz Club: http://www.neosoft.com/~iwoc Piglet Press: http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/ Ozcot: http://www.ozcot.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/tyler_jones That last one is my personal web page, but the Oz section is right on top! The HACC can be found there along with some dexcription of it. I am doing a major overhaul to my page right now, so you may want to wait about a week. It looks like some of my message and some of David Hulans message got lost in the shuffle. My lost part was just another defense of the HACC itself, that it is a reference tool and that the purpose of it is to create a unififed version of Oz history within the context of authors all over writing stories their way. We want to include EVERYBODY, not just those we approve of. For the record, I think that my stuff got lost because I did not create the file the same way I have been, with a space and carriage return at the end of each line. I have sinned against FTP! Ozzilee, you do so much work for Oz and the club, thank you so much! Thanks again to Dave too :) Mike Burns' commentary on Tedrow was cool, but someone else will have to write WILLY NILLY IN OZ. I believe the weird names in MYSTERIOUS CHRONICLES for the four nations were the informal names given by the people themselves. The only other one I can remember is Rosewood Meadows for the Quadling country. Personally, I found the names to be very poetic and beautiful. If that TIN WOODMAN is in good condition, $75 may not be a "steal", but it may be worth the investment. I'm glad we were able to help with the unmasking of the "First Edition" thing. Now that I think of it, didn't Reilly and Britton only do the first six Baum books? As far as I know, Baum himself never mixed up East and West in the text, although the maps were reversed. March Laumer claimed that this was the way it SHOULD have been oriented, since we could then have golden dawns and deep blue evenings. Here's my two cents in on the "name" thing. If your last name is Baum, fine and dandy. However, I do not believe that it gives a person some inborn ability to write Oz books that are by definition better or more official than others. The FF is the highest. All others are secondary, but are equal in their secondary-ness, whether privately printed or done up in slick color glossy. All power to the written word! Or in our case, the digitally encoded bit! --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 16:31:16 -0500 From: mas@cs.bu.edu (Mark Semich) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-30-96 David Hulan wrote: >My main problem with GLASS CAT was that I wrote it at more or less the length >of the original books, about 42,000 words. (My estimates of the originals >ranged from about 39,000 for DOROTHY AND THE WIZARD to about 52,000 for >RINKITINK - not that I estimated but four or five of them.) I was requested >to cut as much as I could from it, and turned in two versions at 34,000 and >38,000 words. They took the 38,000 word version, but cut an additional >chapter (partly because they thought it was too strong for Oz, and partly >because they needed to cut more length); the final version was around 35,000 >words. At that, it's about 25% longer than the published version of QUEEN >ANN. *sigh*. One of my problems with the Emerald City Press books is that they are much too short for Oz books. I much prefer the Baum/Thompson length, and anything else doesn't feel like a "real Oz book". I guess it's that marketing thing again... OZ SQUAD: Regarding a source for the Oz Squad comic books, I did manage to track down the address for Patchwork Press. Oz Squads #s 8 & 9 did not have it listed, but I found my copy of #6. Hopefully the address is still current: Patchwork Press 834 Hope Street Providence, R.I. 02906 I'm not certain whether or not they sell back issues of Oz Squad, but the rumor is that they do. Again, they have published nine issues (plus a "Li'l Oz Squad Special") which are all wonderful. The early issues may be a bit rough for some, but I would highly suggest giving the entire series a chance. Peter Glassman, if you're reading this, I recommend that you offer "Oz Squad" through the Oz Collecter. In my own biased opinion, I find it to be a much better comic than "Oz". :-) BUCKETHEAD: A while back, someone posted buckethead's address. I've been wanting to order their books, so I wrote off to them and included a SASE, but I never heard anything back. Does anyone out there have any Buckethead ordering info that they'ld be willing to share? ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:41:23 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: New Oz Book! Posted by tinhat1@aol.com: The Winged Monkeys of Oz by Dennis Anfuso isbn 1-57433-025-X Hardcover 8 3/4" x 11 1/4" 154 pages, 2 new maps (part of the book takes place on islands in the Nonestic Ocean) 25 b/w illustrations, fullcolor cover plate pasted to the front cover of the book. $24.95 + $3.00 shipping check or money order to Interset Press 56 Forest Rd Wilton NH 03086 credit card orders to Emerald City Arts Union Square Bldg Milford NH 03055 603 672-TOTO 2-4 weeks delivery FYI. I make no claims and accept no responsibility for either the book, author, or company. To avoid the appearance of beating a dead horse, I bear no animosity to Peter Glassman or Books of Wonder. They have been a most excellent source of Oz-related material and I hope they will continue to do so in the future. But... unless Mr. Glassman conducted a survey of all the bookstores and libraries in this country I don't agree with his assertion that most would not purchase Patchwork Girl unless it was edited. Most non-fans knowledge of Oz is strictly limited to The Movie and if they do have