] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, OCTOBER 31 - NOVEMBER 4, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:41:56 -0800 From: Steve Teller Subject: Ozzy matters Apparently only the superscription, and not the contents of my last entry arrived. So I will resend the contents with some new comments:: "J. L. Bell" Interesting that TIN WOODMAN would be a [the?] title Golden licensed. There were two others, ROAD and EMERALD CITY. Neill's depiction of the Hip-po-gy-raf seems much more dinosaur-like than Baum's description. Not that for little boys there's anything wrong with that! Fortunately, if the beast's a dinosaur, it's a plant-eater. This was a popular critter. It forms Michael Herring's cover of the Del-Rey edition. and appears in both the LGB and Russian editions. They all look saurian. Another example of violence in Baum's Oz book is the chopping up of Choggenmugger in RINKITINK, which is the subject of an illustration.. This made such an impression on Fred Meyer that when he was writing a menu for a convention and macaroni saladwas being served he called in Choggenmugger Salad. Steve T. Concerning copyrights: I wonder what the copyright situation was in the old Soviet Union and its current successors. There have been many publications of Volkov's "Oz" books with the Vladimirshy or other illustrations in both the old USSR and the current republics. This would be impossible under our copyright laws unless V & V retained their rights and "sold" them to the different publishers in different cities, or the original publishers sold/gave away rights for future publication. The earliest Volkov/Vladimirsky story was printed in 1959, less than 40 years ago. SPOILER FOR---THE FAIRY QUEEN IN OZ >Are Lulea and Lurline the same lady)? Actually March Laumer wrote a whole book on that subject, A FAIRY QUEEN IN OZ, in which Lulea and her band were invited to a city of the same ame in Sweden (The country Laumer spends much of his time). There the Queen finds herself so badly treated that she changes her name. END OF SPOILER Ruth Berman wrote: >Neill also was more traditional in his drawings of >the dragonettes of "Dorothy and the Wizard" and "Wonder City," It should be noted that Neill's Evan-Geline in WONDER CITY had two heads. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 17:03:24 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-30-98 David G.: >According to their list, there was nothing in 1902 and not much in 1903 (a >couple of hard shakes around San Jose, but nothing strong enough to open a >fissure). But you are absolutely right, David, in pointing out that Dorothy >was well south of SF (and San Jose for that matter) when the big one >occurred. Could this have been a local event that went unrecorded? Or is >this more evidence for the parallel earth theory? Earthquakes in general don't open fissures big enough for a horse and buggy to drop into, in our world - even the Really Big Ones. That's why it's my theory (MOPPeT, we often call it on the Digest - My Own Personal Pet Theory) that the travelers shifted to a parallel world sometime between Dorothy's arrival at Hugson's Siding and the quake where the earth opened. This sort of thing seems to happen around Dorothy quite often. Whether Oz is on our Earth or not, it's clear that the primary way to get there is through some kind of spacewarp, whether it's into another dimension or an instantaneous transition of a lot of miles on Earth. Tornados don't last long enough to travel from Kansas to a point outside the US. Hot-air balloons with no internal heaters don't travel hundreds of miles. There isn't an unknown island continent several hundred miles across located somewhere in the South Pacific close enough to shipping lanes that a chicken coop washed off a ship, or a hatch cover from a sinking ship, could float to it overnight. A little boy couldn't have walked from Philadelphia to somewhere near Foxville. And those are just in Baum. Dorothy's aging and subsequent de-aging in _Lost King_ is interesting, but puzzling as well. The fact that she returned to her previous age in Oz when she returned to Oz might be an indication that when she came to Oz permanently in EC that she reverted to her age at the time of her first visit to Oz in _Wizard_. Or perhaps, since the indications are that non-aging didn't begin until after Ozma's accession, to her age as of her first visit to Oz after that, i.e. in _Ozma_. It's possible that the de-aging was an effect of the sand from the Wish Way - that "I wish I were back!" included "back to my original age" as well as "back in Oz." But one would think that in that case it would also include "back in intact garments," and we know that didn't happen. It's also puzzling that there was a delay of an hour or so between Dorothy's arrival in Hollywood and her starting to age. >BTW, however old Zeb was, it wasn't very old. Would you, as a responsible >parent, send a child of that age in a horse-drawn carriage to pick up a >passenger at the train depot late at night during an earthquake? Would you >not then worry about him sufficiently to go after him when he'd stayed gone >all night? I think Zeb was considerably older than Dorothy; Baum isn't specific, but he acts like a youth of 14-16 rather than like a kid of 11-12. And you have to remember that Zeb wasn't living with his parents but with an uncle, and their relationship seemed to be more employer-employee than familial. It's not that much problem keeping track of the various Davids on the Digest; except for Dave Hardenbrook and me, a last initial is still good enough to distinguish us, and Dave and I are generally distinguished by his using the nickname and my using the full form (though since John Bell persists in calling me "Dave" as well, so he has to tack on a full last name). Lisa: I think Dorothy was older than five at the time of _Wizard_, but the most generally accepted chronology of the books doesn't really allow for her to be older than that. MOPPeT is that she's 8 or 9 at that time, but my chronology isn't that widely accepted. Michael: Good Ozzy math puzzle. The answer, of course, is 11, 10, and 12 respectively. Nathan: I doubt if Aunt Em and Uncle Henry would have noticed a 1-year lag in Dorothy's growth; since she was "a well-grown child for her years" at the time of _Wizard_, she probably wouldn't seem much different from her age peers a few years later if she'd only lagged about a year. The more difficult thing to reconcile with the "age delay" idea is why Dorothy would consider herself to be only 11 when she'd lived 12 years (and presumably celebrated 12 birthdays). After all, people mature physically at very different rates; there's no way of looking at kids and being sure this one is 11, this one 12, and this one 10. Bear: >Ah Mr. Bell. That is exactly why all of the interesting book stores are >going under. People shop at the chains because they can save a few bucks. I know this is a hobby-horse of yours, but you're misstating John's comments. He wasn't talking about saving a few bucks; he was talking about a particular independent having a poor selection compared to the chains. And it should be noted that Borders has a much better selection of Oz books than any independent within reasonable traveling distance of where I live, though there's a good one in the Lincoln Park district of Chicago (roughly comparable to your going to Berkeley to book-shop). I'm sure that I've read most of the Oz books at least eight times, though that's spread over more than 55 years. I reread favorite books quite often, though I doubt if there are any I've read eight times as an adult. There are some I've probably read four or five times, though. But I spend a lot of time reading; I also read a lot of new books. Dave: I think you misunderstood J.L. - _Little Men_ has been PD for a long time. He was saying that the time when his first book would go PD, if he lived to be 85 as he figures to, would be as far from now as now is from the original publication of _Little Men_. I'm sure that everything Alcott wrote that was published in her lifetime is now PD. I think setting a date for _Magic_ would be appropriate; there may be a few more comments on TW, but probably those would fit into the time between now and the date you set, since you usually give about a 2-week lead time. >"TOO MANY DAVES": >I'd offer to clarify things by adopting *my* high school nickname, but I >really don't want anyone here calling me "Cosmo-Gremlin"... I didn't really have a nickname in high school; in one grade school I went to I was "Horse-nose," and in college I was "Hulot," at least after the film "Mr. Hulot's Holiday" showed. I prefer "David," or even "Dave"... David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:13:11 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: the Ozzy mailbag Content-Disposition: inline One of my three favorite uncles has just sent me a copy of "A Tour of L. Frank Baum's Aberdeen," by Don Artz. This is a 20-page pamphlet with photos, maps, and illustrations about Aberdeen, SD, during the period that Baum and his in-laws lived in there. As a publication it's very well done, with interesting layout and a high quality of writing and editing. The stories create an intriguing window onto the edges of white settlement in our Gilded Age. Among the facts about Baum's life and work, I found only one statement I'd quibble with. Rated against other tourism material I've seen, it's even more impressive. If Don Artz or any of his Aberdeen colleagues receive this digest, I send my praise. Also in the mail this past week was the fall 1998 Oz Observer from the Int'l Wiz of Oz Club. Since it arrived several days after all the events its calendar lists, I was mercifully spared any dilemma about whether to attend those. Most of the newsletter is devoted to plans for the 2000 celebration; for that, of course, I have plenty of decision-making time. The undeniable highlight of this newsletter is a photo of Herm Bieber is his award-winning Dorothy costume. It's everything people said it was, Herm! And last out of this week's mailbag is Martin Gardner's VISITORS FROM OZ. I'll put my response at the end of this posting. Folks who wish to avoid learning any plot points at all or to avoid negativity should skip it. Steve Teller wrote: <<==================================================================== Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:53:43 -0800 From: Steve Teller Subject: Ozzy Matters ====================================================================>> Steve? Steve? Talk to us! David Frank Godwin wrote: <> When Dorothy is on the wish way in LOST KING, she muses aloud, "...and yet I sometimes wish I were in America again, just to see--" Then she's whisked to Hollywood [128]. The unspoken intention of Dorothy's wish, which the silver dust may have picked up, is probably "just to see what my life would be like if I'd stayed there." That seems a more likely ending to her sentence than "just to see Hollywood," or "just to see Cousin Zeb," or other possibilities. In that case, Thompson may simply have misinterpreted Dorothy's growth as a natural result of her returning to America, rather than an unnatural result of her wish. That ILTT theory at least makes it possible for Dorothy to go back to America in new books without being inconsistent with LOST KING and without ending up dead. About Baum's manuscripts, Dave Hulan wrote: <> I wouldn't be surprised if these Baum manuscripts/typescripts indeed came from the publisher's files. With the growth in literary collecting, authors have started to see their typescripts as potentially valuable. Many book contracts now include a clause saying the publisher will return the original typescript *if the author asks for it.* Just in time for typescripts to lose a great deal of value, given the ease of printing out multiple copies. The versions with handwritten changes are what future collectors and scholars will treasure. Ruth Berman wrote: <> Quite so. I do that myself sometimes. But if that scrap in the BUGLE was Baum's *second* draft, I must severely downgrade my image of his writing talent. (It could, of course, have been typed from a handwritten page with no changes.) About, I believe, the growth of book superstore chains, Richard Bauman wrote: <> Much as I share the distrust of an unfettered free market evident in your statement, Bear, I must point out that a superstore that offers 40,000+ different titles ipso facto provides more variety than a small store that offers 10,000. That's why a small store should develop specialties, stocking titles not in the larger stores to attract a wide and steady customer base. An outlet like Books of Wonder is just such a specialized success. As for my philosophy of buying books, I seem to be planning to be hit by a truck and laid up for several months with a hefty financial settlement. That's the only way I'll even get close to reading my library. Alas, the most likely way I'll break my legs is by tripping over a pile of books! About TIN WOODMAN, Ruth Berman wrote: <> Endpapers? This book has endpapers?! What I miss by keeping my old Rand McNally edition! Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> No, no, no! Sorry, Dave; my complaint plunged you into sootier darkness than before. I mentioned LITTLE MEN and other works published in 1871 to show what old books would still be under copyright *if* the upcoming law had been in effect back then and *if* those authors had lived as long after they wrote their works as I hope to live after mine. All work published in the 19th century has been in the U.S. public domain for decades, including all of Alcott's children's books. (When scholars "discover" her *unpublished* manuscripts, as recently happened with an adult thriller, those get new copyrights as of the publication date.) ******** SPOILER ******** SPOILER ******** Now for VISITORS FROM OZ. When I was growing up, Martin Gardner's ANNOTATED ALICE and INGENIOUS DR. MATRIX were two of the books I read and reread--probably more often than any Oz book. The former was more important than any other single volume in opening my eyes to the possible levels of meaning in literature. I never reread a Dover borderlands novel without rereading Gardner's introduction as well. So I had high hopes for VISITORS. Unfortunately, novel-writing is not Gardner's strong point. VISITORS isn't his first novel, his author's biography shows. But it still reads like a first novel, with long and stiff expositions, descriptions washed out by the passive voice, and dialogue that doesn't flow like real (or even Ozian) speech. The story matches the weakest and most musty Oz narratives with a contrived motivation, plotless episodes that exist just for puns and clever images, dei ex machina who sap tension from the action, and lots and lots and lots of repetition. In Baum's Oz books, what saves weak and meandering plots is a cast of characters we believe in. The animals in LOST PRINCESS may go on for a soporifically long time about who's most attractive, but what each of them says is right for him; the conversation reads as completely natural, even if we feel Baum needn't have let us in on it. In contrast, I find many actions and speeches of the characters in VISITORS too creaky to believe. I'm no purist when it comes to new takes on old characters and settings. I accept Gardner making Dorothy 17 years old, and the complex parallel dimensions he invents to position us and them. I like the cleverness of giving the Tin Woodman a door in his chest so he can store things inside. I can handle Dorothy getting a cell phone before I do. Even the book's violence and faint hint of sex would be fine as long as the characters remain consistent. But many of Gardner's changes are so false to the personae we know that they stand out like fire hydrants on a water bed. It's clear he made these changes just to ease his plotting. That breaks my confidence in both his innovations and his plotting. For instance, Inga is said to have given Ozma the three pearls, and she passes them on to Dorothy--as if the Pingaree royalty is ever going to give up their most valuable treasures! Gardner says Dorothy goes out every morning to jog. Well, Dorothy may be 17, but even in this book she's still from turn-of-the-century Kansas, and therefore far less likely to jog than I am (which makes her chances nil). VISITORS brings into Oz the Greek gods (under their Roman names, oddly), the Wonderland and through the looking-glass worlds, and an ursine version of Sherlock Holmes--giving Gardner a chance to comment on these older legends. Unfortunately, his comments aren't interesting. The Wonderland creatures, for instance, have little to say beyond that Carroll depicted them falsely. Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Woodman also interact with several contemporary Americans, from Oprah to the Amazing Randi and Gina Kolata (the latter two being, I suspect, friends of Gardner). Only once (when Mayor Giuliani is deprived of a press conference) did I find those encounters surprising or witty or insightful. Most troubling is this book's reliance on ethnic stereotypes. A maid is named Sanchez; what does she do when she encounters the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman? She crosses herself, of course. Where does the villain find his hit men? At a club in Little Italy--and after being reformed, those goons end up in sanitation. An Arab pops up suddenly, and what is he doing? Hijacking a plane while shouting, "Allah Akbar!" This last example of stereotyping is especially unfortunate because it's not believable (unless you truly fear a random Wichita-to-New York flight will be diverted to the Mideast), it's not fresh (this set-up has been cliche for at least 20 years), it's not funny, and it's not necessary--the book's villain is already stalking Dorothy at this point in the plot, so there's plenty of menace available. What was Gardner trying to accomplish with VISITORS? One obvious goal is to bring new readers to Baum's books. He names and recommends those titles in several places. (He also recommends Michael Patrick Hearn's upcoming bio; I'm sure we'd all like to take him up on that endorsement.) Unfortunately, in two or three cases Gardner also gives away Oz books' endings in detail. Is Gardner trying to make Oz appeal to some hyped-up image of today's kids? Does he think they can't accept a story without violence? Is that why his Pink Pearl doesn't merely deflect bullets but seizes the gun and fires back? If so, Gardner goes about building kid-appeal wrong from the start. He doesn't give kids another kid to identify with. The protagonist we have in chapter 1, movie producer Samuel Gold, is an adult (he also vanishes for much of the book and never undergoes challenges and changes). Dorothy is 17 years old, out of some kids' identification range; she never gets a compelling goal for even as long as a full chapter, and is never in real danger, so it's hard to get caught up in her story, either. Those long visits to Wonderland, Olympus, etc. will be major turn-offs to new readers. So is Gardner writing for adults? If so, he can be much, *much* more clever than this. The form of an Oz novel seems to weigh him down. How I'd love to see those long expositions turned into witty and semi-fictional annotations! How fun it would be if Ballville were not merely a place where lost balls go to grow legs but an exercise in spherical mathematics! (Okay, that's an unusual idea of fun.) VISITORS seems to be caught between adults and young readers, between parody and straight narrative, without satisfying any side of those divides. I don't think St. Martin's served Gardner well. The firm doesn't have a good reputation for editing genre fiction carefully, and this book maintains that record with a typo as early as page 2. Gardner's placement of DOROTHY & WIZARD in time before OZMA looks like a simple lapse of memory rather than a well-thought-out pet theory; an editor should have caught that. Most important, the text seems not to have undergone basic editing to sharpen the story and story-telling. I suspect the publisher thought it would sell adequately based on Gardner's name and the word "Oz," and wanted Christmas sales in this budget year. The book would have been twice as enjoyable, even with the plot weaknesses I mention above, if Gardner and an editor had worked on it for another twelve months. I do like the chapter-opening illustration, which juxtaposes an Emerald City street and a New York City skyline. But for the bulk of VISITORS FROM OZ, I must go beyond Atticus's verdict that "I don't want to call it a bad book, but it's not what I consider a good Oz book." With profound disappointment, I do think it's a bad book. ***** END SPOILER ****** END SPOILER ***** J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 16:03:26 -0800 From: Peter Hanff Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-30-98 Cc: phanff@library.berkeley.edu Hi Dave, A couple of days ago I drafted comment on the original Baum manuscripts for The Tin Woodman of Oz, The Magic of Oz, and Glinda of Oz. Alas, the message sank into the miOzma when our network crashed. So I'll redraft: These are, alas, the only surviving manuscripts of Baum's Oz books. The former two are at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, as described by Atticus Gannaway recently, the last still held by the Baum family. All three are completely in L. Frank Baum's hand. Gauging from the shakiness of the hand-writing in Tin Woodman, it appears he wrote that one when he was quite ill. The handwriting is stronger in the other two. What is really surprising about all three manuscripts is how clean they are. There are almost no internal corrections, and one might almost think they were fair copies, but there are just sufficient emendations and differences between manuscript and printed book to make clear that there was an intermediate editorial step. Baum used a typewriter very early in the century, and his custom appears to have been to write a longhand text, then typewrite it, and then, we assume, read galley proofs. (Actually quite a few pages of one of the two Texas manuscripts are on the back of a sequence of pages from an early Mary Louise title). The relative rarity of change between the holograph manuscript and the printed book reveals, I believe, that there was very little editorial intervention. The lack of corrections in the manuscripts themselves suggested to Warren Hollister and me that Baum was an excellent natural writer, and that he could write out the full text, including the dialogue, almost in a continuous stream. Stylists can argue about the final outcome (clearly Baum's work could sometimes have used a second look), but his skill at story-telling is directly apparent from the manuscripts. I was fortunate to be able to read the two Texas manuscripts, line by line, against the printed versions of those books. Warren Hollister did much the same with the privately owned manuscript. The manuscript I have long wished could be examined is that for Queen Zixi of Ix. That work, published serially in St. Nicholas magazine from November 1904 through October 1905, is the most carefully wrought of all the Baum books, and I have often wondered if Baum didn't benefit from dialogue with Mary Mapes Dodge, the conductor of the magazine. Peter Hanff ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 20:25:10 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Neill's Oz I suppose that really this is apropos of nothing, but I've just this year begun re-reading Oz books and am still on the FF. I had never read any of the RPT books before, except _Royal Book_, of which I had the R&L edition when I was a kid (sigh). At that time, it just confused me. Now I am hung up on the Neill books, which I'm not enjoying as much. I feel that John R. Neill's books actually aren't so bad if you can forget that you ever read any other Oz book. They definitely have their good points, and in general their whimsical character reminds me very much of LFB's _Magical Monarch of Mo_. Such silliness carried on for more than 300 pages tends to get rather trying, though. Be that as it may, Neill's books make me question the meaning of "canonical." If the word just means "accepted" or "approved," that's one thing. Under that definition, all the R&L books are canonical simply because they were commissioned and published by LFB's publisher. But if "canonical," in this case, means something that is generally accepted as defining the history and customs of Oz (in line with the definition of a canon as "the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding"), then we have a problem. Even LFB's books contradict themselves quite a bit as his knowledge of Oz developed. But when we get to things such as fighting houses in the EC, scalawagons, and, yes, RPT's ozoplanes, we have IMHO gone completely beyond the pale. My idea of a nightmare is to be hung up in the scalawagon traffic on OZ 35E while trying to make an ozoplane flight to Ev from Emerald City International. I suppose it is ultimately up to the individual as to what belongs in Oz and what doesn't, unless someone sets up a sort of Ozzy tribunal to judge such matters. Speaking for myself, some things just do not fit at all into my concept of Oz, although others apparently find them acceptable. I am even uncomfortable with LFB's moderate introduction of technology, such as the telephone or wireless. If Oz has adopted "television sets, refrigerators, washing machines, cars, and airplanes," as Martin Gardner puts it in _Visitors_ (and home computers as well), then there is very little to make it different from or better than the modern-day U.S.A. High technology means heavy industry means pollution and corporate greed. That's the price we pay. But I cannot - or prefer not to - visualize an oil refinery on the banks of the Munchkin River. - dg ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 02:13:54 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-30-98 > Bear moaned: > > > Maybe there are some on the Digest who only read Oz books? That would be > about like living solely on "Twinkies!" There I said it. ARRGHHHHHHH, No > Glinda, NOOOOOOOOOO. > Shouldn't that be Winkies? :-) Our esteemed leader asked: > > > COPYRIGHT: > J.L. Bell wrote: > >LITTLE MEN ... coming into the public domain this year... > > Well, this just goes to show how much in the dark I *still* am > about this copyright law..._Little Men_ (and presumably her other > well-known works except _Little Women_) is still under copyright?? Read the begining of the sentence you excerpted, Dave! I mean, I know the digest is long, but.....He was saying that *his (Bell's)* book would likely be protected for 127 years due to the current law, and *IF* Alcott's book's had been protected that long, they would still be under copyright until just now.... but they were NOT! --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:16:27 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Content-Disposition: inline David Goodwin: That scene with Dorothy growing up so quickly has always bothered me. It leads to the question: If you are in Oz, and not aging, then where does your age "go"?: There are two possibilities: 1. The age is never generated in the first place. This is much like a lightswitch. If you turn it off for an hour, then turn it on again, the light does not glow twice as brightly for an hour. 2. The age is supressed, and then stored someplace if you ever leave. This is the case in many fairy stories. According to Aaron Adelman, the "MAgic Machine" keeps track of this. Part of the problem with assumption 2 is that it also requires us to assume that if you leave and then come back, the age is taken away from you again. In this case, I've taken the wimps way out: To preseve everything else the we know or have assumed, I have made the following assumption: WHen Dorothy made the wish, the magic controlling the wish must have assumed that she not only wanted to go back to America, she also wanted to see what it would be like if she never left, so the sand gave her age back. When she returned, she sand assumed she mean that she wanted to return just the way she was. A little forced, but if I push, I can just get it through the doors of plausibility :-) As for the statement in _Tin Woodman_, we can also assume that Baum meant the "same sweet little girl" as her attitude and demeanor. That is, she was just as good and kind as she always has been. IMHO, a boy of 10 (near Zeb's age) could easily be trusted to take a horse-and-buggy down to the train station, meet Dorothy, pick her up and take her back to the ranch. Many people that age (or older) could not do that today, but back then was a little different. I'd say that Baum got his early information from Dorothy. Note the large gap between publication dates for _Wizard_ and _LAnd_. He had to wait until Dorothy went back to get info for the second book. Keep staying wound up. Going over this stuff again is great. It keeps it in our minds and it always helps to have another viewpoint. Lisa: Dorothy might have been too young to be afraid of riding a lion, although five is a little young to be doing what she did. That's why I go with six. Not a lot of difference, but maybe just enough. John Bell: The President has 10 days to sign any bill. If, at the end of those ten days, Congres is still in session, it shall become law. If, at the end of those 10 days, Congress is not in session, it shall be vetoed and be dead. The pocket veto has lost power in recent decades, since Congress is in session nearly year-round. They are not in session now, but Clinton has signaled that he will sign it. If he does not (a slim-to-none possibility), it may be killed, since I can't see Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott calling Congress back over this. Don't keep your hopes up. The lobbying effort was powerful, and I believe that he will sign it, if he hasn't already. John Bell again: It's interesting that you noted that the Wicked Witch of the East did not seem to be thoroughly wicked all the time. In one of March Laumers books, Uncle Henry presses a Munchkin to give him specifics of the horrible things that the Witch did to them. The only real response was that she forced them to go to school and learn things! :-) David Hulan: If we assume normal progession, then there is a four year gap between Speedy's visits. 12 and 16 does not seem unreasonable. Your reference to Jeremy was actually a statement I made. In order to reconcile _Ozma_ and _Pirates_, it is possible that Peter comes from our own Earth and was sucked through a vortex. Any others have ideas? Nathan: David Huland has also mentioned the fact that Dorothy's non-aging would be commented on. At that time in a girl's life, even one year can make a fairly big difference. I see three possibilities: 1. Dorothy was extremely young at the time of _Wizard_, younger than we can account for her actions. 2. The first six Baum books must be squeezed in an extra year. 3. Henry and Em never really noticed. Perhaps Dorothy was unusually mature for her age and the un-aging balanced it out. Choice 3 is the easiest to accept. Dorothy simply cannot have been too young during _Wizard_, and I've squeezed the first six Baum books about as far as they'll go. I could get an extra year if there were not so many other non-FF books written at that time. If anybody has other ideas, I'd love to hear them. All I want is the best possible answer, and even my tremendous brain cannot generate perfection all the time :-) (cough cough ahem) Bear: Someday, I will re-read Wheel of Time and LOTR, but that will be many years down the road. Aaron: Glad to hear that the HI/RCC is finally on-line. Beware, though, I am planning to re-design the HACC so that it will accomodate anything that is accurate to the Baum 14. This will slightly break the single historical thread, but I have a plan for that, too. BTW, is there any update on your books? Ruth and John Bell: Piers Anthony always does his work on computer. He loves to go into detail about his journey from CP/M (now that's ancient!) to DOS and eventually Windows. In an interesting aside, he notes that fans get terribly offended when they find out that each novel does not spring into his head full-grown, or that he does not do a rough in longhand. Tyler: Yes, I talk to myself, on and off the Digest :-) An update on my web site. Primenet tells us that the high-speed internect connection will take one or maybe two weeks to install. From my experience in the real world, this translates into English as "One month". Therefore, it may be a while before my web site is active again. Names: So far, there's only one Tyler, which is good, since I'd rather not go by any of my old nicknames: Nate Lumpy Psycho Rohanassring (don't even ASK about this one!!!) Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Nov 98 11:12:06 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Reply-To: Ruth A Berman Subject: ozzy digest J.L. Bell: Your summary makes the new copyright law sound a bit worse than it is. It's date-of-death+70 or publication-date+95 -- whichever is SHORTER. (Unlike the now-lapsing law, which is death+50 or publication+75, whichever is longer.) You wouldn't get more than 95 years of protection on a book, no matter how young you were when it was published or how long you lived after that. (Dave Hardenbrook: Nothing published in the 19th century is still under copyright, with the possible exception of the work of Mary Baker Eddy. I haven't heard if the new law extends her previous exemption from copyright expiration. For that matter, I hadn't heard if the 1978 law extended it.) If you published a book next year and lived another 96 years, you would even see the copyright expire in your lifetime, but presumably there are going to be few authors, if any, who publish early enough and live long enough to have that happen to them. David Hulan: I think the ms. J.L. mentioned is the Fragment of an Oz book that was among the papers of one of the Baum sons (published in the "Bugle" back in 1975). As a fragment, it probably wouldn't have been sent to Reilly&Lee at any time. There was an LP of the music from "Return to Oz" -- it was reviewed in the "Bugle" at the time, and I sent off for a copy of it then. I forget if that included a CD version as well, but suspect that it did. It's probably long since out of print, though, either way. I did find a copy of "Visitors" at Uncle Hugo's. I probably won't read it immediately, though, as I'm doing a lot of reading for some other projects. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:37:56 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-30-98 Aaron: I don't think Ozma Gets Really Pissed Off or Invisible Inzi should be taken off the HACC. "The Flying Thief of Oz" is pretty consistent, with the exception of the statement (in dialogue) that there is no electricity in Oz. It has an unrecorded journey of Dorothy some time in-between _DotWiz_ and _EC_ (but with a Fuddle--a criminal Fuddle). There is no space on the shelf for _Visitord from Oz_ here, but I'll keep looking. Scott ============================================================================ ==== Scott Andrew Hutchins http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Frances: I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours. Freddy [the neighbor]: Mine was pretty boring, too. I've just got a knack for picking out the interesting bits. --David Williamson _Travelling North_ Act Two Scene Three ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:49:40 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: OZ: Copyright explained Since this just came over my e-desk, and it was topical, I forward it along (something Scraps (or perhaps Jeremy Steadman) would think up....) --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky > +--------------------------------------+ > [from Kitty's Daily Mews, by Shelley Herman] > > Copyright explained: > > When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you > write, if the copy is right. If however, your copy falls over, you > must right your copy. If you write religious services you write rite, > and have the right to copyright the rite you write. > > Very conservative people write right copy, and have the right to > copyright the right copy they write. A right wing cleric would write > right rite, and has the right to copyright the right rite he has the > right to write. His editor has the job of making the right rite copy > right before the copyright can be right. > > Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite, then Wright would write > right rite, which Wright has the right to copyright. Duplicating that > rite would copy Wright right rite, and violate copyright, which Wright > would have the right to right. > > Right? ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 22:33:44 -0500 From: David Levitan X-Accept-Language: en,ru Subject: Oz Question Hi, Can anybody help this oz fan. He sent me a message from my web page. Please respond to his e-mail address. Thank you very much, David Levitan > Name: Michael Davis > E-Mail: davismw@aol.com > Comment: > Neat site. Was wondering if you could help me recall the title of an > Oz book I read as a child. All I basically remember is that the kid at > the beginning of the book gets to Oz by building a giant kite. Any > ideas? > > Thanks, > > MWD ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 04 Nov 98 10:34:21 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Okay, I take the point about reading posts more carefully... CP/M?? The OS Ruggedo invented! How about a week from next Monday to start _Magic_? -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 5 - 7, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 98 09:05:40 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Reply-To: Ruth A Berman Subject: ozzy digest ps It's quite a while since we were discussing "The kitchen took a slitch," and what "slitch" was meant to mean. I wrote to John Fricke, to ask if he had some thoughts. He confirms that the word is actually "slitch" (he has a photocopy of the M-G-M conductor's score), and commented: "Given what I know about Harburg and his background and approach to Munchkinland, I'm willing to bet that his use of "slitch" was primarily a mock-Germanese or mock-European (typical of its day) play-on-words -- combining slip, slide, pitch -- and meaning exactly what those three words imply: the kitchen was tossedf about, helter-skelter and at odds with itself." Ruth Berman ====================================================================== From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:00:07 -0700 Very non-Ozzy warning: > >>>>If you receive an e-mail titled "Win A Holiday" DO NOT open it. It > >>>>will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter out to > >>>>as many people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus and > >>>>not many people know about it. This information was announced > >>>>yesterday morning from Microsoft, please share it again pass this > along > to > >>>>everyone in your address book so that this may be stopped. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:47:37 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-30-98 >>Jeremy again: >>For myself, I now ascribe to Dave Hardenbrook's theory. This theory >>says that Oz IS on Earth, but not OUR Earth. It's on a parallel >>earth >that has magical lands, so that Dorothy is indeed from >>Kansas, just >not the one that we know. There may even be a >>Butterfield in that >Kansas. >How do you reconcile _Ozma_ and _Pirates_, then? Which ocean links >with the Nonestic? It really doesn't matter, as geography may be different there anyway. Dave Hardenbrook: What's wrong with a name like Cosmo Gremlin? In fact, what's in a name anyway? (A rose by any other would smell as sour . . .) Meeting my own quote-a, Jeremy Steadman, Royal Historian of Oz kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:42:30 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: MGM Oz The MGMWiz revival starts here Friday, so here's a pointless hypothetical question: There being no place like home notwithstanding, what happened to Miss Gulch after Dorothy's trip to (dream of) Oz? She was quite a problem beforehand. Now that Dorothy is back home, does Gulch go ahead and have Toto destroyed? (Hauntingly familiar terminology, in that no one in Oz can die; they can only be "destroyed.") If not, why not? Was she killed in the cyclone? (We saw her on her bike in the cyclone when Dorothy was being carried off to Oz, but that was part of Dorothy's dream.) Did she have a change of heart after she learned that the poor child had been knocked cold by a window frame? Did Aunt Em throw water on Gulch and melt her? It looks like anybody's guess, but the movie glosses over the fact that home still contains the same problems it did before Dorothy had her experience. One other trivial observation about the Garland movie: When talking to Glinda, she says that her name is Dorothy Gale. Her surname does not appear in WWiz at all, does it? We don't learn it until _Ozma_. I also noticed in looking at some past postings here that there was considerable puzzlement about the red-robed Munchkin shouting "Epiphany!" According to the closed captioning on my copy of the video (which is also the only way I was ever able to pick up the sulfur remark), what he says is, "If any!" Inasmuch as this remark follows the mayor's statement about "future generations of Munchkins," it almost makes sense. - dg ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:36:25 -0800 From: Bob Spark Reply-To: bspark@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 > How about a week from next Monday to start _Magic_? Okay by me. > There isn't an unknown island continent several hundred > miles across located somewhere in the South Pacific > How can you tell, if the island continent under discussion is unknown? > Earthquakes in general don't open fissures big enough for a > horse and buggy to drop into, in our world - even the > Really Big Ones. During or after the '06 earthquake in California a dead cow ended up in a fissure at Point Reyes. There is a controversy about whether the cow was "swallowed up" and killed, or whether the cow had died and the local folk found the fissure a convenient place to dispose of it. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:01:36 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Content-Disposition: inline David: I almost accept your chronology, but for all those pasky non-FF books. Early Baum is a very popular time to write in. Two reasons spring to mind: 1. The early Baum books and characters have, by definition, been Public Domain the longest. 2. These are the books people are most familiar with. David G: I had a similar situation when reading the FF. I had bene reading the Baum books for years when my Aunt found an old _Kabumpo_ in storage. It was very confusing, especially since the intro mentioned it as the "15th" Oz book. I wondered if _Royal Book_ really existed at all, but I decided that it must because of all the changes. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:51:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman" Subject: The HACC & the HI/RCC (for the Ozzy Digest) Tyler: Somehow I suspect the revised HACC is going to end up looking like the HI/RCC if Baum-14 consistency is the only requirement. Also: The Lurline's Machine project was put on hold for a while due to lack of proper Ozzy spirit resting upon the writers. Recently I've (slowly) resumed work on it. The result is turning out significantly different from the original version of the project, so you may consider all leaked information on it to be null and void. Aaron Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelmaas@musc.edu http://www.musc.edu/~adelmaas/ Pioneer Aviation ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:11:29 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz stuff The copyright question: Unfortunately, it's usually not the children or other relatives of a deceased author who benefit from copyright ownership, but rather some corporation or, with distressing frequency, some opportunistic, no-talent Ruggedo who got his hand in the pie at the right time. The concept of "intellectual property" becomes rather absurd in such a case. I decline to cite examples, but almost anyone can think of one or two non-Oz instances. More grist for the "Dorothy always stayed the same age as when she first came to Oz" mill: In Chap. 17 of _Scalawagons_, Dorothy is reminiscing about the cyclone, and Glinda says, "You are still the dear little girl you were then. You aren't any older!" Of course, Glinda really means that she just doesn't _seem_ any older; she's still the same sweet/dear little girl as always. That explanation seems a little forced to me, but, after all, there is no way that Dorothy could have failed to age at all between WWiz and ECoz unless she got younger once she was in Oz permanently, and there is never any mention of that. As for explaining the above passages, MHO is that the authors were striving (once again) for reader identification. If the text has to be accepted as gospel and explained, the elucidation offered is as good as any and better than most. Thank you, Tyler. OTOH, this is from a book by the guy who has Jack Pumpkinhead being a prisoner of Mombi for seven years (mentioned in _Lucky Bucky_). Say what? When did _that_ happen? Also, we learn from Mr. Neill that the Scarecrow rules over the Munchkins in the West. Okay, so Cheeriobad abdicated or got eaten by a dragon, and Bob Heinlein did a fair job of dealing with the East/West business in _The Number of the Beast_. Reconciling all the seeming contradictions and wild hairs in JNR's books is truly a challenge. At least the Holmes fans have the confusions of only _one_ canonical author to deal with! The one JNR contribution to the mythos that I do like is the idea of a "stop-growing age," which is different in every family and seems to be determined by choice. It deals neatly with the otherwise difficult problem, introduced by LFB himself in _Tin Woodman_, of some unfortunate parents being doomed to change diapers for eternity ("...all the babies lived in their cradles and were tenderly cared for and never grew up"). Never grew up _completely_, that is. Whew! - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:44:28 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: canonical Oz Content-Disposition: inline The University of Nebraska Press is offering 50% off the price of OUR LANDLADY, the collection of L. Frank Baum's newspaper tales edited by Nancy Tystad Koupal. Normally $40, the hardcover book costs $20 until 15 December. Shipping from Lincoln costs $4. To order, contact: University of Nebraska Press 312 North 14th Street Lincoln, NE 68588-0484 (800) 755-1105 fax: (800) 526-2617 The order code for OUR LANDLADY is BAUOUR. The code from ordering from the press's sale catalogue is WH8 12345. In my remarks on VISITORS FROM OZ, I misstated the title of one of the Martin Gardner books I greatly enjoyed. It was THE INCREDIBLE DR. MATRIX. All of that collection and more about this fictive numerological con man (including the much misquoted JFK/Lincoln assassination coincidences and the "discovery" of pyramid power) were reprinted in THE MAGIC NUMBERS OF DR. MATRIX. Good stuff! Steve Teller wrote: <> Until the breakup of the Soviet Union, there was one government office in Moscow for all international publishing rights. It would periodically send foreign publishers notes like, "Ve have published your imperialist corporation's book BRIDGES OV MADISON COUNTY in Russian, Latvian, and Ukrainian four years ago. Here is $400." Today the situation is more like in the West, with agents and publishers operating independently and directly with foreign publishers. Observing international copyright law is more common than in China, less so than in, say, France. I suspect the legal arrangement Volkov and Vladimirshy had with their original publisher is more important in governing reprints of their "Oz" books than the copyright laws. Ruth Berman wrote to me: <> Thank you, Ruth. You'd mentioned this change to "whichever is shorter" before, but I'd taken that in as affecting a different set of work. Mike Turniansky shared: <<. . . Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite. . . . >> Jim Wright--the only author to get in trouble for royalties that were too high?! That shows when this canny copyright guide started to circulate. Peter Hanff wrote: <> Verrrry interesting. Thanks for the description, Peter, html tags and all. I read the implication that Baum didn't type (or have typed) these last three Oz books until he'd completed writing the stories by hand. The Baum fragment I mentioned earlier was published in the Christmas 1965 issue of the BAUM BUGLE, then in BEST OF BUGLE 65-66. I believe it later became the seed for one of March Laumer's novels. It's described as "four and one-half typewritten pages, undated, with an attached note written by the author's son, Robert Stanton Baum: 'The start of the first chapter of an Oz book which Father never finished. No title had been decided on.'" I recall somehow that R. S. Baum had passed away by that time, and therefore could not give any further description of how he'd found the fragment or attributed it to his father, but perhaps I'm wrong. The fragment certainly doesn't show the storytelling facility Peter sees in Baum's completed manuscripts. David Frank Godwin wrote: <> The deepest root of "canon" is an ancient word for "measuring stick." That's one way we can understand the Reilly & Britton/Lee canon, or the Reilly & Britton/Lee authors/illustrators canon: these are the books by which we agree to measure our conceptions of Oz. That doesn't mean they have to be consistent with each other (which they aren't). Or that we have to accept every statement in every book. But they provide a common set of references for our thoughts and discussions. The way I read Neill's books is to imagine that, while Baum and Thompson were able to exchange messages with their contacts in the Emerald City, Neill had only a one-way visual connection, set up to let him draw Oz's citizens. He could see people, creatures, perhaps places in the Magic Picture, every so often a significant action if he knew it was going down. But when he faced the task of reporting stories from Oz, he was hobbled. He tried to connect what he'd seen into coherent plots--and largely failed. He got better, or was granted better access after his first coupla books, but never achieved the access Baum had. I thus read Neill's books as I read spotty historical records--with the pleasure of guessing what *actually* happened. At least, of course, according to my conception of Oz. Tyler Jones wrote: <> The horror, the horror! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 09:51:20 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 JOHN BELL: >But for the bulk of VISITORS FROM >OZ, I must go beyond Atticus's verdict that "I don't want to call it a bad >book, but it's not what I consider a good Oz book." With profound >disappointment, I do think it's a bad book. ***** END SPOILER ****** END >SPOILER ***** >J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com Thank God, someone who agrees with me. I was beginning to think either I had lost all perception as a literary critic or that, worse, I was going crazy. I don't see how anyone can think this is a good book, and though I said, "I don't want to call it a bad book," it *is*. No compelling plot, mindless and hurried (and largely unoriginal) IEs... And the ethnic stereotypes unsettled me, as well. I didn't want to mention them initially, though. I felt I'd already said enough. By the way, I hope to make it to the research center today to examine the TIN WOODMAN manuscript and answer the Sal Loon question. Atticus * * * "...[T]here is something else: the faith of those despised and endangered that they are not merely the sum of damages done to them." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:01:20 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 J.L.: > With the growth in literary collecting, authors have started to see their >typescripts as potentially valuable. Many book contracts now include a >clause saying the publisher will return the original typescript *if the >author asks for it.* Just in time for typescripts to lose a great deal of >value, given the ease of printing out multiple copies. The versions with >handwritten changes are what future collectors and scholars will treasure. And those are likely to be increasingly rare as the computer age progresses; who's going to bother with handwritten changes in an MS when it's as easy to just make the changes in the computer file? I know there's no MS of _Glass Cat_ with handwritten changes, at least by the author. (When I vetted a galley proof for final corrections I wrote up a 2-page letter of corrections rather than marking them on the proofs and sending the whole thing back. Why waste postage?) I can't disagree with any of the specifics of your critique of _Visitors_, but my overall reaction to the book was more positive than yours. Maybe this is because you haven't read many of the Really Bad Oz books that Buckethead has published? Several of those I was unable to finish; several others I finished only because they were so short. Most of this is due to the fact that Chris doesn't mind publishing work by people in grade school and junior high, but still... David G.: I think most people agree that the Neill books are the weakest of the original series, especially his first two. (I prefer _Lucky Bucky_ to _Cowardly Lion_, _Ozoplaning_, or _Hidden Valley_, but that's about it. And that may be largely due to the fact that it was one of the first Oz books I read - somewhere between third and fifth.) As for what's meant by "canonical," that probably varies from one individual reader to the next. There are a few who only accept _Wizard_ as representing the authentic Oz. A few others accept only _Wizard_ and _Land_. A fairly large number accept only Baum's books. I think the majority of active Oz fans probably accept Baum and Thompson as representing authentic Oz, but regard the later books as marginal and certainly not to be regarded as superseding Baum/Thompson information. Obviously there are minor contradictions even within Baum (such as the location of Ev; there's a clear contradiction between _Ozma_ and _Magic_), but those have to be explained away somehow; contradictions from later authors can just be ignored. It is, after all, no worse than the contradictory versions of Jesus's genealogy in Matthew and Luke - a good deal better, in fact, since there's no claim of infallibility imputed to the Oz authors... >High >technology means heavy industry means pollution and corporate greed. That's >the price we pay. Does it necessarily mean that when you also have magic available to help? I doubt it. Ozian high tech might be quite without heavy industry and its concomitants. Tyler: >IMHO, a boy of 10 (near Zeb's age) could easily be trusted to take a >horse-and-buggy down to the train station, meet Dorothy, pick her up and >take her back to the ranch. Many people that age (or older) could not do >that today, but back then was a little different. As I said last Digest, I don't think Zeb was that young. But I agree that a 10-year-old could be trusted to take a horse and buggy to the train station in those days. There would have been virtually no danger in normal circumstances. (Letting a 10-year-old stay up past midnight is another thing. I don't think that would have happened often, but maybe Bill Hugson didn't believe in letting Zeb sleep much.) The real problem with Dorothy's un-aging is the point I made last Digest: even if her physical maturing was delayed by her time in Oz, why would she think of herself as 11 if she'd had 12 birthdays? >Piers Anthony always does his work on computer. He loves to go into detail >about his journey from CP/M (now that's ancient!) to DOS and eventually >Windows. I once had a CP/M computer. But my computing experience goes way back before that; the first "computer" I had (well, I didn't own it, but I used it) was a Wang desktop device that I don't think had anything you could call an OS. It was much like today's programmable calculators, except that you had to write your program using a punch card that it would read. Your program was limited to 80 instructions max. Later we got time-sharing on a mainframe over a TTY, and I was able to write much longer programs using paper tape. Ah, the Good Old Days. (This goes back to about 1969.) Ruth: >J.L. Bell: Your summary makes the new copyright law sound a bit >worse than it is. It's date-of-death+70 or publication-date+95 -- >whichever is SHORTER. Ah. Then the Neill books will go PD before any more Thompsons will? (Death-plus-70 for Neill being 2012 or 2013, IIRC, but publication-plus-95 being 2018 for _Cowardly Lion_.) David L.: I've e-mailed Michael Davis with the information that the book he's thinking of is _The Hidden Valley of Oz_. Dave: A week from Monday to start _Magic_ sounds fine to me. I'm about halfway through a reread now. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:17:54 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz pop In ECOz, LFB gives detailed population figures for the EC (57,318, with 9,654 buildings) and Oz as a whole (more than half a million). RPT has a similar passage in one of her books (giving the population of the EC, at least), but I can't seem to locate it by browsing. Anyone know where this is? - David G ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 98 16:37:54 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Reply-To: Ruth A Berman Subject: ozzy digest Steve Teller: Multiheadedness in dragons is itself fairly traditional. There's a Grimms' story about a seven-headed dragon, I think. And the Chimera in some versions of the myth has three heads, with one of them a dragon-head. J.L. Bell: Interesting comments on Gardner's "Visitors." The Amazing Randi is a friend of Gardner's, but is also fairly well known as a professional stage-magician who makes a hobby of debunking various types of claims to psi powers by showing how the claimed effects can be achieved through sleight-of-hand. Peter Hanff: Interesting comments on the mss. Michael Turniansky: Enjoyed the well-wrought wrighting explanation. Dave Hardenbrook: Monday Nov. 16 start-date for "Magic" sounds fine. David Levitan: Probably others will answer Michael Davis's query, but I'll send a copy of this info to him. The Oz books he asks about is Rachel Cosgrove Payes' "Hidden Valley of Oz," which is currently available from the International Wizard of Oz Club. For info on price (and on the club's many other Oz-related publications), he could write International Wizard of Oz Club, P.O. Box 10117, Berkeley, CA 94709-5117, or E-Mail: iwoc@sam.neosoft.com Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 17:02:24 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 MY FINDINGS AFTER PERUSING THE HANDWRITTEN "TIN WOODMAN" MANUSCRIPT: Well, at long last, I was able again to examine Baum's manuscript, and I now have an answer to the Til Loon/Sal Loon question! The answer is yes, in the handwritten manuscript the character is Sal Loon. I would like to note that in one spot Baum wrote "Sal Loon" and then crossed out the "Loon," as though the juxtaposition of the two words made his "illicit" pun too obvious. Atticus * * * "...[T]here is something else: the faith of those despised and endangered that they are not merely the sum of damages done to them." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:07:04 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Steadman Reply-To: kivel99@planetall.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 Canonicity: No, no discussion of the town where large artillery originated. Just wanted to say that I've always thought RPT's books to be less canonical than LFB's, and I continue to hold that view. Which is why my Oz books all are set between or follow from his and ignore RPT's work. Granted, some of LFB's work is not of the highest caliber, but I still think she lost some of the charm Oz held under Baum and added her own version. (Shameless plug follows, feel free to delete it, Dave): For a depiction of the result of leaving a age-suppressing country, you can see my own book, published by (then) Buckethead, now Tales of the Cowardly Lion and Friends. Thank you, Michael, for saying the passage about copying right and wrong was something I would have come up with; I'm flattered. > What? Another nome sequittor? Until next time, Jeremy Steadman, kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 [I considered putting a groaner of a pun here but decided to spare you this once.] ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 17:57:10 PST J. L. Bell: >When Dorothy is on the wish way in LOST KING, she muses aloud, >"...and yet >I sometimes wish I were in America again, just to see--" Then she's >whisked >to Hollywood [128]. > The unspoken intention of Dorothy's wish, which the silver dust may >have >picked up, is probably "just to see what my life would be like if I'd >stayed there." That seems a more likely ending to her sentence than >"just >to see Hollywood," or "just to see Cousin Zeb," or other >possibilities. In >that case, Thompson may simply have misinterpreted Dorothy's growth >as a >natural result of her returning to America, rather than an unnatural >result >of her wish. > That ILTT theory at least makes it possible for Dorothy to go back >to >America in new books without being inconsistent with LOST KING and >without >ending up dead. I don't really see the idea of Dorothy's growing up being a natural result of the return to the United States as conflicting with other books. Before _Lost King_, no one really stayed in Oz for a significant amount of time (probably about a month at most). As for reconciling it with later books, the Wizard might have found a way to counteract aging when someone travels to the Outside World. After all, he is able to de-age Jenny in _Wonder City_, so he must have gained some control over aging. I'll also mention that, in Jeremy Steadman's _Emerald Ring_, Betsy, Trot, and Button-Bright regain their lost years when they travel back in time to pre-enchanted Oz. DG: >I suppose it is ultimately up to the individual as to what belongs in >Oz >and what doesn't, unless someone sets up a sort of Ozzy tribunal to >judge >such matters. Speaking for myself, some things just do not fit at all >into >my concept of Oz, although others apparently find them acceptable. I >am >even uncomfortable with LFB's moderate introduction of technology, >such as >the telephone or wireless. Indeed, it is up to each individual person. I don't think there was ever any real indication that Oz was at all anti-technological, though. It has electric lights as early on as _Wizard_ (in the Wizard's throne room). Besides, I would consider the Magic Picture and the Great Book of Records to be fairly technologically complex, even if they were run by magic, rather than machinery. Be this as it may, much of modern technology doesn't really fit into my view of Oz, either. I guess I don't see Oz as technologically inferior to the Outside World, just technologically different. -- May you live in interesting times, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:01:20 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Content-Disposition: inline David >I know this is a hobby-horse of yours, but you're misstating John's comments. That's OK, you are missing the thrust of mine. The point was not saving a few bucks but supporting our independent book sellers. I wasn't aware it was a "hobby-horse" of mine. I does seem to fit that you would be a supporter of big chains,...... just like big government. :) And JL >Much as I share the distrust of an unfettered free market evident in your statement, Bear Whoops. I don't distrust "an unfettered free market" I welcome one. "Free" is the operative word. I guess I was not very clear. If we don't support diversity we are going to get what I suggested. So, I will continue to support my small local bookseller, even if it costs me a little extra. Actually, my favorite, "Future Fantasy" in Palo Alto gives you $10 off every time you spend $100 which moves the price of their books close to those of the chains. Economically, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 20:09:18 -0800 From: MALCOLM D BARKER Reply-To: mbarker@primenet.com Subject: Oz Movie! Hooray, I will finally get to see The Wizard of Oz in the theatre starting tomorrow. I have always wondered why we can't get it in a widescreen version. My lazerdisc has trailer that proclaims it "Now better than ever in Widescreen". I assure you I will be looking for the STORK FLAPPING IT'S WINGS (hanging man, hehe). OK, it's been so long since I read the original books, can someone tell me please which book the Flutterbudgets first appeared in? Thanks, Malcolm ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:56:53 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: OZ NEWS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08:05 AM ET 11/06/98 WB banks on 'Wiz' bang with broad release By Andrew Hindes HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - Will families flock to the nearest megaplex to see the adventures of Dorothy and Toto this weekend? Or will they decide ``there's no place like home'' when it comes to viewing ``The Wizard of Oz?'' By releasing the restored 1939 MGM classic on close to 1,900 screens Friday, Warner Bros. is betting big that baby boomers and their kids will jump at the rare chance to see ``Oz'' on the bigscreen. ``This is the most popular family movie of all time,'' Warner Bros. president of distribution Barry Reardon said. Reardon estimates that, when adjusted for inflation, the picture has grossed about $220 million over its lifetime. But while the musical's lasting appeal is undeniable, the question on many industry lips is whether audiences will go out -- and shell out -- to see a film they can watch on TV for free, and which they probably already own on video. ``Wizard'' first appeared on television (CBS) in 1956 and aired a total of 38 times over the next 42 years. It concluded its most recent CBS run last May and will begin to appear on Ted Turner's TBS Superstation beginning in November 1999. With the exception of Disney animated features and the recent ``Star Wars'' trilogy reissue, re-releases of classic films typically open on fewer than 100 screens. Reardon acknowledges the wide opening is a risk, but believes that it will pay off. ``There's no comparison between seeing this movie on TV and seeing it in the theater.'' Others apparently agree. The media have lined up behind the reissue, which has been featured on talk shows and major print outlets. Advanced audience screenings have been hugely successful. The picture's $2 million restoration included digitally remastering the soundtrack, and cleaning up both the black-and-white and color sequences. (``Oz'' originally cost about $2.7 million to produce, making it an extremely expensive movie for its time.) While Warners' investment in the negative was relatively small, the studio is spending a substantial amount on TV spots to advertise the film to kids and parents. Distribution prints will add nearly $4 million to the release cost. In order to break even on domestic theatrical revenue alone, the reissue will probably have to gross more than $30 million. The last time it was reissued, in 1989, ``The Wizard of Oz'' grossed $612,300, according to ACNielsen EDI. In fact, only nine reissues in the last eight years have grossed more than $25 million in North America. The ``Star Wars'' trilogy and Disney animation reissues accounted for eight of them. (Last year's ``Star Wars: Special Edition'' was the highest grossing re-release ever, at $138.3 million.) Paramount's 20th anniversary release of ``Grease,'' earlier this year grossed $28.4 million, and the recent reissue of ``Gone With the Wind,'' another wildly popular MGM classic, took in $6.7 million. Of course, domestic theatrical ticket sales are only part of the potential revenue stream for ``Oz.'' The reissue is likely to spur video and DVD sales, and Warner Bros. will be marketing ``Wizard of Oz'' merchandise and T-shirts at its stores around Christmas. The studio already knows there's a market for it. Three weeks ago, home shopping channel QVC sold about $1.6 million worth of ``Oz'' paraphernalia in about two hours, according to Reardon. ``Oz's'' early November release date gives it two weeks to establish itself before a trio of high-profile children's pictures -- ``The Rugrats Movie,'' ``Babe: Pig in the City'' and ``A Bug's Life'' -- open in close succession. Still, ``Oz'' is bowing on one of the most crowded weekends of the fall movie season. Weekend newcomers include Disney's Adam Sandler comedy ``The Waterboy,'' Fox's ``The Siege,'' Artisan's ``Belly'' (which opened Wednesday) and the 1,000-screen expansion of New Line's ``Living Out Loud.'' Reardon himself spearheaded the restoration of ``The Wizard of Oz,'' a labor of love that took about two years to complete. ``The minute we merged with Turner, I realized there were a couple of movies in the library that were really special,'' the distribution veteran said. In addition to ``Oz'' and ``Gone with the Wind,'' which sister company New Line released, Reardon said Warner Bros. hopes to reissue Stanley Kubrick's groundbreaking ``2001: A Space Odyssey.'' But for Reardon, ``Oz'' is a horse of a different color. ``Of all the things I've done, this is one of the things I'm most proud of. It's just such a magnificent picture to see on the big screen.'' Reuters/Variety ^REUTERS@ ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:22:24 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: more oz stuff some of these i didn t know Curiously, Garland, forever to be identified with the wide-eyed Dorothy, was not the first choice for the part; both Shirley Temple and Deanna Durbin were considered for the role. Had Jean Harlow not died, ending the loan-out deal to exchange her for IN OLD CHICAGO with Temple for OZ, we'd be watching Temple's forthright moppet, instead of Garland's tender waif. The mind boggles. We could regale you for hours on end with behind the scenes trivia on OZ. Books have been written on nothing but, and they're not hard to find. But we'll toss you a few: Frank Morgan spent half his time on set drunk. Clara Blandick (Auntie Em) was just as unhappy as she appears; she ended up a recluse who eventually took her own life. Harlow's third and last husband, Harold Rosson, did OZ's cinematography and King Vidor did some uncredited directorial work. L.B. Mayer's nickname for Garland was his "little humpback." The original Wizard was to have been W.C. Fields, the original Tin Man Buddy Ebsen (who fell ill from all the makeup preparation) and the original Wicked Witch was to have been played as an evil siren by Gale Sondergaard. Bolger, Haley, Lahr, and Morgan were not the kindly uncles you might think. All were grizzled showbiz vets not about to give Garland an inch of scene-stealing capacity onscreen; when she takes a scene, it's not because anyone let her. See if you can hear the female Munchkin who runs forward to Garland and shouts "Judy" instead of "Dorothy" after Hamilton's first exit. And watch for inconsistencies in Garland's hairstyles during the time she is beautified in OZ. ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 8 - 11, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== From: Ozmama@aol.com Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 18:31:01 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-98 David Frank Godwin:<> Dunno. Someone write a story about it for Oziana '99 (assuming that I can finally get '98 out and start working on '99!) ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:02:10 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-98 Nathan: Thanks for observing that my book also contained an example of deaging; now I feel crummy for having mentioned it myself in the last post . . . Crummily yours, Jeremy Steadman, kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 20:00:41 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Whitcomb" Subject: For Ozzy Digest David Godwin: Thanks for your post! It may have been a bit "hypothetical", but not pointless. I have often wondered about "whatever happened to Miss Gulch" myself. (don't confuse this with "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" LOL!!! just kidding). I can only suggest the following and I should say this is how I "rational" this particular part of the film for myself so this is strictly personal opinion: Dorothy was obviously hit in the head and knocked unconscious when the window went flying off its hinges, thus the dream sequence and journey to Oz. However, nowhere at the end of the movie does it allude to the fact that she suffered from amnesia. Folks who suffer from head trauma many times suppress bad or stressful situations at the conscious level upon awakening. In this case, the impending return of Miss Gulch to "take Toto to the sheriff to make sure he's destroyed" falls by the wayside. So, this presents an interesting question. Was Dorothy suffering from amnesia???, or, could Dorothy's dream have been so "traumatic" for her that it overshadowed the impending return of Miss Gulch??? Or, or did Miss Gulch get destroyed by the twister??? MGM never gave us closure re: this issue, so it's up for personal opinion. What do other folks think??? Another "controversial" clip in the film occurs when Dorothy is up inside the cyclone and watches Miss Gulch transform into a witch. I have "always" thought that this was the Wicked Witch of the East. And, I could swear I see her wearing a pair of Ruby Slippers. When I saw the re-release on the big screen yesterday, I am convinced more than ever that the witch that Dorothy saw up inside the cyclone was wearing a pair of Ruby Slippers. It only makes sense that this would have been the WWE since Dorothy hadn't yet been to Oz and met the WWW. It always makes sense to me that it was the WWE flying by, that is why Dorothy's house fell on her. Or, this transformation of Miss Gulch into "a witch" could have been a foreshadowing of her presence in Oz as the WWW, similar to how MGM did the foreshadowing for the farm hands. Any comments??? Ruth: Thanks for that definition of "slitch". Whenever I heard Dorothy sing that lyric I envisioned an action equal to what a violent movement might cause, i.e. everything in the kitchen went rolling from one end of the room to the other. Jim. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 22:11:48 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Content-Disposition: inline Bob: A premise of the 1976 remake of "King Kong" is an island that has constant cloud cover, so it had never been discovered until someone noticed the same cloud in the same place in satellite pictures taken years apart. Notwithstanding, I'lm pretty sure there is not a large continent somewhere in the pacific. Remember also that in _Tik-Tok_, our friends journey to the other side of the world and find another magical land. Further, in _Captain Salt_, we see that Ozamaland is still another large continent. We now have three sizeable land masses that are widely distributed. If one's here, then they're all here. I doubt that three continents could be hiding here. David G: Remember, too, in the John R. Neill books, Ojo has been relocated back ti the Emerald City and given the title of "Elephant Boy", who looks after Kabumpo in his stall at the zoo. Sir Hokus has been re-enchanted as well. Neill's books are, to say the least, out there. Many of these references are completely contradictory with everything else in the series and the only way to explain them is to damage the rest of the system. I just chalk it up to authorial error and let it go at that. David Hulan: The point about Dorothy being 11 yet having 12 birthdays is a valid one. Since I'm trying to shoehorn all of those non-FF books into that time period, I should be able to come up with a clever explanation. The only one I can come up with is that maybe Uncle Henry and Aunt Em didn't celebrate birthdays or maybe during that time when Dorothy went to live with them, one slipped past. A little lame, but that's the best I can come up with. Dave's start date for _Magic_: Nov. 16 is fine for me. I'll re-read it when I visit Tucson to see grandma. --Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 23:46:01 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz judgments Content-Disposition: inline About TIN WOODMAN, Atticus Gannaway wrote: <> Fascinating! Thanks very much for confirming a hunch of some years' standing. Now I can start focusing on my new hunch about Baum family typewriters. DAVID Hulan wrote: <> The term Ruth Berman described applies to the copyright of new works, or works that have been in their initial term since 1976. For copyrighted works that had been renewed at that time, there's a transitional term of protection which doesn't depend on the author's life span. And that's what governs Neill's books and Thompson's R&L titles. David Godwin wrote: <> Yes, the full name Dorothy Gale appeared first in the stage musical Baum worked on between WIZARD and LAND. David Godwin wrote: <> Through Number Nine and his family Neill shows us more of the life of "ordinary" Ozians than any other author, I think. Baum and Thompson had some heroes and heroines who were non-titled citizens, but they were facing crises (Tip, Ojo, Snip) or were outcasts (Woot, Kiki Aru, Randy). [And often they ended up titled, anyway.] In WONDER CITY, Neill showed us an Ozian boy facing ordinary life challenges: finding a good job, falling in love, leaving his large family to make a place for himself in the big city, rounding up wild animals. [Okay, maybe the last task is out of the ordinary.] It's significant that Neill doesn't bring heroes like Number Nine and Bucky into Ozma's palace, but lets them continue living and *working* around the busy Emerald City. About locating Oz, Bob Spark wrote: <> Indeed. The "proofs" that Oz doesn't exist on our planet Earth may simply be proof of imaginations not up to the challenge of believing that it does. Not that I can manage that intellectual conjuration myself! I simply prefer not to give up the image of Oz on this Earth that Baum imparted to us. About Martin Gardner's VISITORS FROM OZ, Ruth Berman wrote: <> Yes, James Randi is one of my favorite Americans. When his name came up in VISITORS, I thought about a scene of him recreating the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman through stage magic, and those visitors' reactions. And when the page turned without further mention of him, I sighed and thought about another opportunity lost. David Hulan wrote: <> I've read only two Buckethead titles, DINA-MONSTER (as a historic curiosity) and DISENCHANTED PRINCESS (as a treat). I haven't served as an Oz convention fiction judge, as you have, and had to finish all the submissions. Nor have I even delved deeply into the Emerald City Press catalogue. So, yes, I have been able to keep away from most Really Bad Oz fiction, except what has come from my own pen. I give more slack to Buckethead/Cowardly Lion or even Emerald City Press titles than I gave to VISITORS. As a book from a smart and talented professional author and a major fiction publisher, it should have been better. Nathan DeHoff wrote: <> Yes, indeed. Our view of Oz as technologically old-fashioned reflects how we now view Baum's time as technologically old-fashioned. [In the same way, the Amish weren't perceived as having quaint lifestyles until this century; in 1850 most or all of their neighbors also farmed with horses, dressed simply, left school in early teens, and had no electric lights or telephones at home.] A note I wrote to Dave Hardenbrook a while back prompted me to conclude that it's not new technology that we see as changing Oz, but mass production of that technology. From looking at our own country we know that widespread ownership of machines changes society much more than the simple invention of those machines. The self-propelling vehicles in Thi in LOST PRINCESS don't bother us; a factory's worth of scalawagons do strike many people as un-Ozzy. In TIK-TOK Ozma and the Shaggy Man communicate through a sort of portable telephone or radio; in VISITORS, Martin Gardner says, many people in Oz have similar portable phones, and that forces a new dynamic on how characters interrelate. Richard Bauman wrote: <> And here I thought the model of the free market depended on sellers using every advantage they had to outsell their competitors, buyers seeking the best values among those competitors, and nobody complaining if finances caused one competitor to fail. Today's newspapers bring the news that Barnes & Noble, North America's largest [but not best] bookstore chain, is trying to buy Ingram, the largest U.S. book wholesaler. This would be an earthquake in book retailing. Smaller, independent bookstores depend heavily on Ingram for quick reorders and consolidating shipments from many publishers. They don't trust B&N at all. Look for anti-trust complaints from your favorite neighborhood bookstore! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 10:48:45 -0600 From: Gordon Birrell Subject: Ozzy Digest Before we leave _Tin Woodman_ I have some comments on Nimmie Amee's name. In the Fall 1996 Baum Bugle, Martin Gardner notes that scholars have detected the presence of the Latin words "amour" [sic] ("love"), and "nimmie" [also sic] ("too much"). I.e.: Nimmie Amee is the girl who is loved, or who loves, too much. Understandably unimpressed by this etymology, Gardner adds that he himself sees the name simply as Minnie with the n's and m's reversed plus an alternate spelling of Amy. I think there is another possibility. Amee is close enough to the French aimee to suggest "loved" (with the feminine ending), and Nimmie, with its double m, is more remote from the Latin "nimius" than from the German "nimmer," which means "never" or "nevermore." Going by this interpretation, Nimmie Amee is not the girl who was loved too much but on the contrary the girl who was never loved--which is surely the way she sees herself, having apparently been abandoned for no good reason by two lovers in succession. Since 75% of American schoolchildren learned German up until 1918, it seems likely that Baum's readers would have been in a position to catch this allusion if they thought about it a little. What is more, it ties in with the truly horrifying image of a loveless marriage with which the book concludes: Nimmie Amee and the surly, churlish, inert Chopfyte, who reminds her of the two men who deserted her and otherwise has the function of a dutiful servant who (under threat of verbal and physical punishment) tends the garden, brings in the wood, and dusts the furniture. All of this in a remote cottage on Mount Munch, behind an impassible though invisible barrier that insures that the couple will live in utter solitude forever. Rereading this passage I couldn't help thinking of Sartre's _No Exit_. In general, all three marriages that are depicted in the book have elements of solitude. Jinjur is married, but her husband doesn't appear and there is no mention whatsoever of him (from _Ozma of Oz_, though, we know that Jinjur, like Nimmie, beats up on her husband if he disobeys her); Mrs. Yoop lives in isolation "in my own private castle in this secluded Valley," fearful of leaving home and effectively as imprisoned in her castle as her distant husband is in his barred cave in the mountains. Set against these rather dismal images of marriage is the theme of friendship that J.L. identified. In fact, the friendship of the Tin Woodman and the Scarecrow, while platonic, is as close and loving and comfortable as that of an old married couple. The book begins and ends with the Tin Woodman and "his chosen comrade" joined in happy memories of their mutual adventures, sharing so much that they scarcely even need to speak: "they found themselves contented in merely being together, speaking now and then a brief sentence to prove they were wide awake and attentive." I'm not sure what to make of all this, but it seems likely that even very young readers would come away from the book with the idea that true friendship is a happier state than marriage. Dave: In your closing quotation, you attribute "After all, what is reality anyway? Nothin' but a collective hunch" to Lily Tomlin. Giving credit where credit is due, the author of that line is not Tomlin but her friend Jane Wagner. It's from Wagner's play _The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe_, and admittedly Tomlin is the one who delivered the line and made it famous. --Gordon Birrell ====================================================================== From: JOdel@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:45:31 EST Subject: Non-Ozzy nonsense Oh Christ. For the 99th time -- 1. It is NOT POSSIBLE to activate a virus by reading your e-mail. 2. It is NOT POSSIBLE to imbed a virus in an e-mail message. 3. Viruses are NOT random strings of text. They most particularly are not random strings of text in human-readable form that show up in messages. Viruses are software PROGRAMS. (And there are thousands more of them for the PC...) 4. IF someone has sent you an ATTACHMENT to their message, and that something is a PROGRAM, and you try to LAUNCH it, then, YES, that attachment MIGHT be a virus and you might infect your system. But you will not launch an atachment by opening its covering message. 5. If someone sends you an e-mail message with a subject line of WIN A HOLIDAY, delete it immediately. It is not a virus. It is SPAM. Something reoccured to me recently. Ths is related to some pretty old discussions, nameley the Dr Pipt/Dr Nikidick controversy. There is nothing whatsoever to say that these were not two separate people. And a great deal of reason to believe they were. Mombi's comment of having gotten the powder of life from "a crooked magician" notwithstanding. In fact, Mombi's comment could probably have been taken as coroborative evidence for the powder's authenticity alone. For, we learn in Patchwork Girl, that Dr Pipt is crooked BECAUSE he has (twice) undertaken to produce the powder of life. We might very well draw the conclusion that its production will similarly cripple ANY magic user (who does not have three servants to stir the other three cauldrons) who undertakes this challenge. And, that, in fact, there might at one time have been any number of crooked magicians in Oz who had become so from having decided that they would undertake this particular task. I will admit that this seems a little unlikely, given even a magic user's basic sense of self- preservation, and that the probablility of the effect of the powder's production upon its maker's being widely known accounts for its rarity. ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-98 Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 11:41:34 PST Tyler: >> >>>>If you receive an e-mail titled "Win A Holiday" DO NOT open it. >> >>>>It >> >>>>will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter >> >>>>out >> >>>>to >> >>>>as many people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus >> >>>>and >> >>>>not many people know about it. This information was announced >> >>>>yesterday morning from Microsoft, please share it again pass >> >>>>this >> along >> to >> >>>>everyone in your address book so that this may be stopped. I'm fairly sure you can't get a computer virus from simply LOOKING at an e-mail message. You would have to open an attachment, or download something. David Godwin: >One other trivial observation about the Garland movie: When talking >to >Glinda, she says that her name is Dorothy Gale. Her surname does not >appear >in WWiz at all, does it? We don't learn it until _Ozma_. Quite true. Actually, I believe that Dorothy's last name was first mentioned in the original play of _Wizard_. In the book of _Wizard_, she says that her name is "just Dorothy," and she knows that she lives in Kansas, but does not seem to know where Kansas is. Dorothy probably learned these things in school. As for when she started attending school, it would have to have been before _Ozma_. She mentions a schoolmistress in _Dorothy and the Wizard_, and there would have been no time for her to have started school in between _Ozma_ and _DotWiz_, since she was on vacation during that period. >OTOH, this is from a book by the guy who has Jack Pumpkinhead being a >prisoner of Mombi for seven years (mentioned in _Lucky Bucky_). Say >what? >When did _that_ happen? I first read _Lucky Bucky_ before I had seen most of Thompson's output, so I originally assumed that this had happened during her years as Royal Historian. Later, I learned that this could not have happened, and that Neill clearly made a mistake. Or perhaps Jack is receiving memories from another dimension, in which Tip did not take Jack with him when fleeing from Mombi. >Also, we learn from Mr. Neill that the Scarecrow >rules over the Munchkins in the West. Okay, so Cheeriobad abdicated >or got >eaten by a dragon, and Bob Heinlein did a fair job of dealing with >the >East/West business in _The Number of the Beast_. I prefer to think that Cheeriobed was just on vacation. >In ECOz, LFB gives detailed population figures for the EC (57,318, >with >9,654 buildings) and Oz as a whole (more than half a million). RPT >has a >similar passage in one of her books (giving the population of the EC, >at >least), but I can't seem to locate it by browsing. Anyone know where >this >is? It was near the beginning of _Gnome King_ (Chapter 2, maybe?), and it gave the same number for the population of the city as Baum had in _Emerald City_. -- May you live in interesting times, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ====================================================================== From: XJayZ98@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:55:25 EST Subject: Re: Wizard of Oz question... Thanks for clearing that up ! :-) ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 16:49:18 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-98 First, I just wanted to clarify that *I* am not the originator of the "copyright" piece. There seemed to be come mild confusion. David Hulan: > Jeremy Steadman: > >How do you reconcile _Ozma_ and _Pirates_, then? Which ocean links > >with the Nonestic? > > It really doesn't matter, as geography may be different there anyway. don't you mean Geozzify? David Godwin: Good point about Miss Gulch. One other trivial observation about the Garland movie: When talking to > Glinda, she says that her name is Dorothy Gale. Her surname does not appear > in WWiz at all, does it? We don't learn it until _Ozma_. > That's correct. As was discussed previously in Ozzy Digest, it apparently first was called "Gale" in the (1909???) stage production of WWiz > I also noticed in looking at some past postings here that there was > considerable puzzlement about the red-robed Munchkin shouting "Epiphany!" > According to the closed captioning on my copy of the video (which is also > the only way I was ever able to pick up the sulfur remark), what he says > is, "If any!" Inasmuch as this remark follows the mayor's statement about > "future generations of Munchkins," it almost makes sense. > Yes, that's been covered as well. I never heard it is as anything but "if any" ("kitchen took a SLITCH", OTOH.....) > Aaron Adelman: > Also: The Lurline's Machine project was put on hold for a while due tolack of > proper Ozzy spirit resting upon the writers. Ain ruach Utz alecha? David Hulan: > > > I once had a CP/M computer. But my computing experience goes way back > before that; the first "computer" I had (well, I didn't own it, but I used > it) was a Wang desktop device that I don't think had anything you could > call an OS. It was much like today's programmable calculators, except that > you had to write your program using a punch card that it would read. Your > program was limited to 80 instructions max. Later we got time-sharing on a > mainframe over a TTY, and I was able to write much longer programs using > paper tape. Ah, the Good Old Days. (This goes back to about 1969.) > Well, ya beat me. I only go back as far as TTY/paper tape (although on a minicomputer, not a mainframe with a screaming 4K of core storage). ---- Heard on the radio the other day people's reaction to Wizard on the big screen. Most calls seemed to have negative memories of the movie (being scared by the flying monkeys, for example), or bad things to say about the re-release (it's trite and old-fashioned, for example). Only a few believed it was a great movie. OTOH, not a single caller called up to say "did you know there are over 40 books in Oz series?" Had I not been in my car.... --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 17:25:37 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz tech Stumbled upon a strange and interesting interpretation of WWiz on a web site called "Wizard Realm," http://www.iglobal.net/psman/wizardrealm/fantasy.html. Says Dorothy was the real wizard because only she actually accomplished any wonders or transformations. Of course, one can have a lot of fun with the sort of analysis one sees on this site. For example, one could say that Toto was a representation of the Egyptian dog-headed god Anubis, guide of the dead, and was in charge all along. After all, who was it who delayed Dorothy in getting to the storm cellar and caused her to be blown to Oz in the first place? Who caused her to miss the balloon, forcing her to discover her own unknown powers (the silver slippers)? Who was it who "rent the veil" and revealed the Wiz as a humbug? Aha! :) David H. & Nathan: I agree that technology isn't such a no-no for Oz if it's largely magical in nature, and I like the idea that heavy industry and its concomitant ills might well be unnecessary if technology were magic-based. I've never had any trouble with the Magic Picture, but there are no rabbit ears and no wires (or cable). There's a parallel with Orwell, I suppose, but in Oz the people watching are benevolent. Nevertheless, I confess that I am somewhat of an Ozzy Luddite. All the time I was reading _Ozoplaning_, I thought I was watching a _Star Trek_ episode. If you want to fly somewhere, ride on the back of some flying creature or use a gump or a swan-drawn chariot, not a DC-3. I don't even like the idea of such things as lawnmowers and vacuum cleaners in Oz. I'm sure there are magical devices and/or creatures who fulfill those functions without the racket and waste. As for the electric lights in the EC palace. I'd feel better if they were magical. Maybe they are. I don't recall any mention of generators. Of course, the dichotomy between magic and technology did not exist to the degree in LFB's mind that it does in ours. It was _all_ magic to him;look at _The Magic Key_ for example. If one wishes to accept _Ozoplaning_ as part of the revealed/communicated canon, one could say that Ozma in her wisdom, foreseeing the problems they might cause, grounded ozoplanes after the events of this book. Indeed, one year later we find Jack Pumpkinhead _living_ in one (in _Wonder City_). J. L. Bell: Your theory of why Neill got so far off the track in his books seems reasonable, but the simplest explanation is that there was no more contact at all after RPT and that JNR was writing strictly from his (somewhat overwrought) imagination. Fortunately, he is remembered primarily for his thousands of wonderful illustrations. - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 20:08:00 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Content-Disposition: inline >>High technology means heavy industry means pollution and corporate greed. >>That's the price we pay. >Does it necessarily mean that when you also have magic available to help? I >doubt it. Ozian high tech might be quite without heavy industry and its >concomitants. David, you neglected to give credit for the first comment above. If people are going to say such things on the Digest they should be given full credit. I think this is a wonderful example of analytical thinking. We need to watch out for those "concomitants." On to Magic. Bear (:<) ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:23:35 EST Subject: re ozzy virus? Tyler: According to a good and long-time friend of mine, a computer expert (he can solve almost all my problems), a virus _cannot_ get into your computer upon opening an email message. One _can_, however, get a virus by opening an attachment that contains a virus. I hope you don't mind my telling you this; I thought the good I can do by imparting that information more important than the resentment I hope you don't feel toward me after I imparted it. If anyone needs more information, contact me and I'll send it to you directly. Until later, Jeremy Steadman, Royal Historian of Oz kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 22:27:23 EST Subject: Ozzy addendum Well, as I soon discovered, my statement about emails and viruses, which was correct when my friend told me about it in 1996, is no longer completely accurate. The following is a corrected version: < Subject: RE: and virus other problems... Date sent: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 20:38:04 -0500 Now there *are* bugs in e-mail programs which can cause security problems... Outlook Express has had one discovered recently. But this is a function of the e-mail program, not the message. And there's another thing out there, from what I've heard... a Word Macro virus, actually. Uses the ability of Word to interact with MS e-mail programs to send out (without your control) messages with attached documents.... documents which contain, of course, the Macro that is the Virus. I would recommend browsing around the various Virus Information pages linked to Yahoo. There are pages documenting actual threats, and other pages debunking myths. And there are pages which deal with the fine line between the two. Though in my book, any e-mail saying 'win a free holiday' would be nothing but junk mail... and worthy of deletion anyway. ;) Later, Danny>> Jeremy Steadman, kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 09:28:15 -0800 From: "Peter E. Hanff" Subject: Wizard of Oz Puzzle Hi Dave, Thought this appeal might be of interest to readers of the Ozzy Digest. Peter Hanff >From: Labbydor@aol.com >Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:03:06 EST >To: membership@ozclub.org >Subject: Wizard of Oz Puzzle >X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226 >X-Status: > >Dear Wizard of Oz Club, > >Please help, I'm on a crusade. The Hallmark Company won't reproduce the >vitage Wizard of Oz puzzle that they have discontinued unless they receive >enough responses. The puzzle is a 2,000 piece collage of wonderfully detailed >photographs. Please join me in requesting that they "Reproduce the Wizard of >Oz". Please e-mail Carla@Hallmark.com and tell Jan Scott in Consumer Affairs >that We Want OZ!! > >Thank you, >Kalif & Anne > > ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 14:21:47 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things TYLER: Sir Hokus is an enchantment?? *Please* don't me he's "really" a handsome, dashing Leonardo Di-what's-his-face clone??!! Locasta: This looks like the work of the "switcheroo" spell... GORDON: I stand correct on my sig quote...It's sometimes difficult to know whether to attribute a quote to who actually wrote it or who is famous for saying it... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 12 - 17, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 17:50:20 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Reply-To: Ruth A Berman Subject: ozzy digest David Godwin: On what happened to Miss Gulch -- well, depending on how far she had to bike to get home, she may well have been out in the storm and may well be dead. Otherwise -- maybe Dorothy, summoning up heart and brain and nerve, might put more effort into getting her to accept an apology, and/or convincing the sheriff that if he'll undo the warrant and give Toto another chance, she'll see to it that the the dog stays away from Miss Gulch and her garden. J.L. Bell: You're probably right about which James Wright the copywriter wrought, but James Wright was also the name of a fine poet. David Hulan: You asked if the shift from death+50 or publication+75 whichever-is-longer to death+70 or publication+95 whichever-is- shorter means that Neill's Oz books will be coming into public domain sooner than the remaining Thompsons. No, unless the new law was made more retroactive than the newspaper reports indicated. The 1978 law, setting up the death-or-publication distinction, applied it only to the copyrights registered after it went into effect. For works registered before 1978, the copyrights expired at publication+75, no matter when the author died, and the extension for those pre-1978 works now simply changes that to publication+95. (If this sounds confusing -- that's because it is.) Atticus: So Til Loon really was Sal Loon originally? That's amusing to know. Bear: Regarding supporting local booksellers -- the NY "Times" announced a couple of days ago that the Ingram Distribution company (the distributor that is the main supplier of independent booksellers) has been bought by Barnes & Noble. The independent booksellers, through their association, are protesting the sale as monopolistic (for example, they might in future find themselves unable to get copies of big-sellers-in-short-supply), and possibly their protest will succeed in putting some restraint on this particular example of free trade. I haven't so far seen any announcement of what steps ordinary book buyers might take to support the independents in this matter -- anyone here know? Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 18:03:50 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Reply-To: Ruth A Berman Subject: ozzy digest ps At various times in the past we've had discussion of the purple strip of mainland opposite the island of Loland/Hiland on the Haff-Martin map, and I've commented that it comes from their desire to keep the general lines of the "Tik-Tok" map (which shows Loland/Hiland as part of the mainland), while snaking an arm of ocean in by Loland to match up with the "John Dough" description of L/H as an island. In terms of Oz-as-if- real, it's hard to explain why the island was attached to the mainland at the time Professor Wogglebug did his map, but an island both before for "John Dough," and after for the later map. The possibility of a double seaquake was suggested as a possible explanation. A simpler explanation occurred to me recently: maybe the channel is so shallow that Loland/Hiland is an island at high tide and attached to the mainland at low tide. (Possibly the Hilanders prefer to identify it as an island and the Lolanders as part of the continent as a matter of politics?) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:02:01 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: [Fwd: Top5 - 11/10/98 - Changes in the New "Wizard of Oz"] -------------- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 9:40:15 Subject: Top5 - 11/10/98 - Changes in the New "Wizard of Oz" From: "The Top 5 List" [WARNING: THIS LIST CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT SOME OZ FANS MAY FIND OFFENSIVE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. -- Dave] ================================================================ T H E T O P F I V E L I S T I love you. Lay down with me. Can I read you my list? ================================================================ ** A SPECIAL OFFER for the Readers of THE TOP 5 LIST ** DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION & WEB HOSTING Get on the Web with your own "dot com" address! REGISTER YOUR OWN DOMAIN NAME - ONLY $30 (plus Internic fees) HOST YOUR WEB SITE - ONLY $18.95/mo. *based upon an annual prepayment CALL: Advanced Web Creations, Inc. Toll Free 1-800-248-0151 VISIT: http://www.awc.net/ --or-- E-MAIL:info@awc.net ================================================================ November 10, 1998 BACKGROUND: The classic movie "The Wizard of Oz" has recently been re-released here in the U.S. The Top 13 Changes in the New "Wizard of Oz" 13> Newly-restored scene shows the Munchkins asking the Wizard for testicles. 