some slight knowledge of any of the books they would probably expect it to be as inoffensive as The Movie. But I have not conducted a survey either and am basing my opinion on conversations with my small circle of acquaintances. And that is my absolutely positively last comment on that situation, so help me Ozma! Aaron: the rather strange looking Pumpkinhead is in the OZ comic series, not the Oz Squad where his appearance is very Neillesque. And I personally don't go so far as to call anything heretical, Was, Wicked, Sir Harold and the Gnome King, and Barnstormer are simply different. Although I would like to add Ruth Berman's short story with Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in Oz to my list of "good" Oz material. I thought it was wonderful! Mike Burns ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 20:10:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Miracles still happen, and another author is in the doghouse I received Lurline and the White Ravens in Oz today via interlibrary loan. Unfortunately the book was extremely disappointing. First, it tried to fit Lurline into Greek mythology by making her a minor goddess. This was flawed since Greek deities have no place in Oz anyway, and in any case the mythology was botched. Ganymede in Greek mythology is Zeus's cupbearer and lover; Mebes turned him into a goddess for some reason. Also in the list of goddesses appears Lillith, who is not the Greek goddess of fire as Mebes claims, but a demon from Jewish legend who was Adam's first wife. Also it makes Ozroar, father of Pastoria, the first king of Oz, which seems to be in contradictory to Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz. That's another book off the consistency checking list... Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 23:24:24 -0500 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzydigest 1/30/96 Mike Burns: Oh, the Oz Squad isn't the same thing as the Oz comics? Cancel what I said about Oz Squad yesterday, then; I meant the Oz comics. Haven't seen the Oz Squad, so have no opinion about them. Eric Gjovaag: If it's really true that libraries and bookstores wouldn't have carried PG and D&T without the changes, then certainly I can agree with making them. (Though if bookstores objected, why do they carry the Del Rey PG - or did it have similar changes as well?) And I'd be happy to pay $50 for an unexpurgated PG with all the color, though not for an unexpurgated D&T - it's worth it for one of Baum's four or five best books, but not for what's probably his worst. (Certainly his worst children's fantasy under his own name.)(IMO) I meant that you or Robin would be a better source of information on how Oz fans pronounce "Lurline", since both of you have been to far more Oz conventions, and therefore have presumably heard more Oz fans pronouncing "Lurline", than I have. That's all. I didn't mean that you were Authorities. (You may be, or may not, but that wasn't what I meant; I just meant that you'd talked to Oz fans more than I have.) Aaron Adelman: Just to pick a nit, the double dot over a word in English is called a dieresis, not an umlaut. (The distinction being that an umlaut changes the sound of a vowel, where a dieresis indicates that two adjacent vowels are to be pronounced separately rather than as a diphthong.) (So what does that have to do with Oz? Cut this comment if you like, Dave.) All things considered, I think I'd prefer the Winkie country under the Wicked Witch (whatever name she's assigned) than most versions of Hell I've heard of, so I'd still prefer to go to Oz when I die... David Parker: Didn't know Baum was a Theosophist. I know I've read that Edgar Rice Burroughs (who was living in Chicago at about the same time Baum was; I wonder if he and Baum ever met?) based his Barsoom on Theosophical ideas. Tyler Jones: I read FLATLAND, though it was probably before most of the people contributing to the Digest were born (1957 or so). I remember it in general but not that much in detail. Based on your statement of principle about the HACC, I have no quarrel with it. It's much the same attitude I have. I got a somewhat different impression from some of our snail-mail correspondence a year or so ago. Barry Adelman: If the edition of TIN WOODMAN you saw doesn't have color plates, then I think $75 is gouging, rather than a steal. Unless you see some particular virtue in having a book that was printed in the Forties (which that one probably was), you should be able to get a fine condition hardcover TW for somewhere around $30 or so in the "white" editions from the Sixties, and those are considerably better bound than the earlier R&L editions as well. YMMV. Dave Hardenbrook: Yep, I read WICKED. It wasn't great - I didn't like it as much as I did BARNSTORMER - but I enjoyed it enough that I didn't regret the time or money I spent on it. The author clearly knew the Oz books quite well, although his physical description of the Wicked Witch of the West is taken from the movie and not the book (green skin and two eyes). But yes, the Wizard is a fascist dictator. Ozma doesn't appear on stage, though it's mentioned that the latest in the line (Ozma Tippetarius) was spirited away by the Wizard before she was old enough to take the throne. There are lots of references to later Baum books - Dr. Nikidik, tiktoks (robots), Kumbric (rather than Kumbric) witches, Lurline, and quite a few others. But -that- Oz is not one I'd want to go to when I die, or any other time for that matter... I didn't feel too bad about cutting GLASS CAT as I did. Most of the cuts I made myself actually strengthened the book, I think - although in another sense they made it less like the original series, because it's much faster paced. Several of my friends who aren't Oz fans have read it and have announced an intention of reading the other Oz books because they liked GC so much. My wife has told me I should warn them that the original books are a lot slower and more discursive than GC; she doesn't like them. (Think of what LOST PRINCESS - my favorite of the originals - would be like if you cut the Merry-Go-Round Mountains, Thi, and everything the Frogman and Cayke did between leaving the Yip Country and Bear Center except the Truth Pond . You don't lose much of the story, but things get a bit rushed.) I was less pleased with the cuts that they made in addition to mine, but have to admit that they weren't important to the story, as well as being more the sort of thing one would find in a contemporary children's book than an Oz book. But I still have that chapter that I can probably use in another story another time... But each of us has to evaluate his own Oz book and decide what's important. I didn't choose ECP because of the royalties (I spend more than that every year at BoW anyhow), but because of the distribution, which is significantly better than Buckethead. If I'd had to cut something I thought was important in my book, I might have decided otherwise, though most Buckethead books I've seen have had terrible artwork, and I'd have needed to have a decent artist lined up before I'd have gone that way. Haven't seen one illustrated by Mebes, so I've no opinion about him. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 06:28:27 -0800 (PST) From: Jim VanderNoot Subject: RE: Ozzy Digest, 01-30-96 The imprint was Reilly & Lee and there were no color plates, so unless it is under enchantment, the book is definitely not a first edition. It still is a nice droolworthy book, though with my slightly reduced motivation, general lack of funds, and the reported existence of another prospecive buyer, it seems that fate is conspiring against me to make sure I don't get it. Out of curiousity, based on the information I have presented, can anyone tell me if the book is still a steal? ************************* No, it is not. ------------------------------------- Jim Vander Noot E-mail: jvandern@sam.neosoft.com Date: 1/30/96 Time: 6:28:27 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- ============================================================================= Date: Tuesday 30-Jan-96 23:41:13 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Aaron wrote: >Also: How big is Oz? I remember that The Wishing Horse of Oz makes Oz >50 times the size of Skampavia and gives the sizes of all the districts >of Skampavia, but I don't have a copy of the book so I can't look it up. Tyler may want to add to this, but he and I discussed the size of Oz some months back and decided that it is about the size and shape of the state of Colorado (and I've added appropriate mileage scales to my Oz/Baumgea maps). Tyler wrote: >It looks like some of my message and some of David Hulans message got lost >in the shuffle ... Oops! Sorry that slipped by me ( Wakey Wakey, Dave! :) )! >Thanks again to Dave too :) Thanks for mentioning it! I'm really enjoying doing it!!! :) :) :) Mark Semich wrote: >A while back, someone posted buckethead's address. I've been wanting to >order their books, so I wrote off to them and included a SASE, but I >never heard anything back. Does anyone out there have any Buckethead >ordering info that they'ld be willing to share? Hmmm...Well, I'd just say try again. If you send them a SASE and $1.00 He'll send you a catalog...Here is the address again: Buckethead Enterprises of Oz 1606 Arnold Palmer Loop Belen, NM 87002 I've started ordering books from them, so as I receive and read them I'll post prices and reviews of them... Michael Burns wrote: >The Winged Monkeys of Oz ... Posted by tinhat1@aol.com: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Another potential Digest member? Aaron wrote: >I received Lurline and the White Ravens in Oz ... >This was flawed since Greek deities have no place in Oz anyway, and in >any case the mythology was botched. Ganymede in Greek mythology is >Zeus's cupbearer and lover; Mebes turned him into a goddess for some >reason ... If he's like me, Marcus read in an astronomy book that the planet Jupiter's major moons (Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Amalthea, and Leda) were all named for mythological lovers of Jupiter/Zeus, and just assumed that they were all female. David Hulan wrote: >If it's really true that libraries and bookstores wouldn't have carried PG >and D&T without the changes, then certainly I can agree with making them. >(Though if bookstores objected, why do they carry the Del Rey PG - or did it >have similar changes as well?) I don't know about the Del Rey PG_Oz which I no longer have ( trying to get rid of those @$&!%# el cheapo Del Reys one by one! :) ), but I checked my new Dover copy and it retains Baum's original wordings. >All things considered, I think I'd prefer the Winkie country under the Wicked >Witch (whatever name she's assigned) than most versions of Hell I've heard >of, so I'd still prefer to go to Oz when I die... Er, no, I don't want to spend eternity marching around singing in a 16 rpm voice, "All we owe we owe her...All we owe we owe her...!" ;) >I read FLATLAND, though it was probably before most of the people >contributing to the Digest were born (1957 or so). I remember it in general >but not that much in detail. Hey Tyler (or anyone), I'm still interested to know if you've read _Sphereland_! :) > ... Kumbric (rather than Kumbric) witches, ^^^^^^^ "Krumbic" you mean of course ( the Adepts asked that I set the record straight on this point :) ). -- Dave =============================================================================