12> Scarecrow, Tinman and Cowardly Lion now referred to as the "PETA-Approved Crow-Frightening Person of Straw", the "Non Gender Specific Recycled Metallic American", and the "Assertiveness-Challenged Feline." 11> "Wicked Witch of the West" replaced by "Misguided Independent Counsel of the Beltway" 10> Restored scene in which Jabba the Hutt advises Dorothy not to dump the ruby slippers at the first sign of monkey bat attack. 9> Dorothy clicks her heels and says, "There's no place like the mall." 8> Victim of a careless oversight in 1939, Bob Dole is finally credited for his role as "Elderly Farm Hand #2." 7> "Come with us to the Emerald City! I'm sure the Wizard can help you find the real killers!" 6> Dorothy wakes up in rehab and swears she'll lay off the stuff forever. 5> Through the magic of special effects, all munchkins now played by Danny DeVito, Gary Coleman and Michael J. Fox. 4> Then: "Poppies! Poppies! Poppies!" Now: "Dude, I can't find a vein!" 3> Vanilla Dot and little T-Dogg barely survive the drive-by from the Munchkrips. 2> "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THAT INTERN!!!" and Top5's Number 1 Change in the New "Wizard of Oz"... 1> Tin Man axes Toto after hearing "Yo quiero Taco Bell" for the zillionth time. [ This list copyright 1998 by Chris White ] [ The Top 5 List top5@gmbweb.com http://www.topfive.com ] [ To forward or repost, please include this section. ] [ You like to receive credit for your work, and so do we. ] Selected from 121 submissions from 40 contributors. Today's Top Five List authors are: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Woo, Encinitas, CA -- 1 (8th #1 / O.G. / HOF) Mark Weiss, Austin, TX -- 1, 5 (5th #1) Michael Wolf, Brookline, MA -- 2, 7 Mark Schmidt, Santa Cruz, CA -- 3 Alexander Clemens, San Francisco, CA -- 4 Bill Muse, Seattle, WA -- 5, 12 (Hall of Famer) Dave Henry, Slidell, LA -- 5, Banner Tag Ed Brooksbank, Sacramento, CA -- 6 Larry G. Hollister, Concord, CA -- 8, Runner Up list name Lisa Oliver, London, England -- 9, 12 Jonathan D. Colan, Miami, FL -- 10 Perry Friedman, Menlo Park, CA -- 11 JB Leibovitch, Oakland, CA -- 11 M.J. Finan, Cleveland, OH -- 13 Peg Warner, Exeter, NH -- Topic Chris White, New York, NY -- List owner/editor Ozzy Osbourne (who else?!?) -- Ambience ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Groaners & Stinkers & Duds - Oh My!" The Runners Up and Honorable Mention submissions for today's list can be found at: http://www.topfive.com ================================================================ Ruminations & Ponderances A few years back, I saw a young child stuck in a tree. Nowadays, when I find myself in a troubling situation, I look back and wonder if that kid saw me take that chocolate bar from his backpack on the ground. (Thanks to Tom Wigington) ================================================================ I M P O R T A N T C R A P ! --- --- --- --- --- --- To bitch at the owner: Send mail to top5@gmbweb.com You are subscribed to Top5 as: [turnip@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us] Subscribe? Send a blank message to: join-top5@lists.lyris.net Unsubscribe? Send a blank message to: leave-top5-304517P@lists.lyris.net --- --- --- --- --- --- This delivery powered by Lyris! http://www.lyris.net ================================================================ ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:06:24 -0500 From: Lisa Mastroberte X-Accept-Language: en Subject: Non-Ozzy Nonsense! Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1,331: 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light bulb has been changed. 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs. 53 to flame the spell checkers. 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list. 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames. 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb 203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped. 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail list. 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty. 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs. 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list. 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversey. 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three." 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ. 1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup. 47 to say this is just what alt.physics.cold_fusion was meant for, leave it there. 143 votes for alt.lite.bulb. Hehe, just wanted to share this with everybody. ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-11-98 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:31:43 PST Jim: >Another "controversial" clip in the film occurs when Dorothy is up >inside >the cyclone and watches Miss Gulch transform into a witch. I have >"always" >thought that this was the Wicked Witch of the East. When describing the event to the Munchkins, Dorothy sings: "Just then, the witch, to satisfy an itch, was flying on her broomstick." This would seem to me to indicate that the witch flying by the window was the WWE. The idea that the two witches were sisters might have been an attempt by the writers to explain why they BOTH looked like Miss Gulch; there was never any indication in the book that the two were related. (In Payes's _Wicked Witch_, it is stated that Singra is a cousin of both the WWE and the WWW, but she was probably influenced by the movie. David Godwin: >As for the electric >lights in the EC palace. I'd feel better if they were magical. Maybe >they >are. I don't recall any mention of generators. In _Lost King_, Dorothy uses a "radio button" to turn on the lights (after Mombi sinks the palace). Could this be an indication that the lights are activated by radio waves? (Of course, that still doesn't explain where the power comes from.) >If one wishes to accept _Ozoplaning_ as part of the >revealed/communicated >canon, one could say that Ozma in her wisdom, foreseeing the problems >they >might cause, grounded ozoplanes after the events of this book. Quite possibly. That's what I like to think about the Scalawagons. Dave: >Sir Hokus is an enchantment?? *Please* don't me he's "really" a >handsome, >dashing Leonardo Di-what's-his-face clone??!! I take it that you haven't read _Yellow Knight_ yet. I won't say anything else about the change in Hokus right now, other than to say that even Thompson herself might have come to dislike the change, since she refers to the Knight as "Sir Hokus" in _Yankee_. -- May you live in interesting times, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:37:06 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Content-Disposition: inline Gordon: You forgot one more marriage in _Tin Woodman_. Professor and Mrs. Swyne were married, and they seemed fairly isolated, yet their marriage was a peaceful and content one, unlike the others. You mentioned that the book started by celebrating the close friendship of the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman, but it also ends in the same way,. The final paragraph has the two comrades return to the castle where "they found their greatest amusement in conversation". Joyce (and many, many others, on and of the Digest): Forgive me. It was a knee-jerk reaction to send that thing out (also to over 200 other people). Yes, I know the only way to do damage with a e-mail message is to launch an EXE from an attachment. Sorry about that, everybody. I'll watch myself next time. I really lost it with this one. I must have been tired. On to other matters, still with Joyce: One theory that has been kicked around is that Dr. Nikidik, who made the wishing pills, got the Powder of Life from Pipt and then traded that in Turn to Mombi. Of course, one might ask why a magician who can make wishing pills would need anything else, but maybe the pills were hard to make, and they may not have been able to bring things to life. Some people have noted that in _Land_, you had to say a magic phrase for it to work, and this was not necessary in _Patchwork Girl_. The first batches were probably crude and needed an extra kick to make them work, but by the time of _Patchwork Girl_, the process had been refined to the point where the incantation was no longer necessary. In _Road_, the Wizard mentions that the inventor of the Powder of Life had been killed. Either Dr. Nikidik was killed, and kept the secret of who REALLY made the Powder of Life, or he faked his own death and became Dr. Pipt. In _Patchwork Girl_, Dr. Pipt says that he is the only one who knows how to make the Powder of Life, and Dame Margolotte says that Pipt and Unc Nunkie were friends many years ago. Also in _Patchwork Girl_, in Chapter 2, Margolotte says that they gave their first batch of the stuff to Mombi, yet in the very next paragraph, she says they tested the first batch on the Glass Cat. Pipt must make the stuff in large batches, since this first batch created Bungle, Jack Pumpkinhead, the Sawhorse and the Gump. Considering that it takes 6 years to make, mass production is a good idea. It's pretty unclear if Pipt and Nikidik were different or the same. Dave: Uh, I maybe should have put a spoiler around that Sir Hokus quote. Have you read _Yellow Knight_? ********** SPOILER FOR YELLOW KNIGHT AND MAYBE A LITTLE NEILL********** Sir Hokus, it turns out, is really the dashing young Prince Corum who has been enchanted. He is un-enchanted in _Yellow Knight_, but Neill had him re-enchanted in his books, although he did not mention it as a re-enchantment. He simply had Sir Hokus appear as if nothing had ever happened. ********** END OF SPOILER ********* Tyler Jones ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:24:26 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-11-98 Re Closure in the Movie: Well, we have a call for a sequel, now we just have to find new cast members to fill in for those who are no longer with us [a.k.a. everyone] . . . <> It depends on the marriage, I'd imagine. (Since, unlike the majority of you, I have never been married, I can only look at my parents' marriage, which is quite happy, for an example. I do know, however, of several that are not so happy, and that is why I say it must depend.) Jeremy Steadman, Royal Historian of Oz kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:12:55 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz disclaimers etc It was not too long ago that I first encountered the disclaimer that appears in the front of the BoW edition of _Silver Princess_. It said in part, "This book was first published in 1938 and reflects some ideas and biases which were deemed acceptable at that time, but have since been repudiated by a more enlightened genereation [sic]." My first reaction to this statement was "At least our benighted forefathers used proofreaders." Seriously, I find this disclaimer somewhat offensive in itself, well meaning though it be. No doubt Neill's racist drawings need to be acknowledged as such, as well as some of RPT's remarks - it's the _wording_ of the disclaimer that fingernails my blackboard, not the disclaimer itself - but not _everybody_ in 1938 was a bigot or deemed racial stereotypes acceptable and not everyone today is sensitive, tolerant, and wise. In any case, I think we are talking more about media (movies, books, etc.) than about generations. If the present "genereation" is more enlightened, it is only in certain areas. In other areas, we are way _behind_ 1938. This sort of hubristic blanket condemnation of everyone born too soon is typical of the prejudice BoW is seeking to condemn. But what actually prompted this message is the complete _absence_ of any such disclaimer in the BoW _Shaggy Man_, which has Buffalo Bill fighting "Redskins" in the first chapter. Native Americans are not numerous and are hence unable to mount any effective protest against this sort of thing, and so most people who would rather die than utter the n word think nothing of disparaging "injuns." I assure you that the Dakota here in Minnesota do not appreciate it. The fact that no one thought it necessary to insert a disclaimer in _Shaggy_ indicates to my cynical old curmudgeonly mind that it's all a matter of economics rather than enlightenment; i.e., present-day blacks have a lot more buying power than present-day Native Americans, if only because of numerical superiority. Or maybe _Shaggy_ was printed before anyone at BoW had sat under a bo tree; it has no current publication date. Still, it doesn't cost much to insert a revised page in a reprint when the original stock is sold out. *However,* I do not wish to disparage BoW, which has gone to considerable trouble and expense to publish Oz books, both old and new, in an attractive format. It's just that disclaimer that yanked my chain. Speaking of BoW, what differences, if any, are there between the BoW edition of _Scarecrow_ and the more recent Oz Club edition? Now an observation - not a criticism, particularly - about the Intl WOz Club. I ordered a bunch of stuff from the club in the early part of October. As I already knew, the items are not all sent at once. They use a number of independent suppliers, contractors, fulfillment houses, whatever, and the time it takes for the various places to fill an order differs drastically. The stuff from "Cadake" came right away, in about a week. Just today (five weeks), I received _Wicked Witch_ from "Brody." I have yet to get anything from "Johnston." And now an observation - and maybe this _is_ a criticism - about Arrow Comics. Out of curiosity, I hunted up their website and ordered a number of Oz comics from them. (I can't find them locally.) It took them more than seven weeks just to cash my check. It has now been eight weeks and four days since I sent the check and I have heard nothing whatever from them. I am not saying that they took the money and ran - I may still get the comics - but caveat emptor. If you don't like waiting, don't order from them. I suppose they are not used to dealing with individuals rather than distributors. Or maybe they are connected with the federal government; it takes about three months to get a response from the National Archives. As long as I'm whining and complaining, I will just mention in passing that Dorothy wearing shorts (as depicted by Eric Shanower in a few books) sort of bothers me. She ought to stick to the gingham dress, or an Ozzy princess gown for more formal occasions. There's no indication that people in Oz are fashion conscious (Jenny Jump notwithstanding) or follow the clothing trends in the outside world; Uncle Henry and Aunt Em are usually drawn wearing Ozzy clothing (since they immigrated). What next? Baggy pants and baseball caps worn backwards? This kind of thing might make it easier for modern kids to identify with Dorothy et al., but it works against the distancing effect that is so essentially necessary to a tale of fairyland (see Ursula Le Guin's essay, "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie," which has been reprinted many times in various places.) Aside from such sensitivities on my part, however, I feel that Shanower is the best Oz artist ever with the _possible_ exception of Neill - and Neill's anatomy was often a little weird, particularly with children. There has been a certain amount of talk here lately about parallel earths. Well, it would explain a lot if there were parallel Ozes: an early Baum Oz (in which Nick Chopper's parents die of old age), a middle Baum Oz, a late Baum Oz, a Thompson Oz, a Neill Oz (far removed from the others, evidently), a Snow Oz (which, however, might be the same as the late Baum Oz), and so on - not to mention the various comic book Ozes, the various movie Ozes, the original LFB WWiz musical Oz with Imogene the Cow, the Oz of _Queer Visitors_, Ozes with and without money, with and without dogs other than Toto, with and without horses, ad infinitum. I wrote: >>In ECOz, LFB gives detailed population figures for the EC (57,318, with >>9,654 buildings) and Oz as a whole (more than half a million). RPT has a >>similar passage in one of her books (giving the population of the EC, at >>least), but I can't seem to locate it by browsing. Anyone know where this >>is? Nathan reponded: >It was near the beginning of _Gnome King_ (Chapter 2, maybe?), and it >gave the same number for the population of the city as Baum had in >_Emerald City_. Thanks for the information on _Gnome King_ and the population figures, Nathan. Yes, it's in chapter 2, on the second page thereof in my Del Rey edition. Now what does this portend? Does the population of Oz remain constant (although, at least according to RPT, babies are born there - presumably brought by storks from Merryland on the other side of the Shifting Sands), or did RPT just copy the latest census figures for the EC from LFB? Incidentally, if Oz is 70 x 90 miles as David H. suggests in the Ozzy Digest FAQ, that makes the population density about the same as Alabama or Missouri, but with the population of Birmingham or St. Louis scattered throughout the whole state - kind of dense. A _lot_ denser than Kansas. IMHO, double that area would be about right, although I realize that this might result in a lot of problems with travel time in the books. Still, 70 miles from edge to edge (north and south) means that the EC is only 35 miles from the desert, about the distance from Dallas to Fort Worth. That seems to me to be a little cramped for all those unknown villages and strange inhabitants. - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:23:47 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Neill's Oz books and others Content-Disposition: inline About TIN WOODMAN, Gordon Birrell wrote of: <> Without disagreeing with your conclusion--that the Tin Woodman and Scarecrow have the most loving relationship of any couple living together in TIN WOODMAN--I quibble with some of the steps that brought you there. First, I don't recall a mention of Jinjur's husband in TIN WOODMAN. So many books had passed since OZMA that I doubt Baum expected his readers to remember him. (Indeed, I doubt Baum remembered himself; Jinjur had made brief appearances in other manuscripts between these two with no sign of spouse.) Therefore, I don't think Jinjur's household can be counted as a portrait of a marriage in TIN WOODMAN. Second, in assessing that book's depiction of marriages we also have to factor in the happy Winkie couple with whom the travelers first stay, and the well-matched Swynes. Finally, early on Nick speaks of Nimmie Ammee's sharp tongue. We know Mr. Yoop is no joy, and Mrs. Yoop shows herself to be even worse. The message I take away from these couples is that Nimmie Ammee and Mrs. Yoop found the husbands and the lifestyles they desired and deserved. But not all marriages or relationships have to turn out that unhappy. Joyce Odell, your theory about Dr. Pipt and Dr. Nikidik seems to depend on the manufacturing process for the Powder of Life being so well known that its crippling effect had become almost a trademark, at least among magicians. Yet in that case it seems unbelievable that so few of Oz's magic-workers tried the process themselves. Yes, the spell is time-consuming and permanently confining, but the result is a tremendously powerful substance that ambitious villains would covet. Your theory of separate manufacturers of the Powder of Life does hint at an explanation about why the magic words necessary in LAND do not reappear in PATCHWORK GIRL. But why Dynah doesn't need them in ROAD is still a mystery. David Godwin called John R. Neill: <> "Jack?" "Yes, Ozma?" "Remember how I explained to you the difference between years and hours?" "Oh, yes, father! But you did that *after* Mombi locked me in her stable. I couldn't tell time then, so I couldn't keep track of how long I waited until you let me out. The third year was the worst! It was very dark..." David Godwin wrote: <> Indeed, that's the simplest explanation, but it forces us to write off some of Neill's better innovations: the flawed heroine Jenny, the long-suffering Number Nine, the bustling metropolis of the Emerald City. You may enjoy reading the comments about WONDER CITY in the Ozzy Digests for late December 1997 and January 1998. Steve Teller provided an interesting analysis of Neill's original manuscript compared to the finished book, showing a heavy editorial hand at Reilly & Lee. That, of course, further complicates questions of canonicity. Tyler Jones wrote about Neill's books: <> Unlike Sir Hokus's reappearance, Ojo serving as Kabumpo's elephant boy is possible. In fact, when we consider how valuable traveling with the elegant elephant has been for royal heirs (Pompa, Randy), I can imagine Ree Alla Bad apprenticing his son to the pachydermic prince of Pumperdink. Of course, Neill would have to have mistaken Kabumpo's occasional long stays in Ozma's stable for permanent tenure at the capital zoo. Similarly, it's possible that Ojo would miss the Emerald City enough to make an extended visit there with Unc Nunkie during Jack Snow's books. Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> Wish we could tell you otherwise, Dave. I really, *really* wish we could. **********SPOILER**********SPOILER**********SPOILER********** The Del Rey cover illustration of Sir Hokus at the end of YELLOW KNIGHT looks less Leo-ish than like the hunk Gary Marshall hired for HAPPY DAYS after Ron Howard left. Seeing that cover was enough to make me write a caustic essay for the BUGLE (received enthusiastically by John Fricke but never published). Basically, it was a complaint that Thompson's penchant for romance plots had taken her over the edge on this one. Sir Hokus seems like a fine candidate for a "Forget all about what I said at the end of a previous book" restoration, as happened to the Glass Cat, Ruggedo, and Jenny Jump. *******END SPOILER*******END SPOILER*******END SPOILER******* Gordon Birrell wrote: <<75% of American schoolchildren learned German up until 1918>> What's the source for this factoid? Might it be that 75% of US high schools *offered* German before the World War? Baum having German ancestors himself, he might have been especially sensitive to Germanic words and/or customs. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:33:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-98 On Mon, 9 Nov 1998 sahutchi@iupui.edu wrote: > I think more interesting than Harold Rosson having been married to Jean > Harlow is the fact that his father, Richard "Dick" Rosson, played Danx in > _The Patchwork Girl of Oz_. > > Scott > ============================================================================ ==== > Scott Andrew Hutchins > http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi > Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Frances: I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours. > > Freddy [the neighbor]: Mine was pretty boring, too. I've just got a > knack for picking out the interesting bits. > > --David Williamson > _Travelling North_ > Act Two Scene Three > > ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:31:28 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Content-Disposition: inline J. L. Regarding B&N buying Ingram: >Look for anti-trust complaints from your favorite neighborhood bookstore! In addition, the ABA is bringing suit over this. Litigiously, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 15:51:44 -0800 From: Bob Spark Reply-To: bspark@pacbell.net Subject: WOZ (The Movie) Howdy, Just back from seeing the movie. I WAS IMPRESSED. It was everything and more that I remembered from seeing it when I was a kid, probably 1945 or 1946. This time I didn't feel it necessary to hide in the restroom when those flying monkeys attacked our gang, though. One problem. After seeing the theatrical version I'm sure that it'll be a long time before I feel like watching it on videotape. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:19:20 -0400 From: Lee Hartle Subject: Wizard of Oz question Greetings ! Can you answer this trivia question ?: What society does the mayor munchkin and his cohorts represent in the Wizard of Oz ? Good luck ! ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:47:53 -0800 From: Steve Teller Subject: Ozzy Stuff Gordon Birell's comments about marriages in Baum's Oz books make me think about Baum's own marriage, which was presumably very successful. His wife Maud, daughter of pioneering femilist Matilda Gage, was without doubt the dominant member of the household, and that seems to be the way Frank wanted it. There is one frightening story about the "affair of the Bismarks" when Frank bought a dozen bismarks (filled donuts) without consulting Maud, and she silently served them to him every morning even after they were stale, and, when he buried them, she dug them up and served them to him the next morning, until he made peace by promising never to buy anything to eat without consulting her first. This is not my idea of domestic bliss. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:22:52 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Whitcomb" Subject: For Ozzy Digest Hello everyone, Today at the tail end of my local 6:00 news broadcast, they did a short story about an unveiling of Hollywood movie memorabilia earlier in the day at the Mall of America, Minneapolis, MN. One of the items revealed was Bert Lahr's Cowardly Lion costume from the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz". This is from the collection of Bill Mack(sp??). They said it was going to be auctioned at Christie's sometime next month. I went to their website, but I'm not sure if I found the exact date. There is a sale on Dec.10, 1998 of "Pop, Film & Entertainment" items. It is being held in London at Christie's South Kensington auction house. I'm not sure if this is the auction which will have the Cowardly Lion costume for sale. But, they said on the news that they expect it to bring in at least $1 million. Also, while I was looking at Christie's calendar I noticed that on Dec.9, 1998 at their Park Avenue auction house in New York City, is the auction of "Lewis Carroll & Alice : The Personal Collection of Justin G. Schiller". Does anyone know if this is "the" same person who started the IWOC?? Lastly, Ruth: since you were able to get a definition of "slitch", do you have any idea or could you find out, what Harburg meant by his lyric sung by Ray Bolger as the Scarecrow when he sang "Life would be a ding-a-derry". I've always wondered what "ding-a-derry" meant and someone asked me that question once via my website and I didn't know the answer. Take care, Jim. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:44:57 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-98 Another 2-Digest post; we've had house guests and I haven't had time to reply, though I've read the Digests as they came in. 11/7: Jeremy: >>How do you reconcile _Ozma_ and _Pirates_, then? Which ocean links >>with the Nonestic? > >It really doesn't matter, as geography may be different there anyway. If geography is so different that Cape Hatteras is on the Pacific then I don't think you can really say that the place where Dorothy lives is on Earth. It's a planet different enough from our Earth that the only things it has in common geographically are some place names. David G.: >The MGMWiz revival starts here Friday, so here's a pointless hypothetical >question: There being no place like home notwithstanding, what happened to >Miss Gulch after Dorothy's trip to (dream of) Oz? Somebody in the Oz Story Circle wrote a story about that a year or so ago - or maybe it was on the Research Table, or both; I'm not quite sure. Anyhow, the author had Dorothy realize that Miss Gulch was really just a lonely old lady, so she made an effort to befriend her and was able to turn her up sweet. I don't say that I find this entirely plausible, but it fits well into the milieu of children's fiction in general of the turn of the last century, so why not? Bob Spark: >> There isn't an unknown island continent several hundred >> miles across located somewhere in the South Pacific >> > How can you tell, if the island continent under discussion is >unknown? Perhaps I should have phrased that better: with modern satellite mapping, we know that there is no large land mass in the South Pacific that isn't on existing maps. In fact, we know that there is no large land mass anywhere on Earth that isn't on existing maps. A small island might be concealed by clouds most of the time and thus remain unnoticed, but nothing anywhere near as big as the smallest plausible size of the Ozian continent (which has to be comparable to, say, Ireland). J.L.: >The deepest root of "canon" is an ancient word for "measuring stick." >That's one way we can understand the Reilly & Britton/Lee canon, or the >Reilly & Britton/Lee authors/illustrators canon: these are the books by >which we agree to measure our conceptions of Oz. That doesn't mean they >have to be consistent with each other (which they aren't). Or that we have >to accept every statement in every book. But they provide a common set of >references for our thoughts and discussions. That's the out I took in _Glass Cat_ - when Barry asks the genie if there's a real Oz, the genie says that there's a place where not every word of every book is true, but the vast majority are. (Maybe this is what Chris D. considers a historical inaccuracy?) And I like your rationalization of why Neill's books are so much more inconsistent with Baum and Thompson than they are with themselves and each other. Atticus: >The answer is yes, in the handwritten manuscript the character is Sal Loon. > I would like to note that in one spot Baum wrote "Sal Loon" and then >crossed out the "Loon," as though the juxtaposition of the two words made >his "illicit" pun too obvious. Thanks! Nathan: >I don't really see the idea of Dorothy's growing up being a natural >result of the return to the United States as conflicting with other >books. Not with the other books of the FF, but subsequent authors might want to bring Dorothy or others to contemporary America for some reason (as Gardner in fact did), and that would be impossible at this point if the repressed aging of _Lost King_ were the natural result of returning to the Outside World from Oz. Bear: >David >I know this is a hobby-horse of yours, but you're misstating John's >comments. > >That's OK, you are missing the thrust of mine. The point was not saving a >few bucks but supporting our independent book sellers. I wasn't aware it >was a "hobby-horse" of mine. I does seem to fit that you would be a >supporter of big chains,...... just like big government. :) No, I wasn't missing the thrust of yours; you've made the point so many times that I'd call it a "hobby-horse", but you can call it what you choose. I'm not a supporter of the big chains (or of big government, for that matter, but that's a separate issue) - I do the vast majority of my book-shopping at a local independent - but if the independent doesn't have a book I want, then I don't see why I should do without it (or wait several days or weeks for a special order) if I can get it at a chain. And if my local independent weren't a very good one, with an excellent selection (better in children's hardcovers than even Borders, which is about the best of the chains), I'd be forced to go to the chains more. I go through six or seven books a week; some are from the library and some are rereads, but I want three or four new ones as well. There's no way I'm going to drive an hour or more each way to do that kind of routine book-shopping, and that's what I'd have to do if Anderson's weren't nearby. It's what I did have to do when I lived in Santa Ana if I wanted to shop at a good independent; there weren't any closer than Pasadena or Westwood. I don't mind making an expedition like that two or three times a year, but there's no way I can support my reading habit from stores that far away. Cost has virtually nothing to do with it; the kinds of books I mostly buy cost the same at Borders or Barnes & Noble as they do at any independent, because I don't buy a lot of hardcovers and buy essentially no NY Times best-sellers. Those are the kinds of books they discount. Actually, I save money at Anderson's because I have a Reader's Club card that costs me $5 a year and gets me 10% off on everything I buy. Since I've spent over $600 at Anderson's already this year, the cost of the card is trivial beside my savings. (They also have 25% off sales for Reader's Club members two Sundays a year, where I can save even more.) 11/11: Robin: That's right - Oziana 1998 still hasn't appeared, has it? Any projection when it will? J.L.: >Indeed. The "proofs" that Oz doesn't exist on our planet Earth may simply >be proof of imaginations not up to the challenge of believing that it does. >Not that I can manage that intellectual conjuration myself! I simply prefer >not to give up the image of Oz on this Earth that Baum imparted to us. To me, that's begging the question: you're assuming that Baum imparted to us an image of Oz on this Earth, when the issue is whether he did that or not. My opinion is that Baum's books are thoroughly inconsistent with Oz being on this Earth, and that therefore he imparted no such image to us. Even in the very first book you have the dual problems of a tornado that lasted long enough to travel from a point almost squarely in the middle of the 48 states to somewhere outside those limits, and a hot-air balloon without an internal source of heat that was able to travel at least a couple of hundred miles. Neither one is remotely possible. (It's also true that tornados basically move from southwest to northeast, although on a small scale they may whip around some, so that Dorothy's path from Kansas would be more toward Ontario than the South Pacific.) The only thing that makes sense is that there was some sort of dimensional shift. The same holds true for the other non-magical transitions to Oz in Baum. If Dorothy and Betsy could drift from a traveled sea lane to the Ozian continent in a few hours, it's inconceivable that that land mass wouldn't have been discovered by seamen during the 19th century. If Trot and Cap'n Bill could walk to Pessim's Island in a day or two from a starting point in California, and then fly from there to the Ozian continent in a matter of hours (they do the whole trip in daylight), it would place that continent quite close to the California coast. (Granted, we don't know how fast the Ork flew, but it couldn't have been terribly fast or the sunbonnet would have torn off - a reasonable estimate might be 20-30 mph, or a total flight of no more than 400 miles at the outside.) Of course, we don't know that the mermaids who presumably rescued Trot and Cap'n Bill didn't take them a long way before depositing them in that cave, but in that case we're dealing with magic and all bets are off, just as they are in _DotWiz_ and _Road_. And if we go to Baum's non-Oz fantasies it gets even more implausible that he thought of Oz as being on this Earth. Dot and Tot get to Merryland by drifting into a tunnel on a river in upstate New York (probably the Hudson, but it might be the Mohawk or some other), yet in _Magic_ Baum is very specific that Merryland is just across the desert from Oz. And John Dough flies from somewhere in the US to the Isle of Phreex, which is near the Ozian continent, in a matter of hours, powered by a gunpowder rocket of the sort used in the nineteen-oughts. Again, he couldn't have gone more than two or three hundred miles, and it's quite certain that there's no island the size of Ireland within a few hundred miles of the US coast (other than known ones that certainly aren't Oz). And this is without noting some apparent physical inconsistencies, like Mr. Tinker building a ladder that reaches the moon and climbing it, or the people in Betsy's party emerging from the end of Hiergargo's tube faster than they went into it. Maybe the latter was magic, but if Mr. Tinker's moon is ours, his feat would be impossible even with the help of any reasonable amount of magic. Gordon: Interesting derivation of "Nimmie Amee." I'd guess that you're probably right, though of course there's no way to be sure unless one could contact Baum in the Afterlife... Joyce: My inclination is to agree with you that Pipt and Nikidik are separate individuals. Nathan: It would seem highly probable that Dorothy had attended school before the events of _Wizard_. There is reasonable evidence that she was able to read, and it seems unlikely that Uncle Henry or Aunt Em would have had the time, inclination, or ability to teach her, even by the process of reading to her while she looked at the words (which is how I learned before going to school). Michael: If you had a comment to me it seems to have vanished somewhere. David G.: >I don't even like the idea of such things as lawnmowers and vacuum >cleaners in Oz. I'm sure there are magical devices and/or creatures who >fulfill those functions without the racket and waste. In my unsuccessful entry in the Centennial Book Contest I invented two races of creatures called the Whoppers and Whoovers who vied with each other in cleaning carpets. I may use them in another book later, because I think they were a lot of fun. Bear: >>>High technology means heavy industry means pollution and corporate greed. > >>That's the price we pay. >>Does it necessarily mean that when you also have magic available to help? I >>doubt it. Ozian high tech might be quite without heavy industry and its >>concomitants. >David, you neglected to give credit for the first comment above. It was David Godwin; it was a further comment to him after my previous response to something else he'd said. Dave: >TYLER: >Sir Hokus is an enchantment?? *Please* don't me he's "really" a handsome, >dashing Leonardo Di-what's-his-face clone??!! I don't quite know how to tell you this, Dave, but if you read _Yellow Knight_ you'll find that you're more right than wrong in that guess... (And since both Sir Hokus and his disenchanted form are Thompson's creation, you can't even say that she's distorting Baum, as you might with Ojo and Unc Nunkie.) And now I'll post this, and probably find that I've missed another Digest that I'll have to respond to... David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:30:48 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Whitcomb" Subject: Jim's "Wizard of Oz" Website Update Hello Oz fans, friends & "family": Well, has everyone seen "our favorite movie"??? I hope so! For those of you who don't know, there are a select number of theatres in the U.S./Canada who are showing the superior dye transfer prints of "The Wizard of Oz". I saw this version last evening in Indianapolis and let me tell you, it was "exquisite"! The richness of the color and the sound is "beyond" description. I very much recommend your seeing this "special edition". My hat is off to Warner Bros. for re-mastering this classic film for us Oz fans to enjoy. I know it's a bit early ... but, I have added my Holiday Greetings to my index page today along with a link to my ChristmOZ Shopping Guide. Check it out! There are links here that will offer lots of selections for you to find that "perfect" gift for your favorite "Oz" fan! Let me recommend you start with Elaine Willingham's great offerings of "Oz" collectibles at her "Beyond the Rainbow" site, url: In addition, Elaine has an auction planned for Saturday, November 28, 1998. Among the items up for auction are many "Wizard of Oz" re-release 1998 movie items including: the 3-D theatrical house display, the "official" movie poster, and the limited edition Oz buttons given away at those theatres showing the superior dye transfer print version. Lastly, for those of you who haven't yet voted at Jim's "Wizard of Oz" website for your favorite "Oz" character, please do so now!!! Over 500 fans have voted so far, and time is running out. If you have already voted, thank you, please do not vote again. As always, Ozzy wishes and the best to you! Jim Whitcomb of ... Jim's "Wizard of Oz" Website URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/6396/ **PLEASE NOTE: If you received this email it's because you are a Wizard of Oz fan or a regular visitor to my website. If you don't want to receive these updates in the future, please email me. ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 14:36:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Ozzy Digest I've scanned a non-Oz John R. Neill picture onto my web page. It can be viewed at http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi/echidna.html Scott ============================================================================ ==== Scott Andrew Hutchins http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Frances: I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours. Freddy [the neighbor]: Mine was pretty boring, too. I've just got a knack for picking out the interesting bits. --David Williamson _Travelling North_ Act Two Scene Three ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Nov 98 13:56:11 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things FATE OF SIR HOKUS: What's with Thompson and this belief that in order to be virtuous you have to look like a fashion plate? I'm surprised she didn't reveal the Wizard to be Arnold Schwartzaneggar under a wicked enchantment... THE MGM WITCH" Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote: >When describing the event to the Munchkins, Dorothy sings: "Just then, >the witch, to satisfy an itch, was flying on her broomstick." ... Then she continues, "thumbing for a hitch." Whaa?? What would a witch with her own broomstick need to hitchhike for...And *I* didn't see her stick her thumb out and a winged monkey fly up and say, "Hi beautiful; hop right in; I can take you as far as Orkland!" BAUM'S MARRIAGE: I don't know whether Baum regarded his marriage as "domestic bliss", but is it true what I've heard that Maud vetoed Frank's desire to spare his boys the hell he went through at Military Acadeny? ACCURACY: David H. wrote: >That's the out I took in _Glass Cat_ - when Barry asks the genie if there's >a real Oz, the genie says that there's a place where not every word of >every book is true, but the vast majority are. (Maybe this is what Chris D. >considers a historical inaccuracy?) I won't speculate...As Tyler has frequently pointed out, what Chris accepts as Historical and what he considers blasphemous seems to be rather arbitrary... THE PURPLE ROSE OF GILLIKIN: I was watching the _The Purple Rose of Cairo_ the other day and I just wondered -- Did Woody Allen by *any* chance get the idea for a movie character stepping down from the projected image on the screen from the Wogglebug? -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 18 - 19, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Nov 98 11:57:23 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: ozzy digest Gordon Birrell: Idea of deriving "Nimmie" from German seems plausible, but combining different families of languages for roots is unusual (mindset for root from one usually produces root from another when a writer is inventing long-phrase-names). Is there something "Aimee" could mean in German? Nathan DeHoff & Tyler Jones: I'm not sure that referring to Sir Hokus by his old name and having him around the Emerald City following the events of "Yellow Knights" has to mean that he's been enchanted again. People (including the narrators) could be using his old name because they're used to it. Presumably his ideas of knightly behavior would be the same regardless of his form, and he could come to visit the Emerald City on occasion. Michael Turniansky & Lisa Mastroberte: With apologies for crotchetiness -- most Internet humor isn't funny enough to justify taking up as much space as it typically takes. J.L. Bell: I like your riff on how muddled Jack Pumpkinhead might be on questions of time. Regarding your essay that was accepted by John Fricke for the "Bugle" but never published there -- it's unfortunately true of almost all editors at almost all publications that a change of editor means that stuff in the backlog gets ignored. If you still like the essay, suggest you resubmit it to Bill Stillman. (Or you might consider putting it through the Oz Research Group and/or here.) Jim Whitcomb: Yes, the Justin Schiller noted as a rare-books dealer and Carroll expert is the same one who founded the IWOC. I'd guess that the definition of "ding-a-derry" is "mood in which one feels like singing a song with a cheerful nonsensical chorus such as ring-a-ding- ding or derry-derry-down." Dave Hardenbrook: Oh, Sir Hokus is entirely virtuous under whatever appearance. The stereotype in his case is that one has to be young and handsome to marry a princess. It's probably true that being young and handsome, if possible, is helpful in the process. Woody Allen probably could have gotten the idea of stepping off a projected-picture-screen from the Wogglebug, but there are probably other possible sources (although the ones that occur to me are not projections -- the portraits who step out of their pictures in the early Gothic novel "The Castle of Otranto" and in W. S. Gilbert's "Ruddigore"). Some comments on "Magic of Oz": David Green and Dick Martin in their "Oz Scrapbook" commented that the last two Oz books were more somber in mood, with dangers that seemed more threatening (growing down out of existence in "Magic" and drowning in "Glinda") than in previous Oz books, and suggested that Baum's increasing ill health influenced them. A detail that tends to back them up is in Cap'n Bill's comments on how we fail to appreciate good health until we don't have it. Michael Riley in his "and Beyond" book points out that the plot is recycled from a combination of "Emerald City" (Ruggedo's attempt to conquer Oz) and "Road" (Ozma's birthday), and comments that the combination is original enough to give the book a distinctive atmosphere, maybe not as engaging as Baum at his best, but at about his middle level (I'd agree with that, too). I seem to have mis-remembered what Roger Sale said in his "Oz" essay in his "Fairytales and After" book, as I thought he presented the Lonesome Duck as his primary example of the series of characters he sees as self-images of Baum in the later Oz books, weary enchanters who would like to be left alone and can get snappish if pestered but are still capable of friendly enchantment if properly coaxed (others being both the Yookoohoo witches, and -- not an enchanter, but similarly content with being left alone, Nimmie Aimee). But I couldn't find any mention of the LD in re-reading his essay. Did my eye skip a paragraph, or was I remembering some other essay entirely, that I couldn't find? Anyhow, whoever said it, the LD is certainly an amusing and striking character. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:05:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: DOMINION NEWS: Future Now show, Chat with Bruce Sterling, New , Seeing Ear piece (fwd)--Ozzy Digest * Seeing Ear Theatre presents ALICE IN WONDERLAND with Lili Taylor *********************************************************** NEW SEEING EAR THEATRE ORIGINAL "ALICE IN WONDERLAND," PT 1 Lili Taylor stars in this adaptation of a timeless classic *********************************************************** The latest Seeing Ear Theatre Original is a faithful production of Lewis Caroll's ALICE'S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND. It features film star Lili Taylor (I SHOT ANDY WARHOL, THE IMPOSTERS) as "Alice" and Simon Jones (THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY) as "The White Rabbit." To listen, visit: http://www.scifi.com/set/originals/alice/ Seeing Ear Theatre features original dramatic works, classic audio drama, readings from top science fiction, fantasy and horror authors and a showcase for SF audio drama troupes. Requires RealPlayer. For those users who have the latest "G2" RealPlayer, an enhanced mulitmedia version of ALICE is available. Artist Elaina Ganim has incorporated John Tenniel's original ALICE illustrations into an exciting new series of mixed-media set designs while Rachel Gibbs has set them in motion using RealPlayer's G2 technology. Scott ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:36:17 -0800 From: Steve Teller Subject: Oz Concerning Dorothy and Miss Gulch, there is a book entitled DOROTHY AND THE LIZARD OF OZ (not to be confused with THE LIZARD OF OZ) in which all the major characrters from MGM film learn that the Wizard's gifts were not real solutions to their problems and visited the Lizard of Oz, a deposed and enchanted Wizard who had been ousted from his original position when the humbug Wizard appeared with easy solutions to hard problems. Dorothy after her return to Kansas discovered that Miss Gulch was still a problem and learned to "take the bull by the horns" and go to the sheriff to work out a real solution. THE PURPLE ROSE OF GILLIKIN: > THE PURPLE ROSE OF GILLIKIN: > I was watching the _The Purple Rose of Cairo_ the other day and I just > wondered -- Did Woody Allen by *any* chance get the idea for a movie > character stepping down from the projected image on the screen from > the Wogglebug? > It more likely was derived from Buster Keaton's "Sherlock Junior." Steve T. ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:39:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-98 Tyler: Due to people's tendency to misremember names, I have assumed that Nikidik was the inventor of the wishing pills and nothing more, so far as the recorded Oz saga. In _Tip of Oz_, he is a benevolent (yet illegal) magic worker, who dislikes the presumption that the two are the same. I see him as played by Alan Rickman. Dave: Allen cites Buster Keaton's _Sherlock Jr._ (highly recommended) as the inspiration for _The Purple Rose of Cairo_. Scott ============================================================================ ==== Scott Andrew Hutchins http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Frances: I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours. Freddy [the neighbor]: Mine was pretty boring, too. I've just got a knack for picking out the interesting bits. --David Williamson _Travelling North_ Act Two Scene Three ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:07:14 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz film First of all, I would like to apologize for my intemperate outburst about the BoW disclaimer. I still think that the phrase "a more enlightened generation" has a strong connotation of ageism. Also, living in Minnesota, I have become sensitized to the tragic situation of Native Americans to the point where the term "Redskin" is just as offensive to me as any other obscene racial slur. I was therefore surprised that BoW would print a disclaimer in _Silver Princess_ about the drawings and part of the text while not doing so about the racial epithet in _Shaggy Man_. Be that as it may, I think I was way too sarcastic in my comments, and my suggestion of an economic motive was way out of line. I apologize. I also apologize for the negative tone of my whole posting. Having a bad day, I suppose. I did finally get everything from IWOC, by the way, though still nothing from Arrow Comics. Saw the big-screen version of MGMWiz last week. In the scene where Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Woodman are having the conversation about the possibility of his going with them to see the Wizard, after the Woodman does his dance and sits on the stump (?), it looks like the silhouette of the Sawhorse (or _a_ sawhorse) in the background between the Tin Woodman and Dorothy. As for the movie in general, it seemed to me that, despite the expensive and extensive restoration, there were still parts of the film, particularly closeups, that were kind of grainy and blurry. In other parts, the colors were, shall we say, less than vivid. I evidently did _not_ see the "special edition." Also, the "Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead" sequence was cut significantly after the mayor's speech: the bit with the babies (?) waking up was eliminated entirely; in fact, the whole "reprise" was cut. At first I thought that perhaps I simply had not been paying attention, but other people have confirmed this, I have no idea as to why this cut was made. Aside from that, I thought that the film made it much more obvious than the video that Garland was a great talent. For many years, I very much preferred the book to the film. I'd read WWiz, along with _Land_ and the rest down through _Ozma_, before I ever saw the film during one of its revivals. At the time, I was consequently very disappointed with the film. For one thing, my mother was an adict of MGM musicals when I was a child, and she used to drag me to endless, boring (to me at that age) song and dance fests with Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, and what not. (Am I betraying my age?) She didn't have any convenient sitter, so she enticed me to go along with the promise of a lousy five-minute cartoon after the feature. I was therefore less than receptive to a musical version of Oz. I also thought Dorothy was way too old, and I was really disappointed that the Cowardly Lion was played by a corny vaudeville comedian instead of a real lion. I was less than fond of the substitution of ruby slippers for silver shoes, and I was disappointed that they cut out everything at the end (the journey to Glinda's palace). The fact that they combined Glinda with the Good Witch of the North aroused my boyish contempt. And so on. Most of all, I hated that they turned it all into a dream with all the Oz characters being "real people" back in Kansas. (Ah, but _we_ know who the _real_ people are!) I was still of this opinion when I saw RTOz, which utterly charmed and fascinated me. At last, the flight of the gump! (Even so, I was a little put off by the dark and interminable opening sequence in Kansas - except for the surprise appearance of Ozma - and even more so with the drastic change in the portrayal of the Nome King, a transformaion from Snidely Whiplash to some combination of Adolf Hitler and Jabba the Hut.) Now, however, having attained the wisdom of senility, I appreciate the somewhat heretical notion that the MGMWiz film is probably _better_ than the WWiz book: more tightly plotted and with fewer IEs. And of course I now appreciate the songs very much, which I could not do way back when. I recently recevied a catalog in the mail from Easton Press in Norwalk CT for leather-bound books. Sure enough, on page 18, there is a set of four LFB Oz books for the modest price of $298.50. They evidently include at least some of the color plates from the original books, but there is nothng that says they contain _all_ of the original art. The four books are touted as "L. Frank Baum's four greatest books of Oz." What are these four greatest LFB Oz books? WWiz (of course, had to be), Land, DotWiz (IMHO the _worst_ LFB Oz book), and ECOz. I wonder who made this selection. ****SPOILER**** (maybe) Could RPT have been trying to kick Sir Hokus upstairs in _Yellow Knight_ - get rid of him because too many critics had complained that it was incongruous to have a fairy-tale Arthurian knight in Oz? Otherwise, the disenchantment has "Big Mistake" written all over it. Since she emphasized more than once that he was "still the same old Hokus," you could tell by his eyes, etc., it would appear that she didn't feel quite right about it even while writing the book. But she went ahead anyway, maybe because she was under deadline pressure and didn't have time to revise the whole plot. I wondered while reading the book, incidentally, whether Michael Moorcock borrowed the name "Corum" from this source for one of his trilogies. ****END SPOILER**** - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:47:46 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz and what we wore Jim Whitcomb wrote: <> Yes. Among the items to be auctioned is a very rare first printing of ALICE IN WONDERLAND, from an edition that Carroll and Tenniel scrapped, and which years later Carroll wrote in as he was creating THE NURSERY ALICE. Schiller paid $50,000+ for it several years ago. Ruth Berman wrote of the island that's Hiland and Loland: <> Hard to believe, I know, but perhaps the professor wasn't as thoroughly educated as he thought he was. After all, he'd been outside Oz only once (if we discount the comic strips). We know his 1914 maps miss a great deal of detail about Oz, leave out Mo, and don't even follow maps' usual orientation. Therefore, they might simply have been wrong about John Dough's kingdom. David Godwin wrote: <> The term you're looking for is "volunteers stuffing envelopes in their basements." Don't worry--everything comes eventually. David Godwin wrote: <> As with technology, you're being fooled by the fact that the Oz books were originally written decades ago. Neill usually drew Dorothy in the American clothing of the time of publication, at first much more fashionably than most poor Kansas farmgirls could afford, then keeping up with current trends even after she moved to Oz. Only after World War II did artists preserve her in an amber of skirts and ribbons. Shanower's drawings do imply that Dorothy, Trot, and Betsy now choose to wear the play clothing of contemporary American girls. (Button-Bright still wears a sailor's jersey, and the Wizard his frock coat.) I suppose his argument would be not only that today's girls can more easily identify with someone in those clothes, but that the girls in the Emerald City would find them more comfortable and convenient. Never having tried to climb a tree in a skirt, I don't feel qualified to say he's wrong. [In my long Oz manuscript I take a middle course: Dorothy starts out in her traditional early-20th-century dress, sun bonnet, and patent leather shoes for a social call on Glinda, but changes into hiking gear when she anticipates having an adventure. The latter choice was definitely influenced by Shanower.] For backwards baseball caps, check out David Hulan's GLASS CAT OF OZ--or, more accurately, George O'Connor's drawings for that Emerald City Press book. And if we look closely at some pictures of Woot in TIN WOODMAN, do we see him wearing his hat backwards? David Godwin wrote: <> Books of Wonder has been most concerned about books with drawings of ethnic caricatures: PATCHWORK GIRL and RINKITINK, from which the press dropped one illustration each, and ROYAL BOOK and SILVER PRINCESS, which show whole societies of toothy Orientals and thick-lipped blacks. In addition, the "Redskins" remark in SHAGGY MAN is a brief, incidental, and apropos description of a 1940s Western serial, while the villain we're supposed to root against in SILVER PRINCESS is a black leading a slave revolt that our heroes ruthlessly put down. I don't understand your complaint about the wording [as opposed to the spelling] of the disclaimer, however. Yes, some Americans in 1938 no doubt found Thompson's depiction of ethnic minorities to be rude and ignorant--but society overall was very accepting of them. It was easier then to make crude ethnic jokes than to complain about them; the latter would get you labeled as uppity, radical, or just weird. Today we're fighting illegal discrimination; in 1938 discrimination in schools, housing, lending, hiring, and most other areas of life was legal and normal across the country. Many 1930s movie hits relied on stereotype images of blacks: HOLIDAY INN, GONE WITH THE WIND, BABES ON BROADWAY, STAND UP AND CHEER. Daily life, the law, popular culture--those show all too well what was "deemed acceptable at that time." Yes, BoW may have missed an offensive word in MIMICS--though the Washington football team continues to show that word as "acceptable" at this time, rightly or wrongly. BoW may even have missed a hateful stereotype as villain in WISHING HORSE. And perhaps BoW's disclaimer claims too much for our generation. But I find depictions of certain people as less than human far more grating than a small publisher that implicitly challenges us to live up to our values. Another way to approach the issue is to imagine that you're Peter Glassman, publisher of Books of Wonder, Oz fan and businessman. What would you have done in that position? David Hulan wrote: <> I hold to the position I derive from Carl Sagan: saying trips to Oz to involve "some sort of dimensional shift" is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Proof that Baum thought in those terms. Proof that he cued his readers to think in those terms. In effect, I look for explicit hints from Baum that Oz is not on the same earth as Dorothy's Kansas and our Kansas. [There was publicity material for the QUEER VISITORS comic strip that spoke of the Scarecrow and friends arriving from outer space, but I don't know if that can be attributed to Baum.] Simply not being able to imagine a way for the America-to-Oz journeys to overcome Earth's physical laws (as I admit I can't) isn't the extraordinary proof I ask for. That's because central to the Baum's vision is that his main fairyland was not in some distant time and place (like the Arabian nights' tales, or the Grimms' stories), nor in a dream (like Carroll's masterpieces). His fairyland co-exists with his readers' America. Children from America can reach it without explicit magical intervention. It's part of the same reality, and for a turn-of-the-century child that means part of the same planet. In his books Baum stated that fairies were all over the world before civilization--the culture his readers knew--drove them into hiding. He stated that fairies and other magical beings exist in the Outside World, but in different, invisible forms. He connected the natural and scientific phenomena that his readers knew with fairy powers, saying that the latter are simply undiscovered forms of the former. Such statements would lose their radical power if the "non-magical" world Baum was talking about wasn't his readers' reality. Yes, the methods of getting to Oz in Baum's books are highly unlikely; the more we know about our planet, the less likely they become, until the odds in their favor are infinitesimal. But I don't believe Baum expected his readers to reason, "Oh, that cyclone's so unlikely that Dorothy must have gone through a dimensional shift." That's like having them decide, "Since our best technicians haven't made a robot with all of Tik-Tok's capabilities, he must not really be a mechanical man." Baum wanted us to think, "There's so much more about our world to discover." He wanted us to entertain the delicious notion that, however improbable it is, the country of Oz is a real place within a child's reach. Your view and mine are equally valid, David. We start on this (nearly) impossible mind journey from different bases, so we naturally end up at different conclusions. Terminology also plays a role in our different views; I'm more open to concepts Baum would have been familiar with, such as Mme. Blavatsky's blather about "vibrational planes," than to latter-day ideas like wormholes and dimensional vortexes. So in the end we may be no farther apart than "light as wave" and "light as particle"--two ways of describing a phenomenon that defies description. Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> There are plenty of *virtuous* Thompson characters who are older and not conventionally attractive: Bitty Bit, Jinnicky, Ato, Herby, Wumbo, the jolly kings and queens who parent some of the handsome young princes and princesses. But she does have a tendency to make sure her main heroes end up young, royal, and often married. [Of course, some modern Oz authors like that last quality as well!] Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> More likely he was influenced by Buster Keaton's SHERLOCK, JR., in which a young projectionist steps *into* the screen. More to come from me on MAGIC [as if any of you had doubts], but first I'll say what a pleasure it was to reread one of the books in which Baum showed himself at the top of his game. Three tight, interwoven plots, with hardly a flat or incidental episode; lively and true-to-themselves characterizations of Ozians old and new; and a happy ending with little contrivance. Fun! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:53:11 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-98 Ruth B.: <> Possibly. But one thing I do know is this: You can take the Hiland, and I can take the Loland, but nevertheless, I'll get to Scotland before you . . . Jeremy Steadman, kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:51:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-11-98 > GORDON: > I stand correct on my sig quote...It's sometimes difficult to know whether > to attribute a quote to who actually wrote it or who is famous for saying > it... The amusing thing about this is that I've found quotes from the MGM film attributed to L. Frank Baum, particularly, on the web, when they bore no resemblance to actual lines in the book. One I found came from the Wizard presenting the diploma--these lines were written by E.Y. Harburg (sans credit). Scott ====================================================================== From: Ozmama@aol.com Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:18:19 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-98 Also, while I was looking at Christie's calendar I noticed that on Dec.9, 1998 at their Park Avenue auction house in New York City, is the auction of "Lewis Carroll & Alice : The Personal Collection of Justin G. Schiller". Does anyone know if this is "the" same person who started the IWOC??>> Yes. Justin, like many Ozzies, was also intrigued by Wonderland. I guess he's just ready to part with his collection. I can understand that, since I'm planning to part with my Oz collection in the next year. Eventually it seems appropriate to just let it go, having enjoyed it for so very long. (I'd planned to do it this year, but just haven't had the time to catalog the thing!) I'd better state right here that I, too, will auction it off in a single auction, so please don't ask what I have for sale. The answer must be "Nothing," until I've determined where to auction the thing. Probably PBA. _Oziana_ has no illustrations and I've had problems both with the timing of getting materials, physical setbacks, and quality of material. Some very good stuff is just not appropriate for the magazine, unfortunately. Michael T., may I use your Trot/Betsy/Dorothy puzzle? John Bell's "Ozma's Swap" will be in the issue. I'm off next week. That's when I'll try to get the issue out. ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:42:06 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Another Ozzy Digest Milestone: Today's Ozzy Digest, from November 12-17, 1998, spans 6 days, a digest record. There are several five-day Digests, but this one stands on its own. David Hulan: Remember also, that if we look for Oz on our Earth, we must also look for Tarara (from _Captain Salt_) and the land of Tititi HooChoo. Tarara may be at least as large as Oz, although we don't know how big Tititi HooChoo's land is. There may be as many as three sizeable land masses, yet we have never found them. Your arguement is fairly strong. David Godwin: It is, of course, possible that there are nearly an infinite number Oz Univereses, but therein lies the trouble of categorizing them. An easy answer is to assume that each author and movie has their own, but I take the more direct route of assuming that the movies are not real, and that there is only one Oz, which many of the books approach with more or less accuracy. The fun lies in deciding the degree of accuracy. It seems a paradox: babies are born, people do not die (except by accident), yet the population seems to remain constant. Added to that, there seems to be a very small trickle of immigration, but I doubt that there is much emigration. It's possible that since the enchantment came into full force at the time of Ozma's ascension, the number of births has been low enough so that the population may not have increased very much. This will become a problem in a few centuries, but right now, there's still plenty of elbow-room. The contractors don't have to build subdivisions around the Emerald City just yet. Some estimates of the size of Oz range to as much as 130 by 100 miles. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== From: Scott Olsen Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-98 Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:07:47 +0000 Dave wrote: "I'm surprised she [Thompson] didn't reveal >the Wizard to be Arnold Schwartzaneggar under a wicked enchantment... Oh oh, then you better not read Thompson's unpublished manuscript, _A Shriver in Oz_... Re: New Print of MGM's Oz: A friend of mine at work walked out on the movie because he said the print was so bad! Re: Bolger Scarecrow song "life would be a-ding-a-dary...." It's interesting that the original final line to this song, and that which can still be heard on the "pumpkin dance" soundtrack, is something like "I'll deserve you/and be even worthy urv [of] you...." Don't know why it was changed.... Sincerely, Scott Olsen ====================================================================== From: Tigerbooks@aol.com Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 01:04:47 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-98 Dave: I am afraid my first posting on the Ozzy Digest contains sad news. Rachel Cosgrove Payes died on October 10, 1998 of cancer. Rachel was dear friend and despite her often grumpy demeanor she wore the mantle of Royal Historian with greater relish than any Historian in recent decades. I first wrote to Rachel when I was 16 in 1979. We continued corrsponding off and on for the next ten years finally cementing our friendship during the publication process of WICKED WITCH OF OZ which my partenr Eric Shanower was illustrating. Since then every month has brought at least one letter from her always showing her concern, often grumbling, each adorned with small sketches of Oz characters and other doodles. We began a creative relationship when she wrote two stories for me in Oz-story. During her nearly fifty years as a writer she wrote over forty books and many short stories. She died in Brick, New Jersey at Brick Hospital. Her husband Norman and two children, Ruth and Rob, were with her at the end. It is perhaps appropriate that her very first story was an Oz story--and so was her last. She will be greatly missed. So Long, Kiddo! David Maxine ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:12:58 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-17-98 Tyler: > Of course, one might ask why a magician who can make wishing >pills would need anything else, but maybe the pills were hard to make, and >they may not have been able to bring things to life. They couldn't have been easy to make, presumably, or there wouldn't have been only three of them (and Dr. Nikidik would be much better-known than he was). Also, you recall that the use of them by a human was attended with a great deal of pain, so that they might not have been the most desirable sort of magic for routine use. The Powder of Life seems to have evolved over the course of the three descriptions of it. In _Land_ there were the magic words and gestures. In _Road_, Dyna had to wish the bearskin to life, but that was all. In _Patchwork Girl_, it brought Scraps and Victor Columbia Edison to life just by contact. I suppose these could have been successive refinements in the recipe, or possibly they were three different powders made by three different crooked magicians. Nick Chopper says the first two were the same one, and Margalotte that the first and third were the same, but neither was around to observe the events they describe, so it may be that their statements aren't accurate. Presumably Dr. Pipt did trade some of his powder to Mombi - Margalotte would have known that at second hand, at least - but it might not have been the same powder that brought Jack (and the Sawhorse and the Gump) to life. Someone's idea (I forget whose - Joyce?) that making the Powder of Life caused the maker to become crooked (physically, that is) might explain a good deal of this. David G.: I tend to agree with you that referring to our generation as "more enlightened" than the population in 1938 is somewhat offensive. More enlightened about racial stereotypes, certainly, but not necessarily about everything. And I think the reference to "redskins" in _Shaggy Man_ is such a minor item in the book that it's more likely that Peter Glassman didn't notice it than that he deliberately chose not to put in a disclaimer. The black slaves in _Silver Princess_, on the other hand, are a major plot thread, and if the book is to be reprinted at all in this day and age a disclaimer is almost mandatory. >Speaking of BoW, what differences, if any, are there between the BoW >edition of _Scarecrow_ and the more recent Oz Club edition? Well, they had different dust wrappers and different afterwords. The materials they're made of might be slightly different, though both are quite high quality. Otherwise I'm not aware of any differences, though I haven't made a close comparison. >What next? Baggy pants and >baseball caps worn backwards? Well, if you've seen my book _The Glass Cat of Oz_ you'll see that George O'Connor has Barry (who is, however, a contemporary American kid) wearing a baseball cap turned backwards. Not my idea - I never mentally pictured Barry wearing headgear at all - but reasonably plausible. >Incidentally, if Oz is 70 x 90 miles as David H. suggests in the >Ozzy Digest FAQ, that makes the population density about the same as >Alabama or Missouri, but with the population of Birmingham or St. Louis >scattered throughout the whole state - kind of dense. That's Dave H. who suggests 70 x 90 miles as the size of Oz. I'm David H. My estimate of the size of Oz is more like 90 x 120, which is over 70% larger in area. I came up with this using the one set of numeric values that we find in the books - in _Wishing Horse_ the sizes of the various provinces of Skampavia are given, so we can calculate the size of that kingdom exactly, and it's also stated that Oz is fifty times as large as Skampavia. That gives a size of about 11,000 square miles for Oz; if we assuma a 3x4 aspect ratio (which looks about right on the various maps) then 90x120 gives 10,800. Since the borders aren't straight lines there's room for a variation of a few hundred square miles one way or the other. This size estimate works reasonably well with most journey times in the books (that aren't augmented by magic), though not all. Jim: I strongly suspect that "ding-a-derry" is just a nonsense word akin to "fa-la-la" or "tra-la-la" or "derry-derry-down" that Harburg threw in to make a rhyme. At least, I've never heard or read it in any context except "If I Only Had a Brain." There are a good many lyrics in the songs from WOZ that don't really make sense if you try to analyze them. (For instance, the phrasing of "Wherefore art thou (beat) Romeo?" in "If I Only Had a Heart," which sustains the erroneous reading of the Shakespeare line as if "Wherefore" meant "Where" and not "Why.") Dave: >Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote: >>When describing the event to the Munchkins, Dorothy sings: "Just then, >>the witch, to satisfy an itch, was flying on her broomstick." ... > >Then she continues, "thumbing for a hitch." Whaa?? What would a >witch with her own broomstick need to hitchhike for...And *I* didn't >see her stick her thumb out and a winged monkey fly up and say, "Hi >beautiful; hop right in; I can take you as far as Orkland!" Since it's clear that Dorothy doesn't have a clue as to what had happened to the witch, I think we can ignore her narration in that song as meaning anything factual and assume she was just making stuff up that would rhyme. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:42:51 -0400 (EDT) From: earlabbe@juno.com (Earl C. Abbe) Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission - Thumbing For a Hitch To: DAVEH47@delphi.com X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,5-7 In the November 12-17 Ozzy Digest, Dave asks why a witch flying on a broomstick would be "thumbing for a hitch," as noted in the MGM movie song. Perhaps she was trying to get a velocity boost or an exciting joy-ride from the cyclone's winds. Earl Abbe ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 Nov 98 00:03:34 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things THE SAD NEWS: I'm sure I speak for everyone when I state my sorrow at the passing of Rachel Cosgrove-Payes. CLOTHES MAKE THE OZITE: FWIW, I have no problem with Dorothy, Trot, etc. in jeans and shorts -- If Neill can show Dot as a flapper in the 20's for Lurline's sake... MOMBI THE BETA-TESTER?: I always assumed Mombi in _Land_ was using Powder of Life 1.0 Beta, while what is used in _Patchwork Girl_ is Powder of Life 2.0. :) WHICH WITCH? David H. wrote: >Since it's clear that Dorothy doesn't have a clue as to what had happened >to the witch, I think we can ignore her narration... Including her assumption that she saw the WWE I guess... (BTW, David, if it's okay, I'll corporate your case for a somewhat larger Oz in the next version of the FAQ...) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 20, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-98 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:56:48 PST David Godwin: >****SPOILER**** (maybe) >Could RPT have been trying to kick Sir Hokus upstairs in _Yellow >Knight_ - >get rid of him because too many critics had complained that it was >incongruous to have a fairy-tale Arthurian knight in Oz? Perhaps, although Thompson introduced many European fairy-tale elements into her Oz books, and Sir Hokus was from the distant past of the country. I've seen a fair amount of recent criticism regarding how Thompson's stories were not as American as Baum's, but I don't know if that criticism was quite as widespread while Thompson was actually writing. >Otherwise, the >disenchantment has "Big Mistake" written all over it. Since she >emphasized >more than once that he was "still the same old Hokus," you could tell >by >his eyes, etc., it would appear that she didn't feel quite right >about it >even while writing the book. But she went ahead anyway, maybe because >she >was under deadline pressure and didn't have time to revise the whole >plot. The idea that a character has similar traits when in disenchanted form to those that he or she possessed in enchanted form is one that frequently appears in Thompson's books, notably with Peg Amy, Urtha (Pretty Good), and Pastoria, as well as Sir Hokus. Scott Olsen: >Re: Bolger Scarecrow song "life would be a-ding-a-dary...." > >It's interesting that the original final line to this song, and that >which >can still be heard on the "pumpkin dance" soundtrack, is something >like >"I'll deserve you/and be even worthy urv [of] you...." Don't know >why it >was changed.... Perhaps the writers were afraid that audiences would hear those lyrics as implying some sort of romance between the Scarecrow and Dorothy? (Probably not, but they do sound sort of romantic.) -- May you live in interesting times, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:02:04 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-98 Stepping off the screen: Along the same lines, last fall I wrote a two-person skit which involved "The Thinker" coming to life and solving a writer's problems, with one catch: At the end, the statue and the writer switch places, the statue getting up off his pedestal and the writer sitting down in his place. (Though when I freeze up and can't come up with plot ideas, it doesn't uisually have quite that result . . .) Subdivisions in Oz: Ugh!! Passing of an author: Now that R.Coagrove-Payes has passed on, does that mean that all the Famous Forty authors are no more? Wherefore art thou? I know that "wherefore" means why, not "where"--couldn't this be a deeper, philosophical question, as in, "Why are you Romeo [Montague] as opposed to a Capulet"? We'll never be able to ask Mr. Shakespeare in person, of course. As far as I know, at least . . . Until next time I ramble on, Jeremy Steadman, Royal Historian of Oz kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:06:37 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: MAGIC OF OZ and yellow knights David Maxine, thanks for sharing the sad news about Rachel Cosgrove Payes. One of the moments I remember most fondly from my Oz reading career was opening WICKED WITCH and turning the first pages, seeing Eric's alarm clock and "This Book Belongs to" page, and thinking, "After so many years! The look and feel of a *real* Oz book I haven't read before!" Ms. Payes's story bore out that challenge, and exceeded my expectations. She'd put her experience as a professional writer in the forty years between her Oz novels to good use in spiffing up Percy's own story. HIDDEN VALLEY has a rough charm; it's a bit stiff in its emulation of earlier books, yet also shows the strains of trying to be "modern" [the Oz Club's edition reveals how much of that pressure came from Reilly & Lee]. WICKED WITCH showed the polish of a confident author. I'm glad Ms. Payes took the chance to circle back to where she began. Robin Olderman, I hope you'll have fun putting OZIANA together. That's what it's all about, right? J. L. Bell wrote: <> Mr. Bell obviously made a mistake in typing "MIMICS" instead of "SHAGGY." Lowering the Cone of Silence to talk about Sir Hokus and YELLOW KNIGHT: ********** Spoiler *********** Spoiler ************ David Godwin suggested, <> Interesting idea. I think if Thompson had received complaints about Sir Hokus from her readers, she would have dropped him as a recurring character, as she dropped Pastoria and Grumpy and some others she'd brought to the Emerald City. That Sir Hokus shows up in most of her Emerald City scenes between ROYAL BOOK and YELLOW KNIGHT implies that her readers liked him--as does the fact that we all seem to feel removing him was a mistake. I think Thompson herself was quite fond of the old knight--so fond, in fact, that she wanted him to achieve that knightly goal of marrying a princess. And since, as Ruth Berman says, in Thompson's world <>, that meant changing him. Do her assurances that Prince Corum is "still the same old Hokus" indicate that she feared she'd made a mistake? Perhaps, but she continued to turn protagonists young, attractive, royal, and married afterward. I bet she genuinely thought the young prince could have the same winning personality as the old knight--not realizing that Sir Hokus's charm came from being an anachronism, a feisty and fusty grandfather, a man of ideals whose physical prowess barely equals those ideals. Ruth Berman wrote about how the Sir Hokus we see in Neill's books (and is mentioned in MERRY-GO-ROUND and elsewhere) might be Prince Corum simply referred to by his old name out of convenience. The problem with that attractive idea is his speech pattern. The few lines Corum says don't have the prominent bodkin's and fair maiden's that Sir Hokus voiced, and that "Hokus" resumes using in WONDER CITY. There seems to be a distinct personality change between Sir Hokus and Corum to go along with the physical change. However, just as the Glass Cat keeps its pride and Ruggedo his villainy and Jenny Jump her ambition, the personality we know as Sir Hokus may be so strong that it resurfaces in Prince Corum. I imagine him having grown a long moustache, blond instead of gray; perhaps he's even allowed himself to age a bit. I hear him dropping prithee's into his conversation again, and secretly half-wishing to get away from Marygolden and all their little princes and princesses for just one little dragon-slaying. Finally, my thanks to Ruth for her encouragement about the YELLOW KNIGHT essay I mentioned. I suspect the reason John Fricke never found a space for it is the same reason I haven't done anything with it myself: it was tied to a specific event--the appearance of the Del Rey edition. After two operating-system shifts, it may or may not be worth going back to that text when I can prattle on about much the same points here. **************** END SPOILER **************** Now some thoughts on MAGIC. Because I think this book is more successful than most of Baum's, I don't feel a need to tease out a theme to unite its parts. It's already quite unified. The book's first plot begins during a party: the Hyups' festival, where "The young folks danced and sang songs; the women spread the tables with good things to eat, and the men played on musical instruments and told fairy tales" [21]. Meanwhile, Dorothy and Trot are also preparing for a party, and their plans initiate the other two plots. Against those images of joyous communities Baum gives us portraits of two loners, "wanderers" [35] without community. Kiki Aru "sat sullenly outside the circle" [22], completely fourteen. Then our old antagonist Ruggedo reappears, sly and vengeful. "The wandering ex-King of the Nomes" [266] has immense wealth in his pockets, but wants more. Kiki has nearly unlimited power in the word *pyrzqxgl*, but "always wanted to be wicked" [33]. To achieve their goal they make themselves into Li-Mon-Eags, forcing themselves partway into four different animal communities and yet remaining outside them all. Baum makes clear that these two Li-Mon-Eags aren't even in league with each other--each is still a loner. Set against that plot, the stories of Trot and Dorothy are stories of communities rescuing those who go it alone. Both girls and their companions leave the Emerald City on secret missions--in MAGIC Ozma's birthday party gives Baum a plausible, if artificial, reason for not involving her and her power from the start. Away from their community, both girls both end up in dire trouble. But through their close companions and their links to home--the Glass Cat literally returns to the Emerald City in her search for the Wizard--Dorothy can save Trot before it's too late. The Glass Cat is a curious choice to tie these threads together. Baum tells us over and over that she's a loner and a wanderer, as much as Kiki and Ruggedo. But unlike those villains, the Glass Cat cares about her standing in society [62]. Her complete hard-heartedness is just for show [149]. Aloof as she is, the Glass Cat is a member of the palace community. In rereading MAGIC this time, I was struck by how many characters speak of or are said to have their "people": Loo the Unicorn [97], the Kalidah [110], Rango [188], the Wizard [192-3], Gugu [196]. Obviously, most of these peoples aren't people in the sense of humans, as Ruggedo uses the word on page 128. Rather, they're communities. Therefore, the term has especially strong meaning when Ozma says she will help Ruggedo become as good-hearted as "our own people" [266]. The villains have lost their original places in, or rather out of, society; as the Wizard says, "the boy can tell us nothing of his history and his family" [261]. But in Ozma's Emerald City, Kiki and Ruggedo will both be integrated into a community. [Readers of KABUMPO know how long that'll last!] The two encounters with the Lonesome Duck are the only major episodes which can be lifted out of MAGIC without affecting its plots. Yet, as Ruth Berman wrote, <> Furthermore, the duck is another loner who throws Oz's communities into stark relief. "Everyone I meet--bird, beast or person--is disagreeable to me," it says proudly. Trot suggests, "You can do things for others, and then you'd get lots of friends and stop being lonesome," but the duck replies, "Now you're getting disagreeable" [178-9]. "I like to be lonesome, so please don't offer to be friendly to me" [204]. Even in the vast community of Oz, there's a small castle for complete loners. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:09:42 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-98 RACHEL COSGROVE PAYES Like everyone else, I'm sure, I am saddened to hear of Rachel Cosgrove Payes' passing. I wrote to her for the first time only three months ago, inquiring about her experience with the Oz books and asking whether she would be gracious enough to sign my copy of _Hidden Valley_. Indeed she was, sending me a very nice and friendly reply apart from accommodating my request. Although she spoke of Reilly & Lee's (perhaps) misguided editing somewhat "grumpily," she came across as every bit the nice grandmother (which, in fact, she was). David Maxine is certainly right about her enthusiastic acceptance of the "Royal Historian" title--she signed my book "Royal Historian of Oz V." While I have been critical of certain aspects of her second Oz book, I nevertheless appreciate her groundbreaking status as an Oz author outside the prior closed system comprised of Reilly & Lee and the Baum family (Jack Snow, while initially an outsider, certainly tried to "get in good" with Maud Baum and the publisher). We have lost not only another contributor to the Famous Forty, but a prolific writer with a big personality. Atticus * * * "...[T]here is something else: the faith of those despised and endangered that they are not merely the sum of damages done to them." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:03:37 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz things Please excuse me for referring to Dave Hardenbrook by the name (David H.) usually used by David Hulan. Maybe we ought to use numbers... :-) Could the Lonesome Duck be some sort of remnant of the Lonesome Zoop of the LFB silent Oz films? Acutally, I doubt it. The two characters have entirely different personalities. The annoying zoop wants to be everybody's buddy (or possibly to frighten them; its motivations are never very clear), while the duck just wants to be left alone. Question: did the Lonesome Zoop have any origin external to the films or exist in any form outside them? Not in any Oz book, I think, but perhaps elsewhere? Actually,the zoop seems to have more in common with the animated phonograph in PGOz. Could it have been a deliberate substitution in the PG film? After all, it's a lot easier for an actor to dress up like a zoop than a phonograph. Re Dorothy's clothing styles, I have to say that JNR's flapper mode is just as discordant as the shorts, jeans, whatever. My problem is that Oz is a fairyland where no one gets involuntarily older or dies, and hence in some sense Oz exists in eternity and not in time. Such being the case, people living there would not alter their lifestyles to coincide with the outside world. If they altered them at all, it would be a case of "when in Oz," emulating the natives. A child of today going to Oz might very well, and appropriately, be wearing baggy pants, backwards baseball cap, nose ring, black nail polish, etc., but Dorothy would not, I think. I am not likely to write an Oz book any time soon, but I have had a number of "brilliant" ideas for titles/themes. Anyone is welcome to them: William Jennings Bryan in Oz Pat Robertson in Oz William Tecumseh Sherman in Oz (convinced that Munchkins are rebelling, he orders the only available army, Omby Amby, to tear up the yellow brick road. After struggling all day to dislodge one brick, the Soldier with the Green Whiskers sees a Munchkin, panics, and runs away. After a series of further misadventures, Sherman concludes that, indeed, war is hell.) Huey, Dewey, and Louie meet Pinny and Gig of Oz L. Frank Baum in Oz (an account of the early meetings between LFB and Dorothy whereby he found out about Oz and her adventures there; _this_ one might be a serious suggestion and for all I know may have been done) Can anything be done about the Spam-like items that seem to be creeping into the Digest? Do other people think they're informative and helpful, or does anyone else find them annoying? J. L. Bell wrote: > Yes, BoW may have missed an offensive word in MIMICS--though the >Washington football team continues to show that word as "acceptable" at >this time, rightly or wrongly. FWIW, the book was _Shaggy Man_ rather than _Mimics_. Anyway, in the Twin Cities, there have been several demonstrations against the use of the terms "Redskins" and "Braves" as team names. The Minneapolis Star Tribune is sufficiently sensitive to the issue that they refuse to print these names and simply refer to the teams as Washington, Atlanta, whatever. They've taken some flak for being overly PC for doing this, but I don't think they are. In my complaint about the disclaimer, by the way, I never meant to imply that the disclaimer was more offensive than the thing disclaimed or that no disclaimer should have been run. Beyond that, I think I'll just swallow my telling points and witty ripostes and self-justifications and drop the whole subject. I just want to talk about Oz. - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:14:59 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Accouting: The most recent Ozzy Digest is tagged Nov 17-19, while the one before that was tagged Nov 12-17. Since we got the previous on on the 17th, I'll assume that today's was actually the 18-19. John Bell: You, David Hulan and myself are indeed about as close as light as wave and light as particle. The key difference seems to be that either Oz is in a parallel Universe, or is on our world, but accessible only by magic. As David says, there is little real practical difference between these, except for the conditions of the outer atmosphere and beyond. If Oz was attached to Earth, then it would probably not have a different atmosphere and outer space, yet it seems to. The atmosphere of Oz has many items in it that could not appear in our own. Also, there is the question of the origin of Planetty and the Chocolate soldiers. Not much difference here, but enough to allow us to ramble on and pontificate :-). Rachel Cosgrove Payes: It is with deep sadness that I learn of the passing of another Oz historian. It's too bad she couldn't hang on until her book became the BCF. I enjoyed both of her Oz books, especially _Hidden Valley_. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 Nov 98 14:03:53 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things IF I ONLY HAD A DANCE NUMBER: Anyone besides me sorry that in "Wizard of Oz Remastered", the Scarecrow's dance remains deleted? I doesn't make sense to me -- Ray Bolger is the most famous dancer in the movie, but Jack Haley is the one gets an extended dance number. MORE ON THE KNIGHTS OF NONESTICA: Couldn't Thompson have found a nice, *elderly* princess for Sir Hokus? Ironic isn't it how the writer who vehemently ruled out Ozma ever marrying was so zealous about marrying off her *own* characters! Some Oz authors aren't as uncomfortable with romance among the elderly -- Melody Grandy has contemplated a romance between Zim and the very wrinkled Good Witch of the North! BTW, one thing that *did* really irritate me in Gardner's _Visitors From Oz_ was his similar unaging of the White Knight, apparently also for elegibility-for-marriage purposes... COMMENTS ON _MAGIC OF OZ_: If Kiki lost his memory via the H2O of Ob.,so that he "can tell us nothing of his history", then how was Baum able to write about the events involving him and Ruggedo at all? (This is an "Oz as History" question of course...) :) My dad regards _Magic_ as the darkest of all the Baum Oz books. IMHO that dubious title belongs to _Dorothy & Wiz_, but still I can see his point: No longer the funny, roly-poly, second-rate baddie, Ruggedo really is sinister in this book. And the idea of the beasts' rebellion is reminicent of _Animal Farm_... Ruggedo: No more Mr. Nice Guy! BOOK SUGGESTIONS: David G. wrote: >I am not likely to write an Oz book any time soon, but I have had a number >of "brilliant" ideas for titles/themes. Anyone is welcome to them: > Pat Robertson in Oz Tyler once suggested _Rush Limbaugh in Oz_...Either way, my response is "AAARRRRGH!" >Huey, Dewey, and Louie meet Pinny and Gig of Oz Also, in a Disney vein, I considered _Aladdin in Oz_, but I haven't come up with good plot yet, except a magical competition between Genie and Glinda, and Iago making wisecracks about the Ork's tail. Then there is my idea for _Practical Cats in Oz_, in which Macavity tries to conquer Oz, and Old Deuteronomy, Grizabella, Mr. Mistoffelees, and others of the Jellicle Tribe come to the rescue. I *do* mean to do _Rumpole in Oz_ and _Columbo in Oz_ if someone doesn't beat me to it...The one I *have* managed to pull off so far is _Red Dwarf in Oz_, in which a slob from Liverpool, a pompus hologram, a humanoid cat, a neurotic android, and a cottage-cheese-loving Ozma look-alike in a red PVC jumpsuit visit Oz... It is availble on my web page and elsewhere on the 'Net. -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 21 - 25, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:08:01 -0800 From: Bob Spark Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-98 Greetings, > I think Thompson herself was quite fond of the old > knight--so fond, in fact, that she wanted him to achieve > that knightly goal of marrying a princess. I have always had the same feeling. Personally, I am very fond of him and don't feel that his presence strikes a discordant note. If the Ozian panoply can encompass strange unfeathered birdlike creatures with fleshy propellers, live scarecrows, tin men and American children it can certainly accommodate Sir Hokus. > Can anything be done about the Spam-like items that seem to > be creeping into the Digest? Do other people think they're > informative and helpful, or does anyone else find them > annoying? I doubt censorship would be ethical or effective but I also am annoyed by such postings. Bob Spark ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 23:34:36 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-98 BRIEFLY: Some time ago I encountered a Neill-illustrated version of _Little Red Riding Hood_ on the Web. The text is there, but you must click on links to go to the pictures. Here's the main link, if anyone's interested: http://www-dept.usm.edu/~engdept/lrrh/lrrhr.htm Atticus * * * "...[T]here is something else: the faith of those despised and endangered that they are not merely the sum of damages done to them." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== From: Ozisus@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:37:31 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-98 Our dear Rachel.... Who will now remind us all -- at full volume and every opportunity -- that "Oz is for kids!!!" without this very fine lady to champion the cause? She will be missed. I had so hoped she'd be able to be honored at the Centennial Convention. I think she would have taken particular delight in the children's program as both a participant and observer. Jane Albright ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:20:58 -0800 From: plgnyc Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-98 I was so sorry to learn of the passing of Rachel Cosgrove Payes. She was a wonderful lady -- brimming with fire, energy, imagination, and wit. Every time we met or spoke by phone was memorable. I will miss her very much. Since I am posting, I suppose I should make some comment about this minor bruhaha concerning our disclaimer in a few of the RPT books we publish. To put it most simply, I will paraphrase the words a far wiser man said that express my feelings far better than I probably ever could: "You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." -- Abraham Lincoln Peter Glassman ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:30:14 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Miss Gulch of Oz Miss Gulch: This may be a solution to the "Miss Gulch problem": In the film, Aunt Em says, "What if she keeps him tied up? He's gentle - with gentle people." To which Gulch replies, "That's up to the sheriff to decide!" Well, we can probably assume that the sheriff is a reasonable, easy-going fellow undisposed to cooperate with Almira's anti-canine activism. After he appears on the scene, he just tells Dorothy to keep an eye on Toto and keep him off the Gulch property. Meanwhile he soothes Miss Gulch with lots of "now nows," "tut-tuts," and so on. Dorothy would not have known all this ahead of time, of course, but perhaps her relief at getting back to Kansas was such that she momentarily forget all about the Gulch/Toto business. Scalawagon Scandal: This parallel is a little disturbing: In 1938, Hitler ordered the manufacture of Volkswagens so that (he said) every German citizen could have an automobile. (It didn't work out.) In 1941, _Scalawagons_ was published. In that book, the Wizard's aim in building the scalawagons was that every citizen of Oz could have transportation. Yi! Reappearing Tunnel: I wonder if anyone has dealt with the contradiction in _Shaggy Man_ wherein SM & friends go under the desert by using the Nome King's tunnel from _Ozma_. LFB states very clearly in _Ozma_ that the tunnel is completely filled in, not just sealed off. - D. Godwin ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:25:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-98 Jeremy: The McGraws are still with us. Does anyone know what else Rachel has written? I've never found any. David G.: There is a _W.W. Denslow in Oz_, and I belive there is also _The Imperial Illustrator of Oz_ which does the same for John R. Neill. Dave: You'r lucky you haven't seen the ideal cast list for _Tip of Oz_! Scott ======================== Scott Andrew Hutchins http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! ------------------------------------------------------------ Frances: I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours. Freddy [the neighbor]: Mine was pretty boring, too. I've just got a knack for picking out the interesting bits. --David Williamson _Travelling North_ Act Two Scene Three ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:47:34 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: MAGIC OF OZ and attitudes David Godwin wrote: <> I can't help thinking the Zoop's reason for being was that the costume was in Fred Woodward's trunk. "I've got the donkey outfit I used in the TIK-TOK MAN OF OZ musical, and a lion, and a tiger, and you've built me a Woozy, but how can we use *this*?" Of course, that begs the question of why Woodward might have a Zoop costume originally. Since he did stage work before joining the Oz Film Company, the costume's original use may not have been preserved. Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> I think the filmmakers made the right choice in 1939. Both Bolger's and Haley's long dances showcased mechanical effects as much as or more than their natural skills. That's appropriate for the tin man, who *is* a mechanical effect. But the Scarecrow should move with a minimum of artifice and a maximum of Bolger's own skill, as in the shots that remain. Also, in terms of pacing, the longer Scarecrow dance would have done for WIZARD what Harpo Marx's musical solo does for DUCK SOUP. David Godwin wrote: <> My point was that if we're judging what's "acceptable" to a generation, we have to look at the preponderance of usage. America--most of its people, most of its media--now accepts such team names. In a few years we might well be embarrassed by them. [It's interesting, and encouraging, that most protests against Indian stereotypes I see are coming from the upper Plains states.] You wrote, <> I definitely don't fault you for bringing up these issues. They *are* part of talking about Oz. Societal changes since the early 20th century create a dilemma for Books of Wonder. Its solutions aren't always those I'd choose, but I prefer Peter Glassman addressing the problem to Dover ignoring it. Those changes also bring up some interesting questions for Oz itself. For instance, David, you wrote <> You were writing about clothes, but we could ask the same about people's attitudes and culture. Would the Wizard maintain Victorian values in the Emerald City? Would Betsy have racial attitudes typical of white girls from 1914? How much do Trot, Bucky, and Robin really have in common? I've played with such questions in my own Oz fiction--having Trot not understand a new boy when he says his parents are "separated," for instance. I like thinking that the Americans in the Emerald City would be enlightened by our standards--and perhaps even more. Most are kids, and therefore less wedded to their assumptions about life than us grown-ups. Furthermore, as you say, <>; in the Emerald City one can't help but accept differences. But terms like "redskins" might still trip Dorothy up, too. Tyler Jones wrote about his view of Oz versus David Hulan's: <> My point of difference with both these views is whether Oz and related regions are "accessible only by magic." However unlikely Baum's cyclone and earthquake and shipwrecks are, he gives readers no indication that they're unnatural. He thus hints that what happened to Dorothy *could* happen to another lucky little girl or boy. That distinction between natural phenomena and magical events may need clarifying since in Baum's cosmology they're a continuum. The key divider seems to be whether someone does something to bridge America and Oz, as Ozma does in ROAD and the mermaids do in SEA FAIRIES and probably SCARECROW. In contrast, Baum doesn't show anyone pulling magical strings for Dorothy in WIZARD and OZMA and DOROTHY & WIZARD. Yes, Mr. Tinker's trip to the Moon in OZMA doesn't match Neil Armstrong's--on the other hand, his firm's robot is far ahead of anything that's come out of NASA, so who's to say he couldn't also build such a ladder? Yes, there are islands and cloud-pushers and Orks and who knows what else in Baum's atmosphere. But if we really knew all about this Earth's atmosphere, there would be no debate about global warming. Turning to MAGIC, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> Ozma might have tracked him back by asking the Magic Picture, "Show me this mysterious boy's parents," interviewing them, and having Glinda review her Great Book's entries with 20-20 hindsight. But that probably still wouldn't uncover some events. Most notable among those is how Kiki left the *pyrzqxgl* instructions in a "tin box in a neglected corner part of the [Arus'] garden" [25]. Perhaps Bini or Mopsi stumbled across that box and recognized their son's handwriting on the paper inside. If not, having someone else find that box is a good opening for a story! More on MAGIC: The book was published in 1919 when America saw World War I as a noble triumph and, I believe, Frank Joslyn Baum was still in Europe. Yet it strikes me as showing a conflicted view of war. Neill draws soldiers from the Allied trenches [186-7], but Baum's description gives them "immense soldier caps...with red and yellow plumes" [189], the same old-fashioned uniforms of his earlier comic armies. Baum's dedication and author note speak admiringly of the Allied forces. But the image of war in his story seems more to reflect America's attitude toward the World War before 1917. War threatens the Emerald City only because Ruggedo convinces Gugu and his subjects that Oz's humans wish to enslave them. He even claims evidence of an arms race: he "saw them all begin making ropes--ropes long and short--with which to snare our friends the beasts" [126-7]. We Oz readers naturally root for Ozma's side in any conflict, but this book isn't showing the army that might oppose her as villains (as in EMERALD CITY). Rather, they're innocent dupes of a greedy war-monger. That depiction of the "enemy" is a strong contrast to the Beat-the-Hun propaganda that swamped America in 1917 and 1918. It seems more like the attitude behind America's earlier neutrality, Wilson's 1916 campaign, Henry Ford's peace mission, and so on. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 Nov 98 10:27:43 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: ozzy digest David Godwin: I shouldn't think it's likely that RPT's writing made many changes in response to critics. Book reviews of children's books were usually fairly short, and the few contemporary reviews of RPT's Oz books I've run across were basically favorable. And there wasn't much critical discussion of the Oz books (book reviews excepted) until after she'd stopped writing them. And I don't think Michael Moorcock would be likely to have borrowed the name "Corum" from RPT. It's an easy enough coinage, and few British fantasy writers seem to be familiar with American fantasy writers. David Maxine: That's sad to hear of the death of Rachel Cosgrove Payes. David Hulan: And there's also the possibility that Drs. Nikidick and Pipt were the same person with a full name of Nikidick Pipt. David Hardenbrook: The movie Dorothy's belief that she saw the Wicked Witch of the East in the storm should probably be taken as "real" (as real as the rest of her dream of visiting Oz, that is). It's not really an "assumption," since it's something she saw herself, although she makes an assumption in thinking that the Witch had a purpose ("thumbing for a hitch" -- or "trying to get a velocity boost or an exciting joy-ride from the cyclone's winds," as David Abbe puts it). Davids Teller & Bell: Your comment that "Sherlock Jr." probably inspired "Purple Rose of Cairo" sounds likely. David Olderman: If you're short on illustrations for "Oziana," how about using some by Denslow or Neill from their non-Oz books -- there might be a special interest in having some of the illos from "Dot and Tot" (the ones that would reproduce adequately in b&w), since an edition of the text is currently available from Books of Wonder, but doesn't have the Denslow illos. (Maybe in that line some Cory illos from "Yew," too)? David Berman ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:57:22 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls >in 1938 discrimination in schools, housing, lending, hiring, and most other areas of life was legal and normal across the country. Ding, Dong, it's Bell again. Were you even alive in 1938? I am really tired of this horse you keep riding. Where do you get this, some PC revision of history? There are young people on the Digest who may actually believe your "normal across the country" comment. Why don't you speak about the part of the country you REALLY know about. I could accept that. We went around about this before you got on the Digest and I hope we aren't going to do it again. I find this kind of thing just as objectionable as making political statements. Briefly, Bear ====================================================================== From: "W. H. Baldwin" Subject: Oz Digest Date: Sat, 21 Nov 98 22:08:49 PST Tyler (11/19), I think Tarara was the name of a plantation in _Gone With the Wind_. We wouldn't be able to find it in any case, because I think it went boom-de-ay. (Older Digest members can explain this reference after they finish groaning.) ====================================================================== From: Ozmama@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 23:34:44 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-98 Re MGM Movie: <<...the bit with the babies (?) waking up was eliminated entirely; >> Nope! I've seen the rerelease twice. The sleepyheads are in the flowers waking up, just as they've always been. Dunno about the rest, since I'm not an MGM Oz buff. Dave Hardenbrook (hereafter referred to as "Fearless Leader," FL, or Massa, since there are too many Davids to keep track of) : <> ...and Bert Lahr gets two numbers, not just one! Odd editing, ain't it? Rachel's demise: What a great gal she was. Full of humor and wit. I'm saddened by this news as, I'm sure, we all are. Thanks for notifying us, David (Maxine). And I love the "So long, kiddo" at the end of your report. She'd've loved it too, I think. Jerremy S.: <>Eloise Jarvis McGraw and her daughter are still alive. <> Not necessary to ask him! Juliet is clearly agonizing over the fact that Romeo's darned name is in the way of their love.The whole speech pretty much deals with that. What's in a name! Sir Hokus SPOILER: SPOILER: SPOILER: SPOILER: SPOILER Sir Hokus thread: RPT undoubtedly liked the old knight and was simply trying to be a good storyteller in filling in the blanks about his past. The story of _Yellow Knight_ is solidly written and is a good Oz book on its own. It'd be better loved if it didn't "off" Sir Hokus. I always regretted the loss of that character, although as an adult, I can admire the book on its own merit. Fearless Leader: I agree that DotWiz is the darkest of the Baum Oz books. Very little relief to its somber tone, and what there is, is sort of hammy stage-dialogue in its feel (dragonettes). But then, I may be prejudiced, since it's one of my least favorite books in the series. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 22:44:51 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz error David Godwin wrote: >I wonder if anyone has dealt with the contradiction in _Shaggy Man_ >wherein SM & friends go under the desert by using the Nome King's tunnel >from _Ozma_. LFB states very clearly in _Ozma_ that the tunnel is >completely filled in, not just sealed off. Careless me. That was ECoz, of course, not _Ozma_. - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 21:19:33 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Whitcomb" Subject: For Ozzy Digest Thanks to everyone who answered by questions re: Justin Schiller and lyrics to "ding-a-derry". Robin: I know you said you won't tell what is in your "Oz" collection, but please be sure to tell when/where you put it up for auction as I may be interested in bidding on something. I just can't imagine how you could part with it, though. I remember a few years ago hearing about Bronson Pinchot, the actor, selling all of his stuff and it just boggles my mind that folks can let it go. Maybe I'll feel differently someday???? Everyone: I want to "correct" some info that I posted previously about the Cowardly Lion costume being auctioned next month at Christie's. The info that I posted was incorrect PR that was disseminated last Friday per Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood, CA. Here is the "correct" info from a post on Elaine Willingham's Beyond the Rainbow message board from Stephen Sisters. FYI: I called for an auction catalog today (number follows the post) and they will be sent out priority mail and should arrive within 2-3 days. On December 12, 1998 at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood, an auction entitled "HOLLYWOOD: A COLLECTOR'S RANSOM 5" is being held. There is a catalog available for this auction with 15 pages devoted to Wizard of Oz memorabilia. One of the major highlights of the auction, and centerfold of the catalog, is Bert Lahr's Cowardly Lion costume estimated to go for $250,000.00+. This costume is the one purchased at the MGM auction in 1970, and comes with all the documentation from the original auction. Other Oz items include: --"The New Wizard of Oz" book (3rd printing) signed by all the primary actors from the film, including Toto's pawprints! There is also a full page inscription written by Judy Garland to Diane Catherine, who was the daughter of Judy's tutor at MGM. Estimated to sell for over $40,000. 2 original Oz scripts, estimated to sell for $8,000.00 - $15,000.00. --Munchkin contract signed by 24 little people dated Nov. 21, 1938 estimated to sell for $10,000.00 - $12,000.00. --Wicked Witch hat used in the melting scene estimated to sell for $25,000 - $35,000. --The Coroner's hat, an Emerald City citizen's jacket, Winkie spear, and Emerald City musket. --Numerous autographs of Oz principal actors. --Judy Garland dress from her 1963 TV show. The catalog for this auction is in full color, and costs $25.00. You can purchase a copy by calling 1-800-942-8856. Take care, Jim. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 06:21:07 -0500 From: Richard Randolph Subject: Ozzy Digest David Maxine: Welcome to the Digest. I, too, was saddened to hear of Rachel Cosgrove Payes' passing. I met her and her husband at a Munchkin Convention several years ago and found her a gracious, witty lady. She kindly signed my copies of Hidden Valley and Wicked Witch, and was quite interested in what I thought of her work. I spoke with her at subsequent conventions and never experienced the "grumpy demeanor" that some of you who knew her better or worked with her did. I shall remember her fondly. Dick ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 17:08:40 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-19-98 Wow, Digests on two consecutive days! When was the last time that happened? 11/19: Ruth: When he's on stage and has a few lines in _Wishing Horse_ the disenchanted Sir Hokus is referred to as the Yellow Knight, FWIW. Calling the plot of _Magic_ recycled from a combination of _Emerald City_ and _Road_ is something of a stretch, I think. It's true that it deals with an attempt by Ruggedo to conquer Oz and a birthday party for Ozma, but both are handled completely differently from the ones in the earlier books. Where Ruggedo's first attempt was highly likely to succeed and was foiled only by a huge coincidence (that his tunnel opened directly in front of the Fountain of Oblivion), this one had very little chance even if all had gone as well as he hoped. And whereas the birthday party in _Road_ was just a (very lengthy and rather boring) filler at the conclusion of the real goal of the book, which was getting Dorothy to the Emerald City so Ozma could send her home, in this one the search for presents motivates two of the three major subplots. I don't even remember any presents at the party in _Road_, and certainly Dorothy wasn't concerned with finding one. I like the Lonesome Duck, too; I've used him in a couple of short stories, though only in bit parts. David G.: As a work of art, you're probably right that the MGM movie is better than the book. However, it ain't Oz. J.L.: There are so many glaring discrepancies between the _Tik-Tok_ map and the texts of the books that I don't think it should be given much credence at all, especially for the area outside Oz. Certainly the placing of Hiland and Loland on the continent rather than on an island is unlikely to be correct. >BoW may even have missed a hateful >stereotype as villain in WISHING HORSE. BoW hasn't published an edition of _Wishing Horse_; you're probably thinking of the IWOC reprint. Both Thompson and Baum used stereotyped Arabs as villains in a good many stories - Baum notably in _John Dough_; Thompson in _Cowardly Lion_, _Hungry Tiger_, _Yellow Knight_, and _Wishing Horse_ at least, and probably _Captain Salt_ as well (the Ozamalanders seem to have some Arabic, some Indian, and some Chinese connections). Some people have wondered if Matiah might be intended to be Jewish, but certainly Neill draws him as Arabic, and I can think of no reason to think that he's anything else. I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but to me the extraordinary claim would be that a land like Oz could exist as part of our physical universe. That seems much more extraordinary to me than that there are vibrational planes, dimensions, or whatnot that are accessible from our universe (though not under ordinary circumstances) but not a part of it. I don't know that we actually differ that much on the point - light-as-wave and light-as-particle may be a good analogy. Your statement, "Children from America can reach it without explicit magical intervention. It's part of the same reality, and for a turn-of-the-century child that means part of the same planet." is fully consistent with my own belief, except for the last clause. I don't think turn-of-the-century children were that unimaginative. Whether you call it a dimensional shift, another vibrational plane, or whatever, it seems clear that the Ozian continent does not exist on our Earth in the same sense that, say, Australia does, because there's no way to reconcile the inconsistencies in how people from our Earth have reached Oz (or at least its continent) from such widely separated points on our Earth. But yet it _is_ accessible without specific magical intervention; we just don't know 'zackly how, as Dorothy might say. Tyler: >It seems a paradox: babies are born, people do not die (except by >accident), yet the population seems to remain constant. There don't seem to be _many_ babies born - Pajonia of Pumperdink is the only one we know of for sure since Ozma's accession (though Ojo is another possibility) - but as someone has recently remarked, we don't really see much of the ordinary Ozites in the books. Still, a major motivation for having children in our world has always been to be sure you have enough that some will survive to take care of you in your old age; when just about everyone survives and nobody grows old, it seems likely that the birth rate would drop rapidly. People in prosperous countries where most children survive to adulthood and the average lifespan is long typically have quite low birth rates; I would expect Oz to push that trend to the limit. David M.: (Another one of us!) I'm sorry to hear of Payes's death; I hadn't even known she was ill. I wasn't all that fond of her books (mostly because I didn't like Percy much), but she seemed a very nice lady from all I've heard of her. Dave: >FWIW, I have no problem with Dorothy, Trot, etc. in jeans and shorts -- >If Neill can show Dot as a flapper in the 20's for Lurline's sake... I don't recall Neill showing Dot as a flapper. Trot, yes, in _Giant Horse_, but not Dorothy. (There's an illustration in _Giant Horse_ captioned "Dorothy at home in Oz," but the character depicted is clearly Trot; somebody at R&L made a mistake.) >(BTW, David, if it's okay, I'll corporate your case for a somewhat >larger Oz in the next version of the FAQ...) Be my guest. 11/20: Jeremy: >Now that R.Coagrove-Payes has passed on, does that mean that all >the Famous Forty authors are no more? No, Eloise Jarvis McGraw is certainly still alive, and I believe her daughter Lauren Lynn McGraw is as well (and the latter will probably be the last to go, since EJM is in her eighties, I believe). >I know that "wherefore" means why, not "where"--couldn't this be a >deeper, philosophical question, as in, "Why are you Romeo [Montague] >as opposed to a Capulet"? Oh, it is. In the context of the whole speech (which also includes the famous line "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet") it's obvious that Juliet is asking exactly that question. It's just that it's so often taken out of context and inflected as if she were asking where Romeo had gotten himself to, as it is during "If I Only Had a Heart." J.L.: Interesting comments on _Magic_. You rate it higher than I do (I put it around the middle of Baum's oeuvre, about on a par with _Land_, _Scarecrow_, and _Glinda_, but not as good as _Wizard_, _Ozma_, _Patchwork Girl_, _Rinkitink_, or _Lost Princess_), but you're right that it's probably the most tightly-plotted Oz book Baum wrote. Dave: >Couldn't Thompson have found a nice, *elderly* princess for Sir Hokus? Whether you like it or not, the only elderly princesses we find in Thompson's Oz books aren't nice. There's Orange Blossom in _Royal Book_ and Faleero in _Kabumpo_ and _Purple Prince_; they're the only elderly princesses I can think of. >If Kiki lost his memory via the H2O of Ob.,so that he "can tell us nothing >of his history", then how was Baum able to write about the events involving >him and Ruggedo at all? (This is an "Oz as History" question of course...) :) Good question. I suppose the only answer is that we know Ruggedo did recover his memory eventually, and must have told someone what he and Kiki had done. And Kiki must have told him what happened to him before they met. (Not what the magic word was, of course, but the Wizard could have filled that in later.) That's about the only solution I can think of. Some comments on MAGIC: Kiki's journey at the beginning of the book gives us some of our best information about the countries surrounding Oz. His route, though, makes the location of Ev inconsistent with _Ozma_, which is one of the more difficult contradictions to resolve in Baum. Throwing out the _Tik-Tok_ map as non-authoritative, the other Baum books can be reconciled with _Ozma_'s evidence that Ev is across the desert from the Munchkin country by assuming that the Nomes have magic gates that let them transport themselves instantly from one part of their dominions to another. This would remove the problem that the tunnel in _Emerald City_ went under the Winkie Country. But Kiki flies east from the Munchkin country across the desert to Hiland, then north across Merryland to Ix, then west across Noland to Ev. This implies that Ev is west or northwest of Oz and opposite the Winkie and/or Gillikin countries. Ruggedo seems to have forgotten how he was deposed and exiled from his former kingdom. He blames it on Ozma and Dorothy when they had nothing to do with it. Ruggedo's plan to conquer Oz using an army of animals seems exceedingly unlikely to work. I can't believe that Gugu would have been gullible enough to take the word of a couple of Li-Mon-Eags and actually go to war with the humans of Oz without sending a few trusted scouts out to verify what they'd told him. I don't see this threat to Oz as serious at all. Trot and Cap'n Bill have a very strange reaction to some of the Wizard's proposed methods of rescuing them. Sure, cutting off their roots, or pulling them up bodily, would hurt, probably a lot. But when the alternative is total destruction, do you think you'd object to some pain? I'd beg the Wizard to try to think of something else, and not to be precipitate about it, but if it came to that I'd give up some fingers and toes - and much more gladly something as useless as roots - to avoid destruction, and I can't imagine that Trot and Cap'n Bill wouldn't feel the same. That's all that occurs to me at the moment, and I have work I need to get to, so I'll wait and see what other people have to say. David Hulan ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-98 Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 09:47:25 PST Jeremy: >Passing of an author: >Now that R.Coagrove-Payes has passed on, does that mean that all >the Famous Forty authors are no more? I believe that Eloise Jarvis and Lauren Lynn McGraw (the authors of _Merry Go Round_ and _Forbidden Fountain) are still alive. J. L. Bell: >I think if Thompson had received complaints about >Sir Hokus from her readers, she would have dropped him as a recurring >character, as she dropped Pastoria and Grumpy and some others she'd >brought >to the Emerald City. Did Thompson actually "drop" these characters, or could she just not think of anything else to do with them? She does mention Grumpy in _Wishing Horse_ and Pastoria in _Gnome King_, but neither of them really do anything significant after their introductions to the series. Dave Hardenbrook: >IF I ONLY HAD A DANCE NUMBER: >Anyone besides me sorry that in "Wizard of Oz Remastered", the >Scarecrow's >dance remains deleted? Was anything added to the film? If not, I would imagine that the people who released it (Warner Brothers?) wanted to keep it true to the original release. If some things were added, I have no idea why the Scarecrow's dance was not among them. >COMMENTS ON _MAGIC OF OZ_: >If Kiki lost his memory via the H2O of Ob.,so that he "can tell us >nothing >of his history", then how was Baum able to write about the events >involving >him and Ruggedo at all? (This is an "Oz as History" question of course...) :) In many Oz books, the authors relate information that could not have been received merely by communicating with someone in Oz, such as the thoughts and motivations of certain characters. In _Hungry Tiger_, for instance, the Tiger decides that he will never tell anyone his reason for going to Rash, yet Thompson includes this reason in her story. Either the Royal Historians do a lot of guessing, or they have some sort of insight into the characters' minds. -- May you live in interesting times, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:34:07 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Oz Triviata: Did anybody else notice that tonight on the X-Files, the navy captain was named "Yip Harburg"? Jeremy: Only the McGraw mother-daughter team remains with us among the FF authors. David Goodwin: I believe that L. Frank Baum actually being in Oz was a small plot-device in one of Laumer's books. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 23 Nov 98 10:34:51 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: ozzy digest J.L. Bell: Interesting comments on contrast of longers/communities in "Magic." Speaking of the Glass Cat's pride -- I've been getting this picture in mind of a meek Glass Cat with pebbled head going meekly to the Wizard shortly after "Patchwork Girl" and saying very meekly, "On second thought, I hate myself this way. I feel uncatlike and not myself, and dull pebbles don't show up the way pink brains do, so people keep tripping on me, and I'm afraid I'll get broken, and I promise that if you let me FEEL arrogant I won't act on it, at least not all the time." And possibly after she got her pink brains back, she started dropping lots of comments about the attractiveness of pinkness, and at that point Eureka went to Glinda and said, "You know, I enjoyed being pink when the light was pink, and Bungle's been one-upping me about being colorful, and I think Quadling rose is a particularly fine color, so would you please strike me pink?" David Godwin: Nice to have another Twin Citian (or Minnesotan) in the group. On clothing styles -- a child who goes wandering in Forests much will quickly discover reasons to prefer slacks to either shorts or gingham dresses, given a choice. And either shorts or slacks work a lot better than gingham dresses for running, jumping, and suchlike activities. Jeremy Steadman: The McGraws are still going strong. Have you read Eloise M's "The Moorchild," that came out a year or so ago? It's one of her best. Dave Hardenbrook: How the Royal Historian could have found out about Kiki Aru's past considering that the boy had lost his memory -- possibly Bini Aru decided that under the circumstances a little magic was called for, transformed himself into a bird to go looking for Kiki, and eventually found him and explained his past to Ozma. If he started out by crossing the Desert, he might have run into the birds who could tell him how Kiki got teamed up with Ruggedo. Alternatively, if Ozma felt curious enough to visit Ev to ask about who had last seen Ruggedo, she might in turn have traced Kiki back to Mt. Munch. (You'd think that she could have just asked the Magic Picture to show her the boy's home, but as that didn't occur to her in the first place, I suppose we're to assume that not having a memory of himself would make Kiki someone the picture's magic couldn't identify further.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== From: Ozisus@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:07:48 EST Subject: Fwd: WIZARD OF OZ online tribute special info for your audiences.... Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:59:02 -0500 From: STEIN ONLINE Subject: WIZARD OF OZ online tribute special Please forward this to your web users (scheduled guests are tentative): CompuServe Interactive Radio and broadcast.com present an exclusive "STEIN ONLINE" special: "AN ONLINE TRIBUTE TO THE WIZARD OF OZ" Saturday, December 12, 1998 1-3 pm ET at www.compuserve.com/cir or www.broadcast.com or www.steinonline.com It is the 60th anniversary of the making of the most beloved film of all time-"The Wizard of Oz." CompuServe Interactive Radio and broadcast.com present an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the making of the classic motion picture and the opportunity for kids everywhere to talk to the characters from the film at 1-888-TALK-101. Scheduled Guests on the LIVE AUDIO show will include: Jerry Maren who played the Lollipop Guild MUNCHKIN in the film; Howard Smit who was one of the film's makeup artist for the MUNCHKINS; Aljean Harmetz, the author of "THE MAKING OF THE WIZARD OF OZ"; Bill Stillman, author of "Official 50th Anniversary of THE WIZARD OF OZ" Scott Essman, the producer/creator of the "Live Tribute to OZ"- which included a re-creation of the film's major characters for the Hollywood premiere: Jeanne Castagnaro--DOROTHY in the Live Tribute to OZ; Ken DeShan--SCARECROW in the Live Tribute to OZ; Bob Stilwell--TIN MAN in the Live Tribute to OZ; Jess Harnell--COWARDLY LION in the Live Tribute to OZ; Denise Moses--WICKED WITCH in the Live Tribute to OZ; Bill Corso, Makeup dept head for the Live Tribute to OZ; Kenny Myers, Makeup for Scarecrow for the Live Tribute to OZ And kids can call in toll-free to talk to any of the characters (who do immaculate impersonations) at 1-888-TALK-101! And grown-ups can call in as well to ask questions about the making of the much-loved motion picture "The Wizard of Oz." An exclusive special presentation of "Stein Online" from CompuServe Interactive Radio and broadcast.com --- Any Questions, please contact Scott Essman: sessman@ibm.mtsac.edu --- Scott ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:51:54 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Whitcomb" Subject: For Ozzy Digest "The Wizard of Oz" : A Year in Review by Jim Whitcomb Dear "Oz" Fans: With the beginning of the Holiday Season just a couple days away, I wanted to, out of my own appreciation for all of the wonderful "Oz" happenings this past year, send you this "special" message .... Is it just my imagination or has "The Wizard of Oz" been popping up just about "everywhere" this past year??? >From tv sitcoms to specially designed merchandise ... from comic strips to marshmallows ... from "The X-Files" to an "official" website devoted to "The Wizard of Oz", and, of course, from the re-release of this beloved film in over 1,800 movie theatres nationwide to the advertising blitz at the Warner Bros. Studio Stores ... literally, an A-Z coverage of "Oz" has filled our lives this past year, but more importantly, perhaps, for us fans, "Oz" is still proliferating in our culture as one of the most popular American icons ever!! And, don't forget the special recognition and accolades awarded to this classic film in 1998. First, on June 16, 1998, The American Film Institute recognized "The Wizard of Oz" as the no.6 best film out of the greatest 100 films from the past 100 years! Then, in the August 8-14, 1998 edition of "TV Guide", this magical film was given the honor of being no.4 in TV Guide's "Nifty Fifty", The 50 Greatest Movies on TV and Video. But, my fondest memories of "Oz" from this past year are ones that tug at my own heart strings. I had the privilege of meeting Margaret Pellegrini and Ruth (Robinson) Duccini at the MGM Grand Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, NV, which had my knees shaking as though I were in front of the great "Oz" himself. Not that they scared me, but it was such an "honor" to meet them. And last, but certainly not least, on May 8, 1998, I, along with millions of other "Oz" fans, said goodbye to an annual tradition when we traveled for the last time down commercial television's "Yellow Brick Road" with CBS's final airing of "The Wizard of Oz". What will 1999 hold??? I can only imagine! August 15, 1999 marks the 60th anniversary of this film. And, if that weren't enough, the roots of "Oz" are being unearthed in order to pay tribute to its creator and historian, L.Frank Baum when his classic American fairytale, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" will celebrate it 100th anniversary in the year 2000! What a wonderful time to be an "Oz" fan!!! Take care everyone ... and have a wonderful Holiday!! Jim:) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 24 Nov 98 09:28:22 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: ozzy digest - tin woodman ps An article from the "Bugle" (Autumn 1996) that is a good one to read in connection with "Tin Woodman" (but I'd forgotten it was there until running across it again) is Martin Gardner's "Appreciation" of "TW." Incidentally, in that article he had already revealed that Til Loon was originally Sal (he had access to a copy of the ms. at the time through Warren Hollister, Fred Meyer tells me). Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:08:07 -0500 From: STARABILIAS [Digest Non-member] Subject: LOLLIPOP GUILD Cc: STARABIL@ix.netcom.com I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT THE NAMES OF THE THREE ACTORS IN THE SCENE, OF THE LOLLIPOP DANCE. I HOPE YOU CAN HELP ME , IT WOULD MEAN SO MUCH TO A FELLOW OZ FAN. THANK YOU SO MUCH. JASON. HAPPY THANKSGIVING.. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 25 Nov 98 11:21:25 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things TO POST OR NOT TO POST, THAT IS THE QUESTION: Bob S. wrote: > I doubt censorship would be ethical or effective but I also am >annoyed by such postings. This is my unending plight as Digest editor... Do I post, and be accused of posting irrelevancies, or do I not post, and be accused of censorship... Either way I don't win... ORKS OF A FEATHER: Bob S. wrote: > ...strange unfeathered birdlike creatures with fleshy propellers The Ork is unfeathered?? THE OZIAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT: David Godwin wrote: >This parallel is a little disturbing: In 1938, Hitler ordered the >manufacture of Volkswagens so that (he said) every German citizen could >have an automobile. (It didn't work out.) In 1941, _Scalawagons_ was >published. In that book, the Wizard's aim in building the scalawagons was >that every citizen of Oz could have transportation. Yi! Poor Oscar! Once again, he's being compared to "the leader of the runners-up in WWII"! What the Scalawagon incident reminds me of is Gingrich's suggesting supplying every kid with a laptop computer... On a related note: Are the Ozoplanes really grounded for good? No one else has written about them? TOO-LONG MOVIE SYNDROME AND HOW TO AVOID IT: J.L. Bell wrote: >... the longer Scarecrow dance would have done for WIZARD what >Harpo Marx's musical solo does for DUCK SOUP. Or what the Chimney sweep dance does for _Mary Poppins_ and what the Cyd Charisse dream sequence does for _Singin' in the Rain_? Okay, your point is well taken... :) OZ EX MACHINA AND WARS: J.L. Bell wrote: >Baum doesn't show anyone pulling magical strings for Dorothy in WIZARD... Well, I have my little theory that the Adepts were behind the _Wizard_ cyclone... >We Oz readers naturally root for Ozma's side in any conflict, but >this book isn't showing the army that might oppose her as villains >(as in EMERALD CITY). Rather, they're innocent dupes of a greedy war-monger. Baum may have still felt that way, even after we got into the war... I know that during the Gulf War I always reagarded the Iraqi people as the victims of a power-hungry con artist called Saddam Hussein. TO ROBIN O.: >Dave Hardenbrook (hereafter referred to as "Fearless Leader," >FL, or Massa, since there are too many Davids to keep track of)... I like "Fearless Leader"... :) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 26 - 30, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:47:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman" Subject: The Zoop of Oz Pardon my puzzlement, but just what is a zoop? (I've got to get around to seeing Baum's movies...) Aaron Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelmaas@musc.edu Pioneer Aviation http://www.musc.edu/~adelmaas/ ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:09:27 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-25-98 there is a new oz cd out its called the sepcial edition cd and is suppose to have a oz pop up in it ====================================================================== From: Sduffley@aol.com Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:11:22 EST Subject: Ozzy digest -- MAGIC J.L. Bell wrote: >>Ozma might have tracked him back by asking the Magic Picture, "Show me this mysterious boy's parents," interviewing them, and having Glinda review her Great Book's entries with 20-20 hindsight. But that probably still wouldn't uncover some events. Most notable among those is how Kiki left the *pyrzqxgl* instructions in a "tin box in a neglected corner part of the [Arus'] garden" [25]. Perhaps Bini or Mopsi stumbled across that box and recognized their son's handwriting on the paper inside. If not, having someone else find that box is a good opening for a story! We seem to be of like minds on this one, John. At risk of alienating/annoying those without access to back issues of "Oziana," I refer you to the 1986 number, which includes my story, "Much Ado About Kiki Aru." ... "Magic" was always my favorite Oz book, but it troubled me that we never heard anything more about the Hyup boy. Ruggedo reappears numerous times in Thompson's Oz books, and though I certainly wouldn't accord Kiki equal stature in the ranks of Oz villains, he always intrigued me. In essence, part of me identified with him: who wouldn't be bored spending their days in the claustrophobic, idyllic (read: boring!) community atop Mt. Munch? I see Kiki as a typical rebellious teenager, not inherently evil but easily gone astray out of frustration and/or a selfish desire to discover his "self", even if this comes at the expense of others. In my story, Mopsi and Bini Aru return from the Hyup festival to discover their son's absence. In searching the house, Bini stumbles upon the loosened floorboard -- remembering that he hid the instructions to the magic word there, he uses its power to set off to the Emerald City, intent upon using Ozma's magic picture to discover his son's whereabouts. (Nb: while Kiki may have buried a copy of the instructions in a tin box in the garden, he replaced the original in the floor of Bini's workshop (p. 24)). Meanwhile, in the Emerald City, Dorothy sympathizes with the generally unhappy Munchkin lad who has recently joined the palace community -- the boy is unhappy, as most amnesiacs are, to realize that he has no memory. Dorothy, too, decides to consult the magic picture to learn the boy's true identity. ... Ultimately, Kiki is reunited with his parents and sent back to Mt. Munch. For good measure, the story also addresses the origin of the word "Pyrzqxgl" and explains why, after "Magic," the word is never used again. My apologies to Digest readers for this tangent -- and shameless plug ... however, at least the story was published and, I believe, is still available from the Club (so please spare me complaints about references to obscure, inaccessible material!). Sean Duffley "I didn't know I was being wicked ... but if I was, I'm glad of it. I hate good people. I've always wanted to be wicked, but I didn't know how." -- Kiki Aru, The Magic of Oz. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:36:37 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: pre-thanksgiving Oz stuff. > From: "W. H. Baldwin" > > > Tyler (11/19), I think Tarara was the name of a plantation in _Gone With > the Wind_. We wouldn't be able to find it in any case, because I think it > went boom-de-ay. (Older Digest members can explain this reference after > they finish groaning.) > Nice pun, but unfortunately, the plantation was "Tara" Fearless Leader: > > > TOO-LONG MOVIE SYNDROME AND HOW TO AVOID IT: > J.L. Bell wrote: > >... the longer Scarecrow dance would have done for WIZARD what > >Harpo Marx's musical solo does for DUCK SOUP. > > Or what the Chimney sweep dance does for _Mary Poppins_ and what > the Cyd Charisse dream sequence does for _Singin' in the Rain_? > Okay, your point is well taken... :) > Gee, seems we covered the issue of dance sequences in musicals a couple of years ago, so I'll re-iterate that I don't mind so much those two that you cite, as much as the ballet sequence in "Oklahoma" as IDE's (Irrelevant Dancing Episodes) > OZ EX MACHINA AND WARS: > J.L. Bell wrote: > >Baum doesn't show anyone pulling magical strings for Dorothy in WIZARD... > > Well, I have my little theory that the Adepts were behind the > _Wizard_ cyclone... The Wiz (movie version) depicts Glinda as the driving force behind the cyclone. As far as "spam-like" postings, whose decrying seemed to coincide with Ruth's comment directly against my posting of the top 5 list, let me just say (in case the former comments were also directed towards me) in my defense, that the list was on-topic ("Top 5 Surprises in the re-released Wizard of Oz"), and the credits following it were merely in keeping the etiquette of giving credit where it is due. Sorry if I filled up your mailboxes :( --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:25:29 -0800 From: Peter Hanff Subject: Michael Judd, 1958-1998 Dear Dave, Sadly, I must report that Virginia Fowler and I attended the funeral mass for Michael Judd, a long-time Oz Club member who was active in the Winkie Conventions from the late 1970s into the early 1980s. Michael was a wonderful, enthusiastic follower of Oz, and although in recent years he was not actively involved in Club programs, continued to keep in touch with several of his Winkie Friends. The mass was conducted at his parish church, St. Michael's, in Livermore, California, where Michael was long active in the church choir. He taught music to younger members of the congregation, served from time to time as co-director of the choir, and was featured on two LP recordings of the church choir. Michael's beautiful tenor voice rang out from a recording in the latter part of the service, reminding us of his wonderful talent. He is survived by Larry Smith, his likfe partner of the past fifteen years, and by members of the extended Judd family, including two brothers and a sister. Those of us who were privileged to know Michael realize that he leaves a significant void in many lives. Peter Hanff ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 17:36:25 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: MAGIC OF OZ history Coupla digests ago I threw out the question of how Books of Wonder should have handled the villainous Arab in WISHING HORSE. I've been reminded that BoW has never issued an edition of this book; the Int'l Wizard of Oz Club did. Thanks to David Hulan and Peter Glassman; sorry to anyone else if my confusion was contagious. Thanks, Atticus, for the URL for Neill's RIDING HOOD illustrations. About Elmira Gulch, David Godwin wrote: <> But Miss Gulch owns half the county! Not all sheriffs were like Andy Taylor, alas. David Godwin wrote: <> Even more disturbing is the implication that today the Emerald City is gripped by scalawagon nostalgia, with citizens all rushing to buy modern scalawagons to show they're cooler than all the other folks buying such scalawagons. Dave Hardenbrook commented, <> What was the first time--his personality surgery on Jenny? If so, those events might reflect Neill's or the West's outlook around the time of the 1939 World's Fair: technology promising a quick fix for everything. David Hulan wrote: <> An extraordinary claim that certainly is, but it's the central claim made by Baum. If we look outside his books for additional proof that Oz exists, we indeed won't find it, but we'll also lack proof for his non-extraordinary claims, such as that a girl named Dorothy Gale lived in Kansas in the early 1900s. Instead of heading down that path, I start by taking what I see as Baum's fundamental assertions about Oz as givens. Not that that gets me any closer to the Emerald City! David Hulan wrote: <> There are elderly or at least middle-aged queens, such as Pozy Pink and Rosa Merry, who are probably contemporaries of these nasty princesses, and may have been princesses themselves once. That those pleasant women are now queens seems to underscore one of Thompson's implicit themes: Nice young adults get to marry, and often to marry royalty; nasty people may be born royal, but they go to bed alone. Nathan DeHoff wrote: <> Giving characters but little more to do is what I meant by "dropping." When something exciting happens in the Emerald City between ROYAL BOOK and YELLOW KNIGHT, Sir Hokus is almost always involved, his reactions a regular part of the community's. Other new characters Thompson brought to the palace seem to stick around for only a title or two. She was more successful at creating characters who lived elsewhere: Kabumpo, Jinnicky, Captain Salt. David Hulan wrote: <> Yes, the difference in how Baum uses Ozma's birthday shows up clearly when we view it in relation to Dorothy's autonomy. In ROAD, the birthday is why Ozma is guiding and looking after her friend. In MAGIC, it's the reason Dorothy and Trot are on their own and we *can't* expect Ozma to rescue them. Letting the girls act for themselves is both more pleasing and more tense. David Hulan wrote: <> I agree the plan is unlikely--Ruggedo may actually be thinking the beasts would cause enough chaos that he and Kiki could use the weapon of *pyrzqxgl* on their enemies without being detected. At the same time, Baum clearly sets up Gugu's subjects as volatile and violent. The beasts must be restrained "from fighting and tearing one another to pieces. . . . some of them have lost an eye or an ear or even had a leg torn off" [82-3]. The first time we see Gugu and his advisors, they're considering a case in which a boar for no clear reason bites off a giraffe's tail, the giraffe kicks a nursing mother, and the tussle quickly escalates into violence from two other animals as well [87-8]. So even if only some of these animals end up following the Li-Mon-Eags [130-1], they could easily disrupt Ozma's "Happy Corner" in the center of Oz [53]. Nifty suggestion, Ruth Berman, about the Glass Cat's personality restoration (and how Eureka got <> as well). If Eureka asked to be colorized first, no longer being the only unusual cat in the palace could have pricked the Glass Cat into asking for her brains back. Ruggedo also undergoes a restoration from being a humble subject of the new King Kaliko at the end of TIK-TOK. In MAGIC the former Nome King is again a wanderer on the Earth's surface, pockets filled with jewels [37], as Tititi-Hoochoo had demanded. That pattern makes me wonder whether reforming these prickly personae was Baum's idea in the first place. We know from the "Garden of Meats" episode that Reilly & Britton was concerned about not giving children nightmares. We know that many years later the publisher rewrote WONDER CITY to reform its main character. I therefore wonder whether Reilly & Britton suggested to Baum that the Glass Cat and Ruggedo needed to learn lessons, and perhaps that the Nome's exile was too harsh or scary for young readers. ["Mommy, the Nome King's wandering around up here, and now he's really mad!" "Calm down, dear. Let me tell you about vibrational planes."] When going back to those characters, Baum might have picked them up from where *he* had wanted to leave them. Some other observations on how Baum composed MAGIC: There's a curious transition right in the middle of the book. Up to page 188 Baum seems always to refer to the Glass Cat as "it." Starting on page 189, the cat is always "she." This seems like an odd place for Baum to have stopped writing for a while, however. Another interesting item is on page 250, where the word "Sorceror" appears in place of "Scarecrow." We've recently heard about how Baum prepared these late manuscripts: writing the first draft in hand, then typing them--or having them typed. This error seems the sort that a typist, not the author, would create. I recall that the author's note in TIN WOODMAN promised more about "The Magic of Oz." Because that phrase appears in quotation marks, I see it as a sign Baum had MAGIC lined up for publication. Finally, Baum's author note for MAGIC speaks of a "long and confining illness" having prevented him from replying to letters--"unless stamps were enclosed." I assume that last phrase was just a reminder to fans not to burden his wallet. The way it's inserted, however, it says Baum had been replying to letters with stamps all along, and that he would reply to all letters from then on. Sadly, he was quite near the end of his life. Dave Hardenbrook criticized: <> Surely you mean the sound-stagy "You Were Meant for Me" number with Kelly, Reynolds, and the wind machine! (That song was actually edited from some early video versions of the movie.) Richard Bauman wrote: <> As you've shown, Bear, simply having been alive in a particular year doesn't mean an individual need display any knowledge, recollection, or interest in bad things then happening to *other* people. If you want to refute my statement that "in 1938 discrimination in schools, housing, lending, hiring, and most other areas of life was legal and normal across the country," you're welcome to present evidence. Why don't you start by looking at something small--say, California real estate documents? That state's legislature didn't outlaw restrictive covenants until the early 1960s, and then a hard-fought popular referendum restored them for a couple of years until Congress passed fair housing laws. A Californian who bought his home before 1960 without promising not to sell to certain families can be justifiably proud of not participating in that form of discrimination. But he would still have to explain why most California voters chose to allow such bias before he could write off my statement as a "PC revision of history." J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:10:15 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz things Peter Glassman: Your comments on the disclaimer discussion were altogether Ozzy - reasonable, temperate, and wise. Your job cannot be an easy one. However, I would not characterize the posts as a "brouhaha." It was a reasoned, polite discussion punctuated by reasoned, polite rants. The unfortunate fact remains that racism runs like an unattractive thread through most of the FF, which are replete with stereotyped drawings of various non-Aryans, descriptions of worthless but fun-loving Tottenhots, gypsies as a criminal class, etc. ad infinitum. In fact, the notion of Oz as a set of numberless little communities, each with its own distinct and peculiar species that doesn't mix with outsiders, is in itself a racialist concept. Does that mean we have to throw out the whole lot as a specimen of rather unattractive attitudes of the past? Do we have to feel guilty about enjoying them? Or do the books just _maybe_ have redeeming qualities? Unfortunately, we not only have to practice suspension of disbelief, we have to use suspension of sensitivity as well. I suppose it's a lot easier for a WASP than it is for one of the people under the axe of caricature, but it's still a bit annoying. I don't for a minute suggest bowdlerizing or censoring the books, but it shouldn't be a mystery as to why the demographics of Oz fans is (evidently) predominantly Caucasian, as I assume it is. Oz may be diverse, but the ruling class in the EC (aside from animated constructs) is overwhelmingly lily white. I suppose all you can do is print the disclaimers and hope for the best. What a tragedy it would be to lose these books because they share the imperfections of most American literature of their time! Ruth Berman: Hello, fellow Minnesotan. I'm out here in the 'burbs - Lakeville, to be exact. Family Values: Another thing about some of the Oz books that bothers me somewhat is that all these numerous kids who end up there in one way or another have no difficulty at all in choosing to be with their loved ones back in the Outside World as opposed to staying in Oz and living forever. Death is a high asking price for anything, but I can certainly understand why many people would be willing to face old age, nursing homes, and the grave rather than be permanently separated from well-loved relatives. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to me that it could be an easy decision, easily tossed off with "That's where I belong." Maybe someone should look up Peter or somebody, if they're still alive, and ask how they feel about their decision now that the people they came back for are dead and gone and they themselves are facing the Reaper while Dorothy and friends are still children in Oz, as they _could_ be if they'd stayed. (In Peter's case, if he stayed in character through adulthood and senility, he'd probably say, "I couldn't let down the team!") Of course, I realize that the books are (or were) primarily for kids, so it would be inappropriate to include a lot of agonizing soul searching or set scenes in Alzheimer's wards. Fearless Leader: Your job is likewise not an easy one. As monitor of this group and dispatcher of the Digest, censorship is both your right and your duty. If someone tried to post his latest porno novel or an endless series of ads for computer supplies or a 70,000-word dissertation comparing his mother-in-law to Mombi, I think you would privately and politely suggest that the material was not appropriate for this forum. Censorship is not necessarily a bad thing. As for spam-like postings, it's rather more difficult to draw the line, and I'm sure my standards would differ from anyone else's. In general, I'd say that it's okay to _mention_ a product or service that's Oz-related that people might be interested in, but stay away from the bells and whistles, the rows of asterisks, the look and feel of a commercial ad. A fine line, to be sure. But excuse me for telling you how to run your shop. Oz Here Now: On a more positive note, I've been brewing MOPPeT about the location of Oz, and so far it's very full of holes. But the objectionable thing about the movie(s) - that is, that most of the characters from Oz are real people back in the real world, thus implying that Oz is merely a dream - would be resolved by this particular theory. My idea (and I can hardly imagine that it is original) is that we are all already living in Oz all the time. It isn't a matter of changing locations or hopping dimensions, it's just a matter of seeing through a glass, darkly, as opposed to stepping outside Plato's cave, cleansing the doors of perception, and seeing everything as it is - Oz. After all, reality is merely a set of shared assumptions. This change in perception can be brought about by close encounters with death (cyclones, shipwrecks, etc.) or by an alteration in consciousnesss brought about my magic or other means. Children are more open to perceptions outside the norm and hence find it much easier than adults to make the transition. In the movie version, Hunk is just a false persona who seems to exist in the illusory perception of reality called "Kansas." His true identity is the Scarecrow. In the books, the same theory still holds, but individuals are not recognizable from one mode of perception to the other, or may be invisible in one mode or the other. - Well, it's an interesting idea. - Minnesota Dave ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 17:47:03 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-25-98 David G.: >Reappearing Tunnel: >I wonder if anyone has dealt with the contradiction in _Shaggy Man_ wherein >SM & friends go under the desert by using the Nome King's tunnel from >_Ozma_. LFB states very clearly in _Ozma_ that the tunnel is completely >filled in, not just sealed off. Yes, we had quite an extensive discussion of this a couple of years ago. The theory I liked best - I forget who proposed it - was that while Baum said the tunnel was completely filled in, he didn't say what it was filled with. Therefore maybe it was filled with rutabagas or something of the sort that, over the 40-odd years between EC and SM, had been eaten by the local rodents, so that by the time of the latter book it was empty again. Another plausible alternative was that Baum just misunderstood, and that Ozma had only blocked off the ends of the tunnel. J.L.: >America--most of its people, >most of its media--now accepts such team names. In a few years we might >well be embarrassed by them. I don't think so. I think this is already "in a few years," for most people and most media. If you'd been writing ten years ago I think you'd be right, but I think the momentum has already become irresistible away from those team names, though it will take another decade or so before they've disappeared completely. Stanford changed their team name from "Indians" to "Cardinal" several years ago. The local high school (Naperville Central) changed their name from "Redskins" to "Redhawks." I've read of quite a number of other similar instances in the last few years, although other specific ones escape me. It'll be longest, I suspect, for the oldest-established teams with the largest fan bases, where inertia is greatest - the Braves and Indians of baseball, the Redskins of pro football, the Illini and Seminoles of college football, etc. - but I'd be fairly surprised if they haven't been changed by 2010. >My point of difference with both these views is whether Oz and related >regions are "accessible only by magic." "Accessible only by magic" was Tyler's phrase, not mine. A better way of phrasing it is "accessible only by magic, or by some unlikely event over which the traveler has no control." That is, there is not, and never has been, a way in which one can plan a non-magical trip to Oz. Granting that, the question of whether it's physically on this Earth or in another dimension or vibrational plane is making a distinction that doesn't really matter. > Yes, Mr. Tinker's trip to the Moon in OZMA doesn't match Neil >Armstrong's--on the other hand, his firm's robot is far ahead of anything >that's come out of NASA, so who's to say he couldn't also build such a >ladder? Perhaps he could - but I would consider such a ladder much more of an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof, than the existence of an Earth on another vibrational plane where the moon is within the atmosphere and relatively close. >More on MAGIC: The book was published in 1919 when America saw World War I >as a noble triumph and, I believe, Frank Joslyn Baum was still in Europe. >Yet it strikes me as showing a conflicted view of war. True, but it's also known that Baum wrote the basic story much earlier - in 1915, I believe - and only did minor revisions to it before publication. I don't remember the exact sequence of events, but I know that _Magic_ and _Glinda_ were written before _Lost Princess_, and I think maybe before _Rinkitink_, and stored in a safe deposit box to be available in case he died soon. In the event he lived long enough to revise them somewhat - for instance, adding the Frogman and Tin Soldier to the guests at Ozma's birthday party in _Magic_, and the former to Ozma's councillors in _Glinda_ - but it's most likely that the attitude toward war in _Magic_ was that of the average American in 1915 rather than in 1918 or 1919, after America had been drawn into The Great War anyhow. Ruth: >David Hulan: And there's also the possibility that Drs. Nikidick and Pipt >were the same person with a full name of Nikidick Pipt. Of course it's possible. It's just that it's not well established how many magicians were associated with the Powder of Life. I recently read McGraw's _The Moorchild_ and agree with you that it's excellent. I haven't read enough of her other books to say whether or not I consider it one of her best; all those I've read (_Pharaoh_, _Mara, Daughter of the Nile_, and _The Golden Goblet_ are the others, along with her Oz books) have also been excellent, but different enough (and read long enough ago) to make drawing comparisons difficult. Robin: I think _Yellow Knight_ is one of Thompson's better books, too. I think my favorite of hers up through the time it was written, though I rate the later _Ojo_, _Speedy_, _Wishing Horse_, and _Silver Princess_ higher. And I agree that _DotWiz_ is Baum's darkest book. Even when the travelers get to Oz there isn't much lightening of things, what with Jim's conflict with the Sawhorse and Eureka's trial. I still like it better than _Road_, which I find just boring with the exception of the artwork (which Baum had nothing to do with), but not much better. Me: Straying from the Ozzy track a tad, but the "Wherefore art thou, Romeo?" misreading of the line from _Romeo and Juliet_ isn't the only case where a Shakespeare line is commonly misused by being taken out of context. I just ran across another one in the paper this morning: "Now is the winter of our discontent." That wasn't a sentence in _Richard III_; it was a line that continues "made glorious summer by this sun of York." Richard wasn't saying that they were currently living in the winter of their discontent; he was saying that now at last the winter of their discontent was over. And "more honoured in the breach than the observance" is almost always quoted to mean that the rule is more often broken than observed, when in context in _Hamlet_ it means that it's more honorable to break it than to observe it. Sorry, just a little riff on something that often bugs me. At least it's not politics. And now, back to Oz... Dave: >This is my unending plight as Digest editor... Do I post, and be accused >of posting irrelevancies, or do I not post, and be accused of censorship... >Either way I don't win... I think that most, if not all, readers of the Digest would prefer that you post what you're sent, and that the senders be held responsible for having sent non-Ozzy material to the Digest. Of course, if it's something that's obvious spam then you needn't include it, but I don't remember seeing anything like that. Some longish irrelevancies, yes, but most if not all posted by regular Digest contributors with the idea that they might be of interest to other Digest folk. >The Ork is unfeathered?? It has a plume of feathers on its head, but is otherwise featherless. >Are the Ozoplanes really grounded for good? No one >else has written about them? Neill wrote about them - one of them, anyhow - in _Wonder City_, but as far as I recall that was the last mention of them. I know than none of the post-Neill Royal Historians mentioned them, but then they only wrote four books among them and Ozoplanes would have been irrelevant in any of the four. David Hulan ====================================================================== From: jlittle@postnet.com (Digest non-member) X-Lotus-FromDomain: PTZ Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:05:18 -0600 Hi there. Can you tell me if the release of the Wizard of Oz now at movie theaters will last through Christmas? I live in St. Louis. Thanks. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 23:59:47 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz David Godwin: Oh, yes. The Nome King's Tunnel has cropped up a couple of times. I'll give some background first before I give spoilers. In _Emerald City_, the actual quote is "Ozma used the Magic Belt to close up the tunnel, so that the earth underneath the desert sands became as solid as it was before the Nomes began to dig." That's not just an implication: Baum states loud and clear that the tunnel was sealed up. Yet... ********** SPOILERS FOR SHAGGY MAN AND THE RED JINN OF OZ ********** In _Shaggy Man_ and the non-FF _Red Jinn_, the tunnel still exists, since it was supposedly only filled in at the ends. Shaggy uses it to return to Oz, while Dorothy and the Cowardly Lion use it in _Red Jinn_ to sneak out of Oz. ********** END OF SPOILERS ********** This has been discussed before, but I've forgotten when. There are a couple of ways that we can sneak around Baum's statement. In previous discussions of the Magic Belt, it has been theorized that the Belt was not always as powerful as it is in modern times. Ozma had just transported the Whimsies, Growleywogs and Phanfasms. One idea is to assume that Ozma told people she filled the entire tunnel but in reality only filled the ends. The second is that the Belt tried to comply with Ozma's wish, but just didn't have enough juice. Maybe it filled it with dust or some other substance that just wore away, except for the ends. The second seems more likely, unless we assume that Ozma knew of the Belts's limitations, and bluffed about the filling-up. Dave Hardenbrook: I'll refrain from titles like "Fearless Leader", since I enjoy the use of full names :-) But that is right, Dave. There is nary a feather on the Ork's skinny hide, and he is quite proud of it. :-) Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:02:28 -0800 From: Steve Teller To: "Dave L. Hardenbrook" Subject: Ozzy stuff > From: sahutchi@iupui.edu > Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 15:25:09 -0500 (EST) > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-20-98 > > Jeremy: The McGraws are still with us. Does anyone know what else Rachel > has written? I've never found any. > Rachel wrote a number of science fiction books, some under the pseudonym E.L. Arch. One of them was THE MAN WITH THREE EYES, which was included in the Science Fiction Gold Collection Vol. 2, (a CD-Rom) nrrated by Leonard Nimoy. HIDDEN VALLEY was her first book. Steve T. ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:16:48 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: sahutchi@iupui.edu To: "Dave L. Hardenbrook" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-25-98 On Tin Woodman: The Hip-o-gy-raf makes a surprise appearance in the "Yellow Submarine Sandwich" sequence of _All You Need Is Cash_ On Magic: I've read that Jeffrey Goines's concept of the Army of the 12 Monkeys_ (in Terry Gilliam's _Twelve Monkeys_) was derived from a sequence in this book. I haven't read it lately, but I think it is referring to a passage when six monkeys become human soldiers. Refresh me on the detials if I'm mistaken. Tyler: That was the Oz/Rope episode of _The X-Files_, which I forgot to tape! Did anyone get a copy of this? Scott ============================================================================ ==== Scott Andrew Hutchins http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Frances: I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours. Freddy [the neighbor]: Mine was pretty boring, too. I've just got a knack for picking out the interesting bits. --David Williamson _Travelling North_ Act Two Scene Three ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 12:07:24 CST From: "Ruth Berman" X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_16 Reply-To: Ruth A Berman X-POPMail-Charset: English To: daveh47@mindspring.com Subject: ozzy digest David Godwin: Possibly an earthquake or wind-driven pressure on the sands above led to a shifting and settling of the Deadly Desert in the area of the tunnel and opened it up along the line of previous disturbance. J.L. Bell: Fred Woodward must have had quite a lot of animal costumes in his trunk. As a stage actor he'd specialized in animals. I think the main part of the Zoop costume would have been an ape costume. Robin Olderman: Your mention of Bert Lahr's singing reminds me to point out that an issue of the "New Yorker" earlier this month featured a nice essay on him by his son, their theater critic John Lahr, and also a cover cartoon of the Tin Woodman getting scanned by a worried airline employee after he gets stopped by the standard metal detector. David Hulan: You're right that it would be odd to accept destruction as preferable to the pain of getting pulled up by the roots, but probably it's meant to be assumed that Trot and Cap'n Bill are thinking in terms of "Surely you can find a less painful treatment?" Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Nov 98 21:15:39 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things FROM YOUR "FEARLESS LEADER": Thanks to all for the words of support! J.L. BELL'S COMMENTS: >Coupla digests ago I threw out the question of how Books of Wonder should >have handled the villainous Arab in WISHING HORSE. I've been reminded that >BoW has never issued an edition of this book; the Int'l Wizard of Oz Club >did. Come to think of it, why *doesn't* BoW do an edition of _Wishing Horse_? It's PD... >About Elmira Gulch, David Godwin wrote: ><fellow undisposed to cooperate with Almira's anti-canine activism.>> > >But Miss Gulch owns half the county! Not all sheriffs were like Andy >Taylor, alas. We must remember that it was the Sheriff who authorized Gulch to take Toto in the first place... >Dave Hardenbrook commented, <compared to "the leader of the runners-up in WWII"!>> What was the first >time--his personality surgery on Jenny? I was thinking of Maguire's _Wicked_, in which the Wizard is eligible to be a centerfold in _Fascist Dictator Monthly_... >Dave Hardenbrook criticized: ><> > >Surely you mean the sound-stagy "You Were Meant for Me" number with Kelly, >Reynolds, and the wind machine! (That song was actually edited from some >early video versions of the movie.) No, surely I mean the "Broadway Melody" number in which he dances with Cyd twice, once when she is a flapper in green with all the sweet wholesomeness of Coo-ee-oh, and the other when she's in that white gown with the train long enough to bandage Mr. Yoop's arm. THE NOME KING'S TUNNEL: Maybe Ozma meant to fill the tunnel with coal (Carbon-12), but the weakened Magic Belt failed her and filled it instead with Beryllium-8 with a half-life of one quadrillionth of a second, after which it decays into Helium-4...(Any evidence that the Shaggy Man's and his companions' voices got high and Munchkin-like within the tunnel??) THE JELLICLE MOON(S) IS SHINING BRIGHT...: David Hulan wrote: >Perhaps he could - but I would consider such a ladder much more of an >extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof, than the existence of >an Earth on another vibrational plane where the moon is within the >atmosphere and relatively close. My theory has Oz's parallel-Earth having *three* moons -- Luna (same as our Earth), Planetty's world, and the moon Mr. Tinker visited. KROFFT-ITES IN OZ: Add one more to my list of prospective Oz crossovers...As I find myself developing "70's kids TV" nostalgia as a result of reading the new book, _Sesame Street Unpaved_, I find I'm thinking a lot of those old Sid and Marty Krofft shows... I don't know if there are any other Krofft fans on the Digest, but here are my list of possible results of an Ozite-Krofftite encounter: -- Quox and Pufnstuf reminice about their days at Draco High. -- Ruggedo and HooDoo team up to try to conquer Oz. -- King Anko takes Sigmund under his flippers. -- Wonderbug falls in love with a Scalawagon. -- Tik-Tok engages in "Dynamic Data Exchange" with Fi and Fum. -- I.Q., Harmony, and Courage feel much affinity with the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion; and meanwhile Joy and Jellia discover that they are long-lost twin-sisters. -- Glinda helps Enik return to his own era, not with metal pylons or strange crystals, but merely a pair of oddly-colored slippers. -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin