] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 1, 1999 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:42:21 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Munchkinland mysteries Tyler Jones wrote: <> I agree. Jill Moore, I appreciate your passion about defraying Dave Hardenbrook's costs of running this digest. Nonetheless, please don't assume that everyone feels comfortable making a public announcement of donations. Gehan Cooray wrote: <> Baum actually wrote in PATCHWORK GIRL that Unc Nunkie "might have been king of the Munchkins, had not" the people preferred unifying under Ozma. That's not the same as saying Unc Nunkie *would* have become king. And again, Gehan, you're basing your analysis on some assumptions that may not be reliable. Consider these possibilities: * There may have been many claimants to the Munchkin title, as there were three claimants to the throne of Jinxland in SCARECROW; even at the end of that book, Pon "might have been king" because he still had loyalists. Unc Nunkie may have been only one of several candidates the Munchkins would have considered. (As books like WIZARD, GLINDA, JOHN DOUGH, and SKY ISLAND show, Baum liked the idea of nations choosing who would rule them. It was Thompson who put much more value on inherited authority.) * Though Thompson says in GIANT HORSE that Cheeriobed's father was King of the Munchkins, that doesn't necessarily mean Cheeriobed was going to inherit the title. He could have been a younger son. The title may have been conferred by Electors, as Holy Roman Emperor was in the late Middle Ages. Ozma chooses Cheeriobed to become King of the Munchkins somewhat by default; at the same time she chooses Joe King to be her vassal in Gillikinland with no hint that he has a family claim to that territory. * The title "King of the Munchkins" may not have brought authority over all of the territory we now consider Munchkinland, just as the King of France has at times ruled less than half of modern France and the American President has authority in only a portion of the Americas. There may even have been several "Kings of the Munchkins" by mutual consent, as there were different Khans after Genghis. As I recall, Ruth Berman has proffered a theory of how Cheeriobed was the King of the Munchkins mentioned in OZMA and ROAD. I see those brief, bare references as mistakes on Baum's part because I see so little indication elsewhere that there was a Munchkin ruler in that period. While Baum's Winkies often speak of their tin emperor, his Munchkins don't evince any sort of fondness for their king, or regret at having lost him. I suspect that Munchkinland was not a strongly united kingdom just before the Wicked Witch of the East's rule, but a flurry of regional powers in a loose alliance: Seebania, Sapphire City, Halidom & Troth, possibly Keretaria. Powerful magicians tried to take over several of those kingdoms, indicating they were more important than the average corner of Oz; yet none was so preeminent as to overshadow the others and attract notice during Ozma's early decades. David Hulan wrote about LAND: <> Or THERMIDOR IN OZ. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:49:06 -0500 From: Jill Moore To: DaveH47@mindspring.com Subject: Response to Mr. Bob Spark re:  Comment from Bob Spark
    "Do you mean to tell us that, after your initial tirade you hadn't sent in your contribution until now?  At any rate, I've had about enough of your lecturing for now.  Fact is, I sent in a donation right after your first note which, as a reminder I felt quite appropriate, but enough of your sanctimonious diatribes!"
In answer to the above comment, your pomposity far exceeds your arrogance and obvious ignorance.  Was there a particular reason you felt guilty when you read my posting?  Since it was intended toward those who had not made a contribution, and I had specifically stated that there were several who had responded (which would have included you), I do not understand why you took it so personally.  But I am glad you did because maybe that means someone is listening and will help Dave out.  Over all your comments were totally uncalled for since I am not asking for these monies for me, or not even for Dave, but for this group as a whole so that the digest can continue being provided to the users.  And as to your comment about my donation, I have been unemployed since March with no income since June, yet I made a $20 donation!  For you who have money, and a job, how generous have you been?  Have you even cared?  So, Mr. Bob, you might want to think about that next time you climb on your high-horse and start spouting off and criticizing others.  Be sure you look in the mirror first, for people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.  Furthermore, if you truly believe in the lessons Oz has taught us, than you should know that the basic lesson is about friends helping friends, and I surely didn't see you trying to help Dave with this problem!

I personally want to thank everyone who did read my letters and who understood Dave's plight and made a contribution to help him keep this Digest up-and-running for all of us to enjoy!  You all deserve a big pat on the back!!

Dave had the following to say:  "I would have liked it, however, if this could have been a totally friendly group effort without accusations that certain Digest members are "sanctimonious".  Can't we all just get along?  Ozma would want it that way."

Hear! Hear!!  I totally agree!  I did not have to hear that first plea, which was ignored by the people in this group, nor did I have to react to that plea and write a letter to the group.  I chose to do so because this Digest is an important part of all our lives, and Dave can't be expected to shoulder all the expense of making this available to us, the users.  Nor did I have to follow-up with a second letter, but since there had been no response to the first, again I felt compelled to try to help Dave out.  If you, or anyone else was offended by this, then you certainly have the right to page down and skip that message entirely.  You do not have the right, however, to put down others for trying to help, for caring enough to help.  Were you going to do it Mr. Bob?  Were you going to start things rolling and take the initiative to keep this digest running?  Some people just need to be hit on the head with a load of bricks before they realize what their responsibilities are, and to learn that you don't get everything in life for free.  Sometimes you have to actually be responsible for supporting that which you take for granted.  And on that note, I will not be bothering you again, and will not be sending any letters to the digest and offending you by my efforts to help out someone in need. ~~~ Jill Return-Path: Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 07:11:14 +0100 From: "W.R. Wright" To: DaveH47@mindspring.com Subject: question Does anyone know if there is an Oz movie out there anywhere that has a scene of a Witch riding on an elephant?? Bill in Ozlo ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:54:29 +1100 To: OzDigest@mindspring.com From: Gehan Cooray Subject: The Tinwoodman of Oz Don't you think -Tinwoodman of Oz- should be considered "un-official". It is full of un-fit statements and mistakes. Somebody pointed out most of them a few months ago. For ex: *. Nimmie Amee has lived the WWE when -Wizard- states that she lived with an old woman. */How can a superlatively evil witch live in a hut? She should live in a castle, for the GWN says that she held the Munchkins in bondage. She won't have just one servant. *.If Nick Chopper's head is still alive, then the Tinwoodman can't be Nick Chopper. And who exactly is Chopfyte, if he is mixture of two people? That part doesn't make scense in the least. There are tons of un-fit statements in the book. I don't think it should be considered official. BTW........ *. Why don't we first discuss Jack Snow's books, as they are closer to the Baum ones. We can then turn to the Thompson books and the Neill books. What do you say Dave? --Gehan Cooray ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 25 Jan 99 15:40:53 CST From: "Ruth Berman" X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_16 Reply-To: Ruth A Berman X-POPMail-Charset: English To: ozdigest@mindspring.com Subject: Ozzings Robin Olderman: Probably most of us feel old some days and young or middling some days? David Hulan: A character description rather than a character name, but "Patchwork Girl" is another one where the title character was a newcomer to Oz readers. // I like the possibility of magic paint. I have sometimes thought there might be other sentient scarecrows in Oz fields, but they enjoyed watching the fields grow and didn't have the curiosity impelling THE Scarecrow to make them want to get down and look for more. Then, too, the farmer who made the Scarecrow might himself have had some quiet magical abilities, and might have gifted his scarecrow with sentience (on purpose or accidentally). // Baum's American magic workers -- and he had a fairy exiled in San Diego in a short story for a Coronado publication (reprinted in the "Bugle" some time back). Gehan Cooray: Why Unk Nunkie's connection to the Munchkin Kings should turn out to be the rulers of Seebania rather than the rulers of the Ozure Isles -- it's quite possible that both a northern Munchkin line of rulers and a southern Muchkin line of rulers had claims (in competition or at different times) to being the THE Munchkin rulers. How Cheeriobed (or his un-named father) could be the King of the Munchkins who takes a tiny part in events in "Ozma" and "Road" if they were then shut up on the Ozure Isles by Quiberon and thus unknown to Oz society -- presumably they were not entirely shut up on the Isles yet. I wrote an article on this subject, "The Elusive Rulers of Oz," and distributed it through the Digest about a year ago, so don't want to repeat it here now. But I am sending you a copy of it individually. (And if other Digest members who have come into the group since then would like a copy, let me know, and I can email it to you, too.) Cohaja: I don't know of websources, but a simple way to get Oz coloring pages for your daughter is just to take some Oz books (your own or a library's) to a photocopier and copy any illos you like. The International Wizard of Oz Club at various times has published Neill's "Oz Toy Book" and two collections of Dick Martin's b&w Oz drawings -- check with them (iwoc@ncosoft.com) as to availability. Tigerbooks@aol.com published a collection of Eric Shanower's drawings of Oz characters, I think. And check with Books of Wonder (plgnyc@earthlink.net) as to whether some of the material in their Oz catalogue might fit in this line. Peter Hanff: Thanks for the information about the San Diego area articles. I'll try sending for them, as they sound interesting. Dave Hardenbrook: Bob Spark may have been too harsh in complaining that it was "sanctimonious" of Jill Moore to scold Digest members for not sending in contributions to you to help with the extra Digest expenses -- but then Jill was probably too harsh in speaking of her "great disappointment" at the absence of immediate contributions and of our "duty" to contribute. We do what we can, and sometimes we can do more if asked more, but not all of us and not always. Continuing to ask because the contributions are needed is reasonable, but scolding those who don't contribute is not really fair. (I had already sent in a contribution myself, but judging the budgetary abilities of a whole group can have a somewhat offputting effect.) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" To: OzDigest@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-23-99 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:51:13 PST Ted Nesi wrote: >Is Books of Wonder planning to rerelease "The Cowardly Lion of Oz" >anytime soon? Probably not, due to copyright issues. Gehan: >And BTW, Mombi, >the WWE and Blinkie look more cruel, cunning and more wicked than the >WWW. Well, we are dealing with more than one illustrator here. Perhaps Neill's witches just look more cruel, cunning, and wicked than Denslow's. David Hulan: >>*.RPT wrote a book in which Glinda celebrates her 100th aniversary >>as >>Queen of >>the South. What was its name? > >I don't actually remember any such book, so it must have been very >peripheral >to the main plot, whatever it was. I'm reasonably sure that there >wasn't an >actual party on-stage celebrating that anniversary; it would almost >have to >have been either a passing reference to her having ruled the South >for 100 >years, or an event that had taken Ozma and some of the other >celebrities >out of >the EC to let other events unfold. The mention was in _Purple Prince_; General Quakes reached the Emerald City in good time, only to find out that the celebrities had all gone to Glinda's castle to celebrate her hundredth anniversary. >_The Scarecrow of Oz_ is one of the least apt titles, since he >doesn't show up >until well over halfway through the book. _Trot and Cap'n Bill in Oz_ >is >probably the best title; since they'd appeared in two previous Baum >books >(even >if they weren't Oz books) the objection to naming a book after Betsy >wouldn't >apply. Yes, but the Scarecrow was one of Baum's most famous characters, and he was probably hoping to increase sales by naming the book after a popular figure. It's interesting to note that Thompson was often more willing than Baum to name books after previously unknown characters (Kabumpo, Grampa, Handy Mandy, etc.). Also, while Baum usually used "of Oz" for title characters who lived in the country and "in Oz" for those who were just visiting, Thompson sometimes confused these categories. _Ojo in Oz_ refers to a character who lives in Oz, while _The Gnome King of Oz_ refers to an outsider. Ruth: >The books don't say that there are religions in Oz, but don't say > that there aren't any, either. Baum's Oz books don't really have any mention of religion (unless you count the china church in _Wizard_, which might be purely ornamental), but Thompson mentions monks and churches in _Handy Mandy_, and refers to Ojo's "christening" in _Ojo_. -- 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: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:00:48 GMT To: "Dave L. Hardenbrook" From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 01-23-99 Tyler: You're probably right that it would be a good idea to give at least two weeks' lead time for changing the BCF, to give everyone who's interested the opportunity to acquire and read the new book. That's going to be even tougher soon, since none of the books between _Cowardly Lion_ and _Wishing Horse_ are available anywhere new but from the IWOC, and those between _Yellow Knight_ and _Ojo_ aren't available anywhere new and aren't easy to find used. (I'm not sure that YK isn't available from the IWOC, but I believe _Jack Pumpkinhead_ is the last Thompson PB still in stock. I know _Pirates_, _Purple Prince_, and _Ojo_ aren't available.) People who want to participate in the BCF discussions and don't already have the books should probably order their copies of _Cowardly Lion_, _Lost King_, _Hungry Tiger_, _Gnome King_, _Giant Horse_, and _Jack Pumpkinhead_ from the IWOC soon, since the turnaround isn't always speedy. (Speaking of speedy, the IWOC editions of _Speedy_ and _Wishing Horse_ are very well-made facsimiles and belong in the library of any serious Oz fan who doesn't have the original editions with color plates.) >One thing about Pre-Dorothean history that has always troubled me is how the >Wizard came across Ozma and why she was still a baby after all those years. >Currently, the evidence suggests to me that the Wizard arrived about 15 years >after Pastoria was kidnapped. Aaron Adelman has some interesting theories >about >this, but it is more likely that Lurline regressed her age for a time and when >the Wizard found her, she was a baby, as described in the non-FF _Oz and the >Three Witches_. It's also possible that Ozma wasn't born until quite a few years after Pastoria was kidnapped - that he and his wife were kept confined, but in reasonably comfortable conditions (as was typical for royal prisoners in our own medieval times) and together, so that Ozma could have been born after the Wizard had come to Oz. This seems to me to be more plausible than that Lurline regressed Ozma's age after she had been born and grown to teen-age or thereabouts: that would require imagining a reason why Lurline would do such a thing, and I can't conceive of one. Surely a baby would be in more, not less danger than a teen. If Lurline were going to intervene there are a lot of ways she could have done it more usefully. From the Oz-as-literature POV, of course, Baum didn't decide that Ozma herself was a fairy until well into the series - I think the first mention of it was in _Lost Princess_, and I know that was the first book in which it was an important factor. >I don't know that Gloma could have overthrown the WWW. She was certainly >powerful enough to hold the Southern Winkie Country free of her dominion, but >her magical powers have never been fully qunatified. (Not that anybody else's >have, for that matter). As you say, nobody's magical powers have been fully quantified. But Gloma does quite a bit more magic than we ever see the WWW doing. It might be that she held off challenging the WWW because the latter still had one more use of the Winged Monkeys, who might have been immune to Gloma's magic. The WWW's last use of the Golden Cap came so shortly before Dorothy melted her that word probably hadn't reached Gloma - and since Gloma thought Dorothy was engaged in destroying all witches, not just wicked ones, she went into hiding after that. Robin: I don't think that even in 1900 someone who was 56 would have considered himself more than on the older end of middle age. The reference, incidentally, is when Oz is talking about the Emerald City and the green glasses. He says, "The Emerald City was built a great many years ago, for I was a young man when the balloon brought me here, and I am a very old man now." It's near the top of page 152 of the copy I'm looking at, which is a Bobbs-Merrill edition from about 1940 - has some plates, but few of the other illustrations from the first editions, so I don't know if the numbering is consistent. Ted: BoW hasn't said yet whether they're going to continue releasing the Thompson titles now that the copyright law has been changed and they're no longer going to be entering PD each year. It's possible that they'll make a deal with Dorothy Maryott to print further volumes - they've done that with the Neill estate and with the McGraws for their books - but because of the color plates the early Thompsons are more expensive to produce, so adding a royalty on top of that might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. A lot probably depends on how well their editions of _Royal Book_ and _Kabumpo_ are selling. Gehan: It isn't too difficult to reconcile the various statements about Unc Nunkie, if we assume (as is MOPPeT) that in pre-Dorothean days the Munchkin country was divided into several smaller but still substantial kingdoms. The northern third or so was ruled by Cheeriobed's father, the central third by the WWE, and the southern third by Unc Nunkie's brother. All of them styled themselves "ruler of the Munchkins," but each was ruling a different group of Munchkins. *************Spoilers for OJO IN OZ & GIANT HORSE OF OZ********* Sometime around the time of Dorothy's first visit, give or take a year or so, Mombi kidnapped Queen Orin and transformed her into an old woman, though that old woman had considerable knowledge of magic of her own and was able to defeat Mombi afterward, without remembering her own origin. It's arguable whether this GWN, Tattypoo, is the same one Dorothy met; I rather like Dave's theory that Dorothy met Locasta, an earlier GWN, and that Mombi used the "switcheroo spell" to swap the shapes of Locasta and Orin and then exiled Locasta to somewhere outside Oz, but there's no actual evidence for it in the books. Mombi also installed Quiberon in Lake Orizon so that Cheeriobed and the Ozure Islanders were cut off from the rest of Oz, and destroyed Cheeriobed's father. From then until the time of _Giant Horse_ Cheeriobed ceased to rule anything but the Ozure Islands, and most Munchkins were unaware that he was even still alive. At approximately the same time, Dorothy's house fell onto the WWE, so she wasn't around any more to rule the central Munchkins. This left Unc Nunkie's brother as the sole remaining ruler in the eastern quadrant of Oz, though in fact because of the relatively primitive transportation and communication systems he never really exercised any power in the northern 2/3 of the country. When Ozma came to the throne the majority of Munchkins, like the rest of the citizens of Oz who were in touch with the Emerald City, accepted Ozma's rule. Nunkie's brother retired to the relatively small province of Seebania, which he continued to rule until he was destroyed and his son exiled by Mooj. At that point Stephen (Unc Nunkie's real name) was the only adult relative of anyone who'd ruled a substantial part of the Munchkin country who wasn't cut off from the rest of Oz; based on that, it's reasonable to say that he "might have been King of the Munchkins." (Which is Baum's phrase, not "would have been king.") The Monarch of the Munchkins mentioned in _Road_ was undoubtedly someone Ozma had appointed for pure ceremonial duties, like marching in parades; it's been suggested that it was Boq, but I think that's mostly because he's the only Munchkin we know by name at that point in the series. That parade also included rulers for the Gillikins and Quadlings who are never mentioned elsewhere in the books, but who are definitely not the GWN or Glinda, both of whom are marching elsewhere in the parade. *************End Spoilers**************************** Ruth: It seems not unlikely that Button-Bright's family might have been Muslim; we know one of his ancestors was an Arabian Knight, and his first name is Saladin. He doesn't give any indication of any religious orientation himself, and since he's blond and blue-eyed he probably doesn't have a lot of Arabic ancestry, but... CAHAJA: >I need help. My 3 year old daughter is nuts over the wizard of oz and I am >looking for coloring pages to download for her. If you know of any websites >where I might be able to retrieve some it would be deeply appreciated. I don't know about downloadable coloring pages, and if your daughter is mostly interested in the movie (as I suspect) then I have no idea anyhow, but the CD-ROM collection "Art Explosion 125,000" (which is usually available for somewhere in the $40-50 range) has quite a few illustrations from various of the Oz books (mostly from _Wizard_ and _Tik-Tok_, but a few from others) as part of their "Traditional Images" group. They would be colorable. Dave: I trust you have my contribution by now. I mailed it a week ago today. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:08:59 -0500 From: Richard Randolph Organization: AT&T To: OzDigest@mindspring.com Subject: Ozzy Digest of 1/23/99 Robin: Thanks for questioning Davis G, albeit humorously, for his "shot" at New Jersey. We Garden Staters take a lot of "shots" about our very high auto insurance rates, among other things, and David might be right about Percy's vocation. But my choice, given his personality, would be a used car salesman, kiddo! ;-) Bob Spark: And speaking of "shots", you beat me to it with your comments to Miss Moore. I, too, thought she was being extremely premature in berating those of us who subscribe to this wonderful forum, the Ozzy Digest. Particularly when my check, and I'm sure those of others, had already been mailed. I know Dave has expressed displeasure with "unfriendliness" rearing it's ugly head here, and I certainly don't wish to upset Ozma, but I do hope that Miss Moore will use better judgement in the future, and employ a more "friendly" approach when scolding us. Dick ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:38:05 +1100 To: OzDigest@mindspring.com From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Oz I think Oz is more like the garden of Gethsamane. I mean, animals can talk, everyone is happy and has everything he/she needs. It also has the tree of Knowledge mentioned in the bible, mentioned as the -Encahnted Apple Tree- in Eric Shanwoer's -Enchanted apples-. And if one eats any of them, Oz will become a humdrum place like the rest of the world. It has a very unique resemblance to Gethsamane........... --Gehan Cooray ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 13:43:54 CST From: "Ruth Berman" X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_16 Reply-To: Ruth A Berman X-POPMail-Charset: English To: ozdigest@mindspring.com Subject: Munchkin & Bugle ps Gehan Cooray: A second thought about the possibility of two dynasties of kings with different claims to be considered the rulers of all the Munchkins -- RPT may have been influenced by the description in "Patchwork Girl" of Unk Nunkie as "the descendant of the former Munchkin kings." That really does sound as if Baum was thinking in terms of two separate dynasties. Of course, it's possible that he was thinking of Unk Nunkie as a 4th or 5th cousin of the current king (mentioned in "Ozma" and "Road"), both of them descended from one family. But he could equally well have been thinking of the situation RPT described, of two separate royal Munchkin families, with the current king not related to Unk Nunkie. Steve Teller and Atticus: Enjoyed Steve's discussion of the French- published Oz plays in the Winter 98 "Bugle." I think the Frank Gabrielson version of "Wizard" (based on the movie, but with all that tedious stuff about Tibia the butler added) didn't take over as the standard performing version until around 1960. I think it was that year that the Old Log Theater of Minnetonka (a suburb of Minneapolis) performed a production of the French Co's "Wizard," with original music added. And it was a few years after that when Theater St. Paul put on the French Co's "Ozma" (with me encased in cardboard armor as Tik-Tok and my sister Jean as one of the Princesses), and I think a couple of years later still that the Moppets (the group which eventually became the Children's Theater Company of Minneapolis) also put on an "Ozma." The CTC, a good many years later, put on "Land," but that was an original script, written specially for them, as was the "Wizard" they did later. // Also enjoyed Atticus' Donald Abbottson's recent Oz story. His way of weaving together references from both Oz books and Borderlands of Oz is engaging, and so is his Denslow-based artwork. He's maybe weak on the basic story-telling, though (in his first book, anyhow -- haven't read the more recent ones). // I was pleased to see that my Dunkiton pamphlets 1-6 got a brief notice in the reviews section of the issue. In December, I brought out #7 (except I mis-numbered it as another #6), reprinting RPT's "The Princess of Cozytown," the title story in her (now very rare) collection of her short stories, although I didn't try to reproduce the book illustrations (soft pastel colors that wouldn't look like much in b&w), but instead used the illustrations from the earlier appearance of the story in the Philadelphia "Public Ledger." I plan to bring out the rest of the stories in the collection (also with their newspaper illustrations, generally) in coming years. I haven't yet collated the newspaper versions against the book to see if there will be more examples of substantial paragraphs that got cut out of the book version (for reasons of layout only, I suspect), but if there are I'll restore them to the Dunkiton version, as I did with the Princess. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:27:18 -0500 From: "Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman" Reply-To: adelmaas@musc.edu Organization: Pioneer Aviation X-Accept-Language: en To: Ozzy Digest Subject: _Dorothy--Return to Oz_ It has been brought to my attention by Anthony Bernacchi that the date I gave Tedrow's heretical and stupid _Dorothy--Return to Oz_ in the HI/RCC may be incorrect. While I placed it in 1965, Anthony has argued convincingly that, based on context (MGM movie derivations indicating _Wizard_ in 1939 and not 1899, AIDS, Disneyland), it should be placed in the 1990s. However, I somehow remember this book being published in the 1980s, but I don't have a copy to make sure. Could someone who has a copy (presumably in a plastic storage bag so it doesn't contaminate canonical Oz books) please check the publication date to help clear up this issue? Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide. Aaron -- Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelmaas@musc.edu http://www.musc.edu/~adelmaas Pioneer Aviation ====================================================================== Date: Feb 1, 1999 From: "Dave L. Hardenbrook" Subject: Ozzy Things KABUMPO THEY'RE NOT: Bill W. wrote: >Does anyone know if there is an Oz movie out there anywhere that has >a scene of a Witch riding on an elephant?? _Journey Back To Oz_, when Mombi tries to conquer the EC with a herd of pachyderms, on one of which she rides. _TIN WOODMAN_ HERETICAL??: Gehan wrote: >Don't you think -Tinwoodman of Oz- should be considered "un-official". It is >full of un-fit statements and mistakes. Somebody pointed out most of them a >few months ago. Baum was apparently ill when he wrote _Tin W._ and one theory is that it was in his "delerium" that he wrote into _Tin W._ such blasphemous atrocities as that Ozma is a teenager and not "a little girl after all"... (I'd put a "smiley" after the above if there weren't people who really believe this.) >*. Nimmie Amee has lived the WWE when -Wizard- states that she lived with >an old woman. Well, the WWE *was* old... >*/How can a superlatively evil witch live in a hut? She should live in a >castle, for the GWN says that she held the Munchkins in bondage. She won't >have just one servant. Well, Benita Bizarre lives in a jukebox... Wrong Nonestican Continent I know (Sid and Marty Krofft, not L. Frank Baum), but it seems to me evil can come in many faces (and many houses). >*.If Nick Chopper's head is still alive, then the Tinwoodman can't be Nick >Chopper. And who exactly is Chopfyte, if he is mixture of two people? That >part doesn't make scense in the least. The debate of all debates...Will the real Nick Chopper please stnad up... PLEASE!! :) OZ AND ENDS: Gehan wrote: >*. Why don't we first discuss Jack Snow's books, as they are closer to the >Baum ones. We can then turn to the Thompson books and the Neill books. What >do you say Dave? There may be something in this, especially since the Snow books are easier to come by than many of the Thompson books... Shall we discuss this, folks? If anyone cares, we have a new record for shortest Ozzy Digest membership... Someone was a member for 1 minute, 49 seconds. The reason was the usual one: They thought this was a list for Ozzy Osbourne fans. -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://www.mindspring.net/~daveh47/ Take the time to taste the honey on a summer breeze, Touch the love song every bird has learned to sing. Feel the sunlight as it warms you on the coolest day, And you'll feel a part of what we're gathering -- The senses of our world." -- The Bugaloos, "The Senses of Our World" ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 2 - 3, 1999 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 17:37:36 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Re:Ozzy Digest and Ozzy Things David Hulan: I agree with those who say that Ozma was a member of Lurline's fairy band, and she was injected into Queeen Ozette's womb and was reborn as a human or maybe she was de-aged into a human child and handed over to Pastoria as -Magical Mimics- states. If this is so, and Lurline had something to do with her birth, Ozma would not have been born after the witches conquered Oz for Lurline would have known that she won't be safe. I think aging was slow in Oz before Ozma's coronation and it stopped completely afterwards. Maybe the queen managed to hide from Mombi when Pastoria was kidnapped and maybe she secretly hid with the baby Ozma, who aged very slowly having being born in Oz. Then when the Wizard came to Oz, she may have been about two or three because of her slow aging, and maybe Oztte handed her to the Wizard and died/left Oz. Then Oscar gave her to Mombi who turned her into Tippetarius, and when she was dis-enchanted, she turned back into the HUMAN Ozma, but not the FAIRY Ozma. As a human she looked about twelve or thirteen but as a fairy she looked about fourteen or fifteen. Then, somewhere around -Lost Princess- she regained her FAIRY form. Anyone know what I mean? That explains why Ozma knew nothing about Lurline or magic in -Land- but knew all about them after -Tinwoodman-. Please tell me if anyone undestood this. Tyler,Ruth Berman and the others: Maybe the Munchkin King in -Ozma- and -Road- is the King of Seebania, who was one of the many Munchkin Kings. Maybe Ozma considered him as the Munchkin King, or maybe the king in -Ozma- and -Road- are different kings:probably someone whom the Munchkins/Ozma appointed. The Gillikin/Quadling/Winkie rulers must be ceromonial monarchs, who just have the title of a ruler, but really do not rule the country. Much like the Royal Family of England. Or maybe Baum made another one of his mistakes.... ..... Dave: Maybe Baum forgot his statement in -Wizard- about Nimmie not living with the WWE herself. But thats an Oz-as-Litreture POV. The Oz-as-history POV is that the old woman handed Nimmie to the WWE later, and when the witch died, Nimmie stole the Witche's magic potions (which she used to build the invisible wall around her cottage) and maybe she never returned to the old woman. Or maybe Baum made a mistake in -WIZARD- and maybe -TINWODMAN- is correct, for it makes more scense. After all, the WWE isn't going to help one of the Munchkins. So maybe -TINWOODMAN- is correct. It fits in better. BTW................. *. I'm writing an article on :"Princess Ozma of Oz" all about the un-fit statements about her in the books, like Ruth's -Exclusive Rulers of Oz-. If anyone wants a copy, please send me an e-mail. --Gehan Cooray ====================================================================== From: "Bob Collinge" Subject: Wizard of Oz Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:16:33 -0500 For those of you who are hesitating about going to see the Broadway version of "The Wizard of Oz", do not listen to the critics. I am glad to see that one digester gave in and went, and enjoyed it. I saw the show this past Friday evening in Boston. I and my kids thoroughly enjoyed it. Mickey Rooney, for being in his 80's(?) did a respectable job. The sets and costumes were wonderful. It was MGM from start to finish, with a few one liners added in. Unfortunately, Ertha Kitt did not appear as the Wicked Witch. I assume that she is not doing the show anymore. The girl who did the witch had a terrible accent, and was a poor actor. Other than that, seeing my 5 year old son's face light up was well worth the price of admission. If you get a chance, I recommend seeing it. You won't regret it. Bob C. ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 10:30:02 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-01-99 SANCTIMONIOUS DIATRIBES, POMPOSITY, AND DONATIONS, OH MY: Might have made a good Arlen & Harburg tune, don't you think? Anyway, what the hey, I'll add my own thoughts to the numerous others that have already been voiced. Re: "sanctimonious diatribes"... I felt that Jill Moore employed what could be construed as a slightly sanctimonious tone towards the Digesters. Therefore, I was slightly annoyed. Ms. Moore, I am a college student (or destistudent, a self-coined portmanteau) with bills to pay at the end of the month. My credit card bill--egads--has finally arrived, and I may now determine the size of my contribution. So yeah, I didn't send money right away. Am I a bad person? Am I ungrateful? Feel free to judge. Re: Bob Spark's "pomposity," "arrogance," and "ignorance"... Mr. Spark's post may have been less than euphemistic and even a little insulting, but I note that he cast Ms. Moore's *actions* ("lecturing," "diatribes") in a bad light and made no adjectival qualifications about her personally. Ms. Moore, on the other hand, did so with Mr. Spark. I must say I am disappointed and urge that this cease and desist. Thanks to J. Bell and Ruth Berman for their eminently civil responses. MILES-LONG MISTAKES PARADES: >From: >Gehan Cooray Subject: The Tinwoodman of Oz Don't you think -Tinwoodman of >Oz- should be considered "un-official". It is full of un-fit statements and >mistakes. (etc. etc.) Don't forget, Mr. Cooray, to take the time to enjoy Oz. I think I'd go into paroxysms if I spent any great length of time worrying about inconsistencies. They aren't peculiar to Oz history. Place a few U.S. history texts side by side and you'll find contradictions galore. RUTH BERMAN: Your message came through garbled, but it looked as though you were commenting favorably on my review in "The Oz Bookshelf." Thank you. It was actually a review of a book by William Campbell and Irwin Terry, however; Margaret Berg reviewed the Abbott book. Incidentally, the Digest in general was slightly garbled, and it was much worse when I hit "Reply." All the quoted text was a jumble, and not all of it appeared in my reply message. Ongoing problems with the Digest program, I take it. 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: Mon, 1 Feb 99 11:37:26 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: Oz days Oops note: I described Atticus as having reviewed the new Donald Abbotson Oz book in the Winter "Bugle." It was Margaret Berg who did that. Atticus reviewed the Campbell/Terry "Lavender Bear of Oz." Anyhow, enjoyed the review. // I also meant to mention that it was fun to get one of Baum's "Queer Visitors" ("How the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman Met Some Old Friends:) reprinted in this issue, with the illustrations in color -- a bonus from the change Bill Stillman has made to having a color center-spread. Peter Hanff: I saw an article the other day quoting author Helene Hanff and it occurred to me to wonder -- are you related? J.L. Bell: Clever tie-in of the French Revolutionary calendar (Thermidor was the new calendar's name for July, I think, unless it was August) with Baum's revolutionary Oz. David Godwin: Enjoyed your comments on the touring "Wizard." Gehan Cooray: In October, when "Tin Woodman" was the book under discussion, some of the points you raised were discussed. I'll repeat what I said then about the discrepancy between the "TW" and "Wizard" accounts of Nimmee Aimee's employer: "Perhaps Nick [in "Wizard"] had assumed that his girlfriend couldn't really be working for the ruler of the territory and that the employer and the axe-enchanter were separate people, but later learned they were the same? Or perhaps the Witch had been maintaining a Secret Identity (for purposes of spying on ordinary Muchkin opinions?), and the connection between the two had been learned later?" A secret identity would also explain why someone so powerful chose to live in a hut, but the WW might choose to live in a hut anyway, out of contempt for comfort. Or it might only look like a hut on the outside (like the Phanfasms' homes in "Emerald City"). // The confusion of trying to figure out who is who with those left-over heads hanging around -- realizing that such a situation would be confusing is precisely what the book is (in part) about. // RPT's Oz isn't particularly bigger than Baum's. You are perhaps thinking of her small kingdoms as larger than they need to be, and exaggerating the number of them. (She didn't contribute "hundreds" of subkingdoms -- making a count of the list in the gazeteer section of the "Who's Who in Oz Appendix" I published, I note 142 RPT placenames in Oz, and as a good many of those are underground or refer to things like mountains and forests and rivers rather than kingdoms, the number of her little towns is more like one hundred.) Gehan Cooray and Dave Hardenbrook: Suggestion of discussing Snow ahead of Neill and Thompson -- I'd prefer to take the books in order of publication. Although I like Snow's Oz books about as well as Thompson's (and better than Neill's), I don't think Snow's Oz is really any more like Baum's than Thompson's is. Besides, a discussion of what it means to claim that Snow is closer to Baum than they are can be carried on better after the intervening Oz books have been discussed. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:04:52 -0500 From: Lisa Mastroberte Subject: The *Real* Nick and Other Ozings My e-mail account was getting pretty full with messages from spammers so now I have two digests to reply to....sheesh...I hate spammers. Gehan: Tin Woodman un-canonical? From the *same* person who said that only the Baum books should be considered canonical? Give me a break...I rather enjoyed Tin W. The only part that *really* bugged me about it was when he had a conversation with his old head....I was like "So who is the real Nick Chopper? This is impossible. If your head is chopped off and you get a new one are you two different people?" But then again the same things come to mind when I think of reincarnation.... Dave: Cool...you record these kind of things? Who is the digests oldest member? (Not age....the one who's been on the longest) On religion in Oz..... I think that nobody ever really gave it thought. But just for arguments sake, what religion was LFB? The Scarecrow: In _Wizard_, the Scarecrow describes that when the Munchkin farmer painted his ears, he could hear all that went on around him. So, yes, it was probably magic paint. A question for some fellow Ozites: Does anyone have a plot synopsis for the 1902 production of Wizard? Any info would be appreciated. Peace! -Lisa ------------------------------- "A black cat crossing your path implies that the animal is going somewhere." ~Groucho Marx ====================================================================== From: "Bob Collinge" Subject: Snow Books Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:50:13 -0500 What are the titles of the Snow Books, and where can we get them? How soon before you would begin these books? Thanks, Bob C. ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:56:17 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: (fwd) RFD: rec.arts.books.wizard-of-oz (fwd) REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group rec.arts.books.wizard-of-oz This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.books.wizard-of-oz. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below. Newsgroup line: rec.arts.books.wizard-of-oz L. Frank Baum's world of Oz. RATIONALE: rec.arts.books.wizard-of-oz There are currently more than 150 Oz Web Sites on the Internet and many more fans. The main forum for discussion about Oz takes place on the Ozzy Digest, a digest that is operated by Dave Hardenbrook. Messages that Dave Hardenbrook receives are packaged into digest form and sent out to almost 200 subscribers. Although extremely successful, the Ozzy Digest does not offer the transparency of a newsgroup. To receive the digest, a person must subscribe to it by sending an e-mail message to Dave Hardenbrook. Thus, the digest cannot be accessed easily without an e-mail account. A newsgroup would allow transparent access to all messages without an e-mail account, just a newsgroup reader or even a web browser. The Ozzy Digest is also growing bigger with each day. The number of messages is, on average, 12-15 per issue. However, each message contaings between 4 and 6 topics. This results in the digests being about 30 kilobytes in length most days. Another problem with the Ozzy Digest is the lack of threaded discussions. Since the messages are in digest form, threads cannot be formed, and if someone wants to look at the message to which a particular person is responding to, he/she must look at the 2 archives currently serving back issues to the members of the digest. A newsgroup would add the threading of messages to discussion, and so make it easier for readers to respond to messages. CHARTER: rec.arts.books.wizard-of-oz rec.arts.books.wizard-of-oz is an unmoderated group for the discussion of Oz, Oz authors, and other related works. Topics can include, but are not limited to the Oz books, Oz movies, Oz merchandise, Oz authors, non-Oz books by Oz authors, and other works about Oz. Advertisements: Advertisements about Oz should be kept to a minimum and the subjects of such messages should be clearly marked as an advertisement. Advertisements not pertaining to Oz, money-making schemes, sexually explicit material, chain letters, images, and binaries are not allowed. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following groups: news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, rec.arts.books.childrens, rec.arts.movies.past-films, rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.arts.books, rec.collecting, rec.collecting.books and a message that the RFD has been posted has been sent to the Ozzy Digest mailing list. Proponent: David Levitan ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:12:48 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Gehan: Aaron Adelman speculated that Mombi transformed Ozma into an animal. She hid out and was somehow untransformed back into a baby. Size does matter: (from an Oz-as-history POV) People on the Digest have speculated that Baum shortened the travel stories by leaving out several repetitious "they woke up, marched for a while, then slept. Then the woke up again, marched for a while, and slept". However, Baum definitely thought of Oz as a smaller, less settled more rural place than Thompson did. Hmmm, the Munchkin Farmer with the Powder of Life is just a bit of a stretch. It was (and is) extremely rare, and I doubt much of it would be scattered around here and there. Some Wishing Sand is a better probability. Everybody imagines people to be different in their own mind before they see them. I used to picture Bob Seeger as having a big blond Afro :-) People have often commented on the reverse-gender portrayal of Baum and Thompson. David Godwin: Your philosophy reminds me of someone I may have heard about once. He suggested that, in times of anger, to write a hate-filled letter, every swear word in the book, etc. then burn it. One thing that people tend to forget, and this has been discussed on the Digest before, is that an e-mail message, with the nuances of voice intonation and facial expressions, can come across as harsher than it was intended. Also, when people write in all capital letters, it makes people think that YOU ARE YELLING AT EVERYBODY. We just have to use common sense. Non-Ozzy observation: E-mail me privately. Has anybody ever noticed any similarities between Major Charles Emerson Winchester (M*A*S*H*) and Frasier Crane? Jonh Bell: The Holy Roman Empire had an ELECTORAL SYSTEM?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Gehan and _Tin Woodman_: >> There are tons of un-fit statements in the book. >> I don't think it should be considered official. Hoo Boy! The Baum purists are going to be screaming for your head after THAT little bombshell! :-) The old woman and WWE is clearly an error, but it's minor, since Nimmie Aimee's residency is not central to the plot of either story. It's no worse than any of the countless other little errors in the series. As for the WWE's living in a small hut, why not? The motivations of people, especially evil ones with a lot of power, may be very different from you and me. Everybody doesn't desire to have a large show of wealth and live in a palace. All people have different motives, and because the motivations, desires or lifestyles of somebody are not realistic is, IMHO, not enough of a reason to judge a book inaccurate. Mombi herself lived in a hut, although we have speculated that she was trying to lay low during that period in history. If they were extremely out of character, that might be different, but we don't know enough about her to make that determination. Her pattern of living, etc. maight make for a fascinating discussion, though. Maybe she did that as a propaganda tool. The question of identity is a central themse in that book. You're confused on purpose. Which one is the real Nick? Who are they? Who is Chopfyt? They could both easily be Nick, or people who think of themselves as Nick. You must not have seen that Star Trek episode with the two Rikers. overall, these points are mere blips on the radar screen, even when all added up. It seems to me that you are describing a book that doesn't "feel right" rather than a story rife with technical errors. The order of the BCF: Discussing the Snow books before the RPT's is a possibility. The FF is not really a tightly plotted series, so we wouldn't be losing much in the way of contintuity. I'd still like to go in order, though. It would give us a sense of the real flow of Oz as it came out. ********** SPOILER FOR HANDY MANDY ********** Gimme that old time religion: One of the strongest cases for the existence of some sort of religion in Oz is the fact that the agent of Wutz was able to use a monk's robe as an effective disguise. If religious figures were not commonplace, then a monk would have shone like a beacon. This does not necessarily apply Christianity, however, or indeed any of the religions that we know of on Earth. ********** END OF SPOILER ********** David Hulan: IIRC, the first nine Thompsons are available from the IWOOC, which would be _Royal Book_ through _Jack Pumpkinhead_. Still another Ozzy record: The last Digest (Jan 24 through 31) broke the record. An eight-day special! :-) Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:41:43 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digests, 01-31 & 02-01-99 1/31: Gehan: There are obviously a lot of ways in which the WWW could have gotten the Golden Cap. I find it fairly hard to believe that if Mombi had ever had it in her possession she'd have let it out, unless she'd already used it three times - and there's no evidence that Mombi had ever done any such thing, though I suppose there's no evidence that she didn't, either. As I mentioned, I took up this question in a story that's in the 1998 Oziana; my solution satisfies me, but I'm not a Royal Historian and it should be considered strictly as MOPPeT. > As Tyler said, Glinda wouldn't >have just let Blinkie go to Jinxland and cause more trouble. Abbott has a reasonably plausible solution for this at the end of _Amber Flute_. It requires making a few more assumptions about the extent of Glinda's power and concerns, but they're not unduly far-fetched. If Glinda could exercise her power directly in Jinxland, why would she have sent the Scarecrow? And apparently she wasn't overly concerned with what happened to the Jinxlanders until the people from Outside arrived. >*.The Baum books show that Oz isn't all that big. Yet, Thompsons books show >that it is enormous. There were hundreds of small kingdoms in her books, but >not as much in the Baum books,. Thompson's books are reasonably consistent with most of Baum's regarding the size of Oz. It's true that _Ozma_ and _Road_ seem to imply a smallish Oz, with foot travel times from the desert to the EC on the order of a single day, but the rest of Baum's books and most of Thompson's are pretty consistent that travelers on foot take two to three days to get from desert to EC or back. There aren't "hundreds" of small kingdoms in Thompson's books; there are probably fewer than a hundred (she wrote 19 books, at least three of which [_Pirates_, _Speedy_, and _Captain Salt_] have no small kingdoms in Oz) and few of them have as many as five small kingdoms. It might be an interesting small research project to do an actual count someday. In any case, her "kingdoms" are generally very small; most of them seem to amount to a few acres at most. Hardly any seem to amount to more than a square mile or so. >Ex: Ketaria and Topsy-town were in the >nothernmost part of Munchkinland. Ojo and Unk.Nunkie would have passed both >places in -Patchwork Girl-, Tinman would have passed them on his way to >Mount.Munch, and Trot and Cap'n Bill would have passed it on their way to the >Magic Isle. Perhaps Oz was larger than Baum thought it was. If you take the Haff-Martin map as being, at worst, consistent with the books then there's no problem with any of those examples. Keretaria and Turn Town (I assume that's what you mean by "Topsy-town") are both well north of Ojo's place, Mt. Munch, or the Magic Isle, so none of the travelers you mention would have come near them. Incidentally, there's one statement in _Handy Mandy_ that does appear to imply that Thompson thought Oz was much bigger - she says Keretaria was a hundred leagues north of the Sapphire City. Since a league, though not well-defined, is usually taken as about 3 miles, and Keretaria and SC are both in the northern Munchkin country, that would imply that Oz is comparable in size to the US - clearly not true based on travel times. My solution is that Thompson (or, again, someone at the publisher) confused the relatively exotic linear measures "league" and "furlong," and really meant that Keretaria was 100 furlongs north of the SC. That would be 12 1/2 miles, which looks about right on the Haff-Martin map. Steve: I've heard of Laumer's solution to the Eureka Problem, but I don't like it much. It may be a good story in its own right (I can't say, not having read it), but it doesn't seem to me to be consistent with the character of Eureka as she appears in _DotWiz_. David G.: >Meanwhile, in order to avoid such crises in the future, I'm wondering if it >might not be feasible to charge for subscriptions? Wouldn't have to be much, >seems to me. It would by no means be a case of profiteering - this thing ain't >cheap, after all. It would just be a way to meet Dave's expenses and perhaps >provide for that inevitable computer equipment failure now and then. How do >people feel about this? I'd have no objection to paying a subscription fee, but I think that it would be better to keep it on a voluntary basis unless that becomes an undue burden on Dave. Because of the nature of the Internet, there's very little additional cost involved in an increased subscriber list (it's not like the print run and postage costs of a magazine or newsletter, where each additional subscriber adds a significant cost), and yet there's a significant advantage to all of us in keeping the subscriber base high, even if most members lurk most of the time. Even the lurkers come up with the occasional provocative insight or question. >As for Gehan, I think he has a right to express his religious convictions in >this forum so long as they are relevant to Oz. No one is being forced to agree >with him, and he hasn't threatened anyone with hell and damnation that I know >of. Agreed. Tyler: See my comment to Gehan about the probability that Glinda might have let Blinkie run loose in Jinxland; "conquer" doesn't necessarily mean "capture." The Romans conquered Carthage in the 2d Punic War, but Hannibal got away and continued to be an effective general for some years in Asia Minor. 2/1: Gehan: I strongly disagree with your statement that Jack Snow's books "are closer to the Baum ones." Than Neill's, well, yeah. Than Thompson's, no. The tone of Snow's books is so much darker than anything of Baum's that the fact that he ignores post-Baum writers comes nowhere near making up for it. In any case, I see no reason why we should step out of the historical sequence of books. I vote for _Royal Book_ as the next BCF, if we're taking a vote. It's as easy to acquire as the Snow books, as is _Kabumpo_; if we want to start discussing whether to continue with the mid-period, harder-to-find Thompsons or to jump to the later ones that are readily available from commercial (i.e., not IWOC) sources, then I'm willing to listen to arguments. Although it's my impression that most of the people who participate most actively in the discussions have all or almost all of the Thompson books already. Still, I could accept a jump from _Kabumpo_ to _Captain Salt_ if enough people are having trouble getting copies of the intermediate books, are interested in the discussion, and say so. I think in your second post you're thinking of the Garden of Eden when you're referring to Gethsemane. The latter was the one where Jesus prayed right before the Romans captured him - thus it's very important to Christians, but it didn't have any mystical properties such as those you mention. A parallel between Oz and Eden could certainly be drawn, though there are a lot of differences as well (especially the size of the respective populations). Nathan: I agree that Baum was probably hoping that naming a book after the Scarecrow would increase sales; however, that doesn't make it a very apt title. As I've remarked before, Thompson had a fairly consistent rule for the use of "of" or "in" in her titles: if the noun modified by the prepositional phrase had a definite article attached, she used "of"; if it didn't, she used "in." This works for all but _Jack Pumpkinhead of Oz_ and _The Silver Princess in Oz_. It's a little difficult to be sure about Baum's consistency, since he only had two "in" titles - it might well have been a coincidence that those were the two whose title characters started the book outside Oz. After all, he also titled a book _Dot and Tot of Merryland_, when the title characters weren't in Merryland at the beginning (or end) of the book. Dave: >>*. Nimmie Amee has lived the WWE when -Wizard- states that she lived with >>an old woman. >Well, the WWE *was* old... However, in _Wizard_ Nick says that the old woman Nimmie Amee lived with went to the WWE and gave her a couple of cows, or something of the sort, to enchant Nick's axe. This surely implies that the old woman wasn't the WWE herself. OTOH, how would Nick have known all this? Would he have kept using an axe that he knew was enchanted? It seems likely that any information he had when he first met Dorothy was at best third-hand (maybe from Ku-Klip after he was completely tin?), so it might be that he learned between _Wizard_ and _Tin Woodman_ that the old woman Nimmie had lived with had in fact been the WWE herself. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:56:23 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: traditions in Oz Should the next Oz book to be discussed be ROYAL BOOK or MAGICAL MIMICS? I think it makes sense to discuss the books in the order in which they were written, especially since ROYAL BOOK was originally presented to readers as a Baum title. Snow's books have references to technology and media that clearly make them post-war, regardless of his attempts to replicate Baum's picture of the Emerald City. David Godwin wrote: <> Interesting. I bet the difference wasn't between America in 1900 and America in 1939, both about a decade out of a severe depression. Rather, the difference was between Baum's image of America and Louis B. Mayer's. As the book THE GENIUS OF THE SYSTEM argues, each major Hollywood studios produced a somewhat coherent body of work reflecting its corporate personality. Mayer built MGM as a glamour studio devoted to down-home, all-American schmaltz: he's rumored to have once said about Andy Hardy series, "Don't make those pictures any better than they already are!" In the same year that John Ford and Warner Bros. were producing THE GRAPES OF WRATH about the Dust Bowl and migrant fruit-pickers, MGM's picture of a farm in crisis is actually a hustling, well-stocked business that employs at least three hands. (Charlie Grapewin managed to be in both farm families.) Baum played up Kansas's dreariness to show how important home is; as long as Dorothy has a home on the farm, she prefers that even over a palace in a fairyland. In contrast, MGM made Oz into a dream because, after all, there couldn't really be a place better than America. Similarly, the screenwriters made Dorothy's melting of the Wicked Witch of the West an accident because good little MGM girls don't throw water just because they're mad. I'm not sure Miss Gulch represents capitalism so much as wealth and simple nastiness. Owning land as she did is one of the oldest forms of wealth; pre-capitalist medieval lords were landowners, too. Her "evil" seems to come from her personality, and tossing her weight around unnecessarily. In contrast, the banks who hold Uncle Henry's mortgage in EMERALD CITY are more clearly images of the dark side of the American economy. Collecting on loans isn't a personality flaw of banks; it's what they're founded to do. Gehan Cooray wrote: <> Your canon is getting shorter and shorter, Gehan! If you read accounts of historical events, you'll find they rarely agree in all points. Rather than reject one, historians look to see if those contradictions can be reconciled, or which parts of each seem most plausible. If you reject the whole TIN WOODMAN because Nimmie Amee's mistress has changed, that means you reject Lurline's enchantment of Oz, too. Isn't it simpler to suspect someone made a slight error about a small point? You also had this critique: <> Those are the fundamental paradoxes that the Tin Woodman (and Tin Soldier) wrestle with during the second half of TIN WOODMAN. Those questions are hard to answer; they may even have no answer. But many questions in life are just as hard. Last week American surgeons performed a hand transplant (an operation already done in France without the same news-media attention here). At least one national radio program ran a discussion among doctors about how people may react to a new hand that wasn't originally their own; they had no more answers than Nick does. If a paradox like Nick/Chopfyte/the-head-who-doesn't-care-anymore makes you suggest we should disregard TIN WOODMAN, how do you respond to the Tin Woodman showing compassion, the Scarecrow showing intelligence, and the Cowardly Lion showing courage in WIZARD *before* they receive the Wizard's gifts? Nathan DeHoff wrote: <> As I recall, Baum was later than usual delivering SCARECROW, so Reilly & Britton had Neill prepare cover art featuring just the title character. They didn't know anything about the story, but thought his name and painted face would sell books. The tactic seems to have worked; SCARECROW is usually said to be one of the strongest-selling titles in the series over time. AN ORK IN OZ is arguably more fitting, but less commercial (outside Orkland). David Hulan wrote: <> Button-Bright's string of names includes some from Arabic, Latin, French, German. It strikes me as possible that the ancestor Button-Bright called an Arabian Knight was one of the European Crusaders who maintained a state in Palestine for a few decades during the Middle Ages--a knight in Arabia, but not necessarily an Arabic knight. The Magic Umbrella would thus be in the same class as the Shroud of Turin and other plunder brought back to Europe. David Godwin wrote: <> I agree. However, I don't think Gehan made his case that they *were* relevant to Oz. Noting the few religious references in the books, discussing the authors' beliefs--those are relevant. Folks have welcomed remarks from Gehan and others about those topics. Insisting that characters who show no sign of worship should pray the rosary is projecting one's own interests onto Oz, as much as telling us whom Glinda would vote for or what laundry detergent the Scarecrow uses. Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> First no Sabbath, then no Black Sabbath! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:29:57 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David G.) Subject: Oz etc. Robin and Richard: Why is Percy an insurance salesman from New Jersey? I suppose it's the stereotypical accent that sticks in my mind - that and the fact that I worked in Manhattan at one time and absorbed the local prejudice for what the New Yorkers regarded as the yokels across the river. I apologize to any Jerseyites I may have offended, including, of course, Jenny Jump. As in this case, stereotypes are successful at communicating an image, but they aren't necessarily an accurate reflection of reality. Richard, I will apologize to the world's insurance agents if you will apologize to the used car salesmen. :-) Gehan wrote: >Don't you think -Tinwoodman of Oz- should be considered "un-official". It is >full of un-fit statements and mistakes.' If you throw out _Tin Woodman_, then you are also throwing out the one most definite description of the ages of the girls (Ozma, Dorothy, Trot, and Betsy) as well as, more importantly, Baum's full description and definition of Oz as it finally developed in his mind (or was revealed to him), the whole story of Lurline, etc. >*.If Nick Chopper's head is still alive, then the Tinwoodman can't be Nick >Chopper. And who exactly is Chopfyte, if he is mixture of two people? That >part doesn't make scense in the least. I think Baum was having some fun here exploring the question of identity. If I get cloned, who is the real me? As Weird Al put it: "I think I'm a clone now. There seems to be another one of me around." If Nick's meat head was chopped off and replaced with a tin head, the tin head was part of Nick because it was attached to Nick's body. But the head was just Nick's head, with all his memories intact. Without a body, though, all it really cares about doing is sitting in a dark cabinet and not thinking! Weird. But I think it was this sort of spooky, confusing, yet humorous effect that LFB was going for, following various ideas to their logical conclusion. In the book, IIRC, it was the Tin Woodman himself who was the most disturbed by all of this. >*.The Baum books show that Oz isn't all that big. Yet, Thompsons books show >that it is enormous. There were hundreds of small kingdoms in her books, but >not as much in the Baum books,. ... Perhaps Oz was larger than Baum >thought it was. In Maguire's _Wicked_, Oz is relatively huge, apparently about the size of Texas, being several hundred miles in each dimension. Whatever else one might say about this book, it does give a sense of space and geographic reality that is lacking in most of the FF, esp. RPT, whose descriptions can be a little claustrophobic at times. You can't walk for ten minutes in an RPT book without falling into an underground kingdom of sentient doorknobs or some such nonsense. In one of Neill's books, however, Oz is so small that you can take a trolley around the Emerald City and visit all four countries of Oz in an hour or so. >I think Oz is more like the garden of Gethsamane. I mean, animals can talk, >everyone is happy and has everything he/she needs. It also has the tree of >Knowledge mentioned in the bible, mentioned as the -Encahnted Apple Tree- in >Eric Shanwoer's -Enchanted apples-. And if one eats any of them, Oz will >become >a humdrum place like the rest of the world. It has a very unique >resemblance to >Gethsamane........... Aren't you thinking about the Garden of Eden? Gethsemane is the garden in Jerusalem where Jesus went to pray just before his capture by the Romans. I don't recall animals talking in either garden, and Gethsemane has no Tree of Knowledge that I've ever heard of. Is there some doctrine I'm not familiar with which claims that Eden and Gethsemane are the same place? However, I think it's likely that Shanower borrowed the idea of the forbidden fruit in the Garden (of Eden) for the plot of _Apple_. Tyler Jones wrote: >The only unexplained thread would be >why Glinda would have "conquered" Blinkie and then let her run loose in >Jinxland. She surely would have known that Blinkie would have made the >lives of >the people there miserable. (a) Glinda overcomes the WWS, Blinkie, who flees to Jinxland. There, she makes trouble. (b) Blinkie is born and raised in Jinxland and never leaves it. She makes trouble there. If the GBR said, "Blinkie is making the lives of the people of Jinxland miserable," why would Glinda be more apt to intervene in situation (a) than in situation (b)? Jinxland is in Glinda's domain, so one would assume that she would take some responsibility for it in either case. If the GBR didn't say anything, or said something particularly cryptic, then Glinda would have no reason to do anything in either case. In situation (a), Glinda might reason that Jinxland is isolated, so Blinkie is at least safely out of the way of the majority of the people in Quadling country. But given the vague, oracular nature of the GBR, she might not even know where Blinkie had fled. As for Singra, I am willing to admit that she might have been a wicked witch of the south, but she is far too inept (as Payes portrays her) to have been THE Wicked Witch of the South. - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 03 Feb 99 14:06:58 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things BCF: Based on the input from Digest members, I have decided to just continue to do the FF in order of publication, so _Royal Book_ will be the next one. But I do want to give members a chance to get a hold of and read it. What do you think would be a fair "waiting period" for the Thompson books? Any thoughts on what we're going to do about the ones not available from either IWOC or BoW, or should we cross that bridge when we come to it? TIN WOODMAN: As I've said before, I accept all the Baum books (if nothing else) as "official" Oz. As for the thing about the two Nick Choppers, I guess it's really no bigger headache than the similar paradoxes that arise in _Red Dwarf_ when (a) Rimmer generates a duplicate hologram of himself; (b) Rimmer inadvertantly creates a planet whose inhabitants are all clones of himself; and (c) Lister discovers that he is his own father(!) FYI: Today's Digest is the output of the first successful, crash-free build of my Make_Digest program in weeks! What a difference a Zip Drive makes! (Thanks to everyone for your help!!!) -- Dave ====================================================================== ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 4-5, 1999 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== From: "Kris & Mike" (Please respond privately) Subject: OZ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:33:19 -0500 Can you help me? Do you know what type of bicycle Miss Gulch rode? I have an interst in vintage bikes. I would like to know make and model also. Noone else knows. Thanks, kriss@indy.net ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 18:35:19 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: The Incessant Sermons In Oz X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Gehan Cooray, in the latest installment of a long-running sermon, missed the point of Bob Spark's quite restrained lament/reqest with his retort: > There's nothing wrong in speaking about God is there? Its not like I'm do ing > anything against Him. If I may be permitted to stir from my coffin to here insert my (not exactly widely shared) opinion on this topic... There are plenty of places where your favorite subject might be more, shall we say, On Topic. I daresay Whoever It Is to Whom you refer would not want you to prattle on about Him to people who were annoyed beyond exasperation by your unshakeable fixation on raphsodizing about how Swell you feel He must Be. If He does, then I especially don't want to hear from or about Him via his anointed messengers. I don't know whether or not Christianity would be tolerated in Oz as much as it is in the US. I can't really see the necessity for it. After all, Oz would seem to me to be a Paradise, with immortality merely one of the benefits of residence. If I were (oh faint hope) to be extended such blissful permanent residence, and, through some unimaginable over- sight of her Royal Highness Princess Ozma, to somehow get myself accidentally killed, Heaven would be Hell in comparison. For one thing, from what I'm told, the place is just *crawling* with Christians. I'd never be able to see my dear atheist, skeptical, Jewish, Hindu, Vedantist, Zen Buddhist, agnostic, Pagan, or Theosophist friends, unless I leaned over "Heaven's" battlements and waved to them, suffering forever in a Lake of Sulphurous Brimstone. Anybody who would do that to such nice people is somebody about whom I will always say bad things. Just because words like christening, or nun, or church, have been found in Oz books is, to me, weak evidence for any such worship being widely spread. I don't think for a moment that Princess Ozma would want any of her subjects to be unhappy, and if they needed to erect places to meet for those who prayed for the day when they would be able to leave Oz forever and go to heaven, then I can't think of any reason for her to prevent them. I imagine if anybody started trying to evangelize Princess Ozma's subjects, you might find yourself being asked to explain your actions to Princess Ozma. Would you attempt to convert her to your faith? What if she were Jewish? What if Ozma's association with the Fairy Band who turned Oz into such a Blessed Land prevented her from accepting the amazing dispensation offered by your pal, the 2000 yr. old carpenter? Would you warn her what was in store for her if she were to die? I would think that if you started telling her about all the horrible things that *might* happen *if* she didn't say some things on her knees with beads, you'd be offered an opportunity to relocate your dwelling to Flutterbudget Center. It isn't inappropriate to wonder what L. Frank Baum might have thought about the issue. His mother-in-law,Matilda Joslyn Gage, was not a fan of the Church. This quotation is typical of her, "Sympathetic contagion, generally connected with some religious feeling, never has force where the intellect is scientifically and philosophically cultivated, and active. It belongs to an age, or a phase of ignorance and religious superstition." She did not feel that a woman could be both a feminist, and a member of the Church which so oppressed women, at the same time. You can learn more about her at this URL: http://www.nyhistory.com/gagepage/ John Algeo, the president of the Thesophical Society, documented Baum's belief in Theosophy and membership in the Society in an article. In the article, he mentions a recollection by Baum niece, Matilda Jewell Gage, that a book by Theosophical author Charles W. Leadbeater, _The Devachanic Plane_, was among her uncle's collection of books concerning Theosophy, occultism and eastern philosophies. Algeo quoted some more of Baum's writing in Baum's paper, The Aberdeen Journal, augmenting Michael Patrick Hearn's quotes from same. MPH had only strongly suggested that Baum had at least spent much time exploring Theosophy. Algeo points out that while "It is not clear which theosophical teachings Baum "could not accept"; possibly that reservation means only that Baum did not consider every idea that had been advanced by individual theosophists to be theosophical-- a reservation that most of us would still want to make." Baum's writing in his newspaper, in response to being accused of being a Buddhist: "The Theosophists, in fact, are the dissatisfied of the world, the dissenters from all creeds. They owe their origins to the wise men of India, and are numerous, not only in the far famed mystic East, but in England, France, Germany and Russia. They admit the existence of a God--not necessarily a personal God. To them God is Nature and Nature God. We have mentioned their high morality; they are also quiet and unobtrusive, seeking no notoriety, yet daily growing so numerous that even in America they may be counted by thousands. But, despite this, if Christianity is Truth, as our education has taught us to believe, there can be no menace to it in Theosophy." Theosophy considers The Nazarene to be a really smart guy, just one of many really smart guys throughout history who is no more, nor less important than any others. You'll notice he doesn't acknowledge that Christianity is Truth. He doesn't state that he believes it to be Truth, merely that *we* have been *taught* to believe it. He says, in other words, that Christianity shouldn't worry about Theosophy threatening it *if* it is Truth. He talks about Christianity as would a Vedantist (a non-native believer in the Vedas, one who believes as but was not born, a Hindu), where Christianity is merely the teaching of another wise sage. The only church in Oz that L. Frank Baum tells us about is in The Dainty China Country and made of glass; it's entirely too small a place for anybody like Dorothy to fit into. The Cowardly Lion smashes its steeple in his hurry to leave such a fragile place. This is not the sort of thing Narnia's Lion, Aslan, would do-- perhaps you might prefer Narnia to Oz? I'm sure singing and dancing about Christianity would be quite welcome on a Narnia Digest. Don't let me come between you and your favorite deity, whatever you conceive Her to be, just understand that each of us have our own conception of Oz, and not everybody wants to think of it the way you do, nor the way I do. Oz has always seemed to me to be about celebrating the differences among people, rather than about trying to get them to all behave and think and believe the same way. This is the nicest way I know to ask you to look for Xtian fellowship via private e-mail, in consideration of those who prefer more Oz and less religion on the Ozzy Digest, which really isn't the Xtian Digest nor the Atheist Digest. I pray I've completely burned this topic at the stake. Do whatever steps you want if you have cleared them with the Pontiff. Ave Maria, gee it's good to see ya. I'd be ecstatic if, we stuck to Ozzy tifs, this ain't no Vatican Rag. Ken Cope Ozcot Studios ozpinhead@ozcot.com http://www.ozcot.com Department of Redundancy Department, Bureau of Western Mythology A Proud Service of the Lost Electricity Reclamation Agency. (Merely a stone's throw from The Tomb of The Unregistered Voter) ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:29:17 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: doorknobs into Oz I sent the first part of this posting towards the end of Dave's Zip-zapped trouble (and without "Oz" in the subject line), and it seems to have been etherized. On the assumption that it won't reassemble, I'm sending it again. Since I wasn't making these comments in reply to anyone, just filling time during a long wait between digests, no conversational flows have been harmed in the making of this message. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The winter 1998 BAUM BUGLE has brought an article by Steve Teller about five prewar dramatizations of Baum novels for amateur companies and young audiences. This article is illustrated with a Marshall Field's advertisement (CHICAGO EVENING POST, Jan 1923) announcing a Junior League production of WIZARD in the department store, as well as various Oz-themed bargains: "Don't Look Like the Scarecrow!...Graduation Suits of serge, 8 to 18 years." "We have Silver Shoes, too, and all other kinds of Shoes." This ad adds two more interesting details to Steve's article. It shows that Elizabeth Goodspeed drafted her WIZARD adaptation years before Samuel French published it in 1928. Indeed, since the Junior League was founded only in 1921, WIZARD may well have one of the first children's books the group staged. Even more intriguing to me is one name on the cast list: the Tin Woodman was played by Emily Kimbrough. In later years she would write OUR HEARTS WERE YOUNG AND GAY and many other entertaining memoirs of travel in Europe, growing up in the Midwest, and raising children. In one of those books she described her first job as a copywriter at Marshall Field's--so she may even have written those ads I quoted. Kimbrough's co-author on OUR HEARTS... was the actress Cornelia Otis Skinner, daughter of actor Otis Skinner. What was his tenuous link to Baum's work? Answer at the end of this post. [JEOPARDY theme: Doo dee doo doo, doo dee doo,...] The winter 1998 BUGLE also brings the news that 1999's Munchkin Convention will be held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, not Hershey. This means Oz fans flying in won't have to drive an hour after landing. On the other hand, Harrisburg is a little less convenient to greater Philadelphia, and contains no chocolate factory. Looking west, many ranchers believe cattle and horses step into prairie-dog holes and break their legs, so they try to exterminate the rodents. Wildlife managers haven't been able to document a single case of that really happening--it's the rural equivalent of an urban legend. Baum seems to have heard about the legend while he was in Aberdeen. In LAND he has the Sawhorse step into a rabbit hole and break his leg. Has anyone braved his prairie-dog-town stories to see if it shows up there, too? Back home, the stage version of the movie version of WIZARD has landed in Boston, Mickey Rooney and all. The BOSTON GLOBE's theater critic quotes a friend's assessment: "like the Ice Capades without any skating." He recommends taking two kids before viewing. [...DOO dee-doo dee-doo doo duuu!] In the 1944 movie version of OUR HEARTS WERE YOUNG AND GAY, Otis Skinner was played by Charlie Ruggles, the original Private Files in Baum's TIK-TOK MAN OF OZ stage musical. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gehan Cooray wrote: <> TIN WOODMAN shows the Wicked Witch of the East healing Ku-Klip when he cuts off his thumb. So she *does* help people in some circumstances--perhaps when she gets a lot out of the deal. Tyler Jones exclaimed: <> Charles IV's Golden Bull of 1356 defined a system in which eight German leaders chose the new emperor. If I read the little map in my historical atlas right, these leaders were the bishops of Cologne, Trier, and Mainz; the Palatine Count; and the Dukes of Brandenburg, Bohemia, and Saxony. I think there was also an Elector of Bavaria. The title of Elector was passed down in families on the noble side, and schemed over on the clerical side. Electors often ended up choosing [surprise!] one of themselves, or the son of the previous emperor. A strange way to run a realm, but no more logical than choosing the 47th person through the gates. Tyler Jones wrote: <> Unless he was sneaking through a population used to walking tin men, stuffed people, elegant pachyderms, etc., and the people accepted the man without question as just another fellow from some odd corner of Oz. (Of course, if Thompson was right in reporting this man had deliberately dressed as a monk, he definitely knew what one was.) David Godwin wrote: <> What's wrong with giving doorknobs a turn in Oz? Seriously, aren't the most famous doorknobs in the series in LUCKY BUCKY? I never could figure out why the Gabooches were doorknobs. But neither is it ever clear why they were Gabooches. Lisa Mastroberte asked: <> My guess is...Dave Hardenbrook! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:38:21 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Gehan: I'd say I understood your idea pretty well, and I agree with much of it. I must say, though, that the history as recorded in _Magical Mimics_ is completely contradicted by every other piece of pre-Dorothean history in the FF. ********** SPOILER FOR OJO IN OZ ********** It's possible that the Seebanian King was the one marching in the parade, but not too likely, since Mooj overthrew that kingdom very soon after Ozma came to rule. I go with the theory that he was just a stand-in or some appointed official ********** END OF SPOILER ********** Lisa Mastroberte: The Ozzy DIgest was born on December 4, 1995. There are quite a few of us who have been around since the beginning, most of us having bailed from the sinking Oz Mailing List of Chris Heer and The Ozian Times. Bob Collinge: SNow wrote _The Magical Mimics of Oz_ and _The Shaggy Man of Oz_. Both can be gotten from at Books of Wonder or the IWOOC, I'm pretty sure. Next stop on the BCF express (have your tickets and transfers ready): I would have voted for going in order, but Dave must have fortold that and decided to go ahead :-) As to how long a grace period between books, I think that my original two week breather is pretty good. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 23:59:04 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-03-99 TYLER: >Your philosophy reminds me of someone I may have heard about once. He >suggested that, in times of anger, to write a hate-filled letter, every >swear word in the book, etc. then burn it. A suggestion made by many people, really. And probably a good one. >If religious figures were not commonplace, then a monk >would have shone like a beacon. Deacon? GEHAN COORAY: >>I think Oz is more like the garden of Gethsamane. I mean, animals can tal k, >>everyone is happy and has everything he/she needs. It also has the tree o f >>Knowledge mentioned in the bible, mentioned as the -Encahnted Apple Tree- in >>Eric Shanwoer's -Enchanted apples-. And if one eats any of them, Oz will >>become >>a humdrum place like the rest of the world. It has a very unique >>resemblance to >>Gethsamane........... Very unique, indeed. If Oz is like Gethsemane, no wonder Dorothy preferred Kansas. Atticus P.S. Oz is really a secular place on which no particular religion can place its mitts. And that makes me happy. * * * "...[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: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 19:23:09 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Christianity What is so wrong if I talk about my religion? All I asked was wheather ther e were any churches in Oz, and I said that no-one should forget God just because they are happy without his help, and that our friends should atleas t say a prayer if there are no churches. Bob Spark and Ken Cope sound as if I have insulted other religions, which I DID NOT, and WILL NEVER DO. All I said was that no-one should forget God. Do you call this a lecture? What is so wrong in it? Just because there are dis-beleivers on the Digest, that does not mean I have to stop talking about my religion; and any way, I neve r did any harm and never gave any lectures. You al know very well what I said . I never posted any articles about christianity or insulted other religions. I don't see any reason for it to become so annoying! BTW.......... Ken Cope: You won't have to lean over Heaven to see other friends of yours who follow other Religions. To God, everyone is the same, and everyone, including thos e who follow other religions will also join you in Heaven! God never divides people! If my religion has become such a nuisance, and if it will create flame wars , I will not post any religion-related articles again! Satisfied? --Gehan Cooray ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 08:54:04 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Ozzy Things David Hulan and John Bell: Sorry. I posted that message on Eden right after college, so I guess I didn't realise that I made a mistake. However, coming to the WWS:I prefer to accept Singra or even the WWS in -Enchanted Apples-. That also increases the majority of witches in Oz. Come to think of it, the Winkie Country and the Munchkin Country are quite peaceful, while the Quadling and Gillikin Country are filled with strange tribes, shocking inciddents and wild dimensions. The WW of the East and West should have been the Wicked Witches of the North and South while Locasta and Glinda should have been GW's of the east and west. Know what I mean? TINWOODMAN: All right, I'll accept the fact that Baum made tons of mistakes in -Tinwodman-. Just because -Tinwodman- isn't oficial, doesn't measn that it changes things like Lurline's enchantment and Dorothy/Trot/Betsy/Ozma's age e.t.c. They are mentioned in several other books(-Lost Princess-,-Magical Mimics-,-Giant Horse-,-Glinda- e.t.c)The main reason why I don't wan't to accept it as canonical is because of the Chopfyte/Nick/Tinwodman/Cap'n Fyter mystery. As Eric Gjovaag said:"There are no official boks. Only official ones. See the difference? Each Oz fan choses, HIS/HER set of official books". Jack Snow's books: I don't see any reason for Jack Snow's boks to be considered "dark" Oz books. What could be more exciting than a tribe of wicked monster creatures conquering Oz, than a plain old wizard or sorceress? What could be more imaginative than walking through a TV set, than using a magic belt/shoes e.t.c. What could be more pleasent than a vilage of pine-folk, ruled by a sweet,simple princess? I'm not saying that RPT's books are bad. They are very,very ozzy! But I just don't see any reason for JS's boks to be considered "un-ozzy" or "dark". --Gehan Cooray ====================================================================== From: "Bob Collinge" Subject: Oz book on e-bay Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:07:51 -0500 I found this book for sale on e-bay for $1500. Could some of you book experts tell me if this is a good price? http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=62724643 It is a first edition Wonderful Wizard of Oz book. Thanks, Bob C. ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 09:47:37 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Movie project No thanks. ******* LIZ AND ROD ON YELLOW BRICK ROAD Rod Steiger says he has been getting together with Elizabeth Taylor twice a week recently to plan her return to the screen in Dorothy and Oz. In an interview with syndicated columnist Cindy Pearlman, Steiger said, "It's about how Dorothy, who is 60 plus, goes back to Oz after her husband dies. Her friends in Oz have become human. I'll play the Cowardly Lion who is now so tough he has become a gangster and scares everyone to death." About having to compete with the image of a film classic, Steiger said, "Nobody is trying to top a great film. This is just what happens to Dorothy years later." * * * "...[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, 4 Feb 1999 22:51:41 -0500 (EST) From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: I've been published on another website The same magazine that published one of my articles has published another online only. I didn't know it was there until I did a web search for my name. This is a review of Trevor Jones's music from _Dark City_. http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/mar98/ 16_Mar---Another_Dark_City_Look-Wild_Wild_West_News.html ============================ Scott Andrew Hutchins http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:51:14 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David G.) Subject: Ozness Gehan wrote, in reference to the WWE enchanting Nick Chopper's ax on her own behalf (TW) rather than doing it for some Munchkin woman (WWiz): > After all, the WWE isn't going to help >one of the Munchkins. According to the TW's account in WWiz, the WWE agreed to take Nick out of the running as a suitor in exchange for two sheep and a cow. Lisa wrote: >I think that nobody ever really gave it thought. But just for arguments >sake, what religion was LFB? I read somewhere that he was a nominal Protestant Christian but wasn't too serious about it. He evidently was a contributing member of some church in Aberdeen, though. He was also a Theosophist, of course, but strictly speaking Theosophy is a philosophy rather than a religion, incoporating elements of occultism, spiritualism, Hinduism, etc. I don't know how serious he was about that, either; it was very popular at the time, one might say fashionable in some circles. Everybody and his dog was in touch with a Secret Master on the astral plane. Maybe that's how LFB got his info about Oz. :) Bob Collinge wrote: >The girl who did the witch had a terrible >accent, and was a poor actor. The reviewer for the Saint Paul paper was correct when he said her costume made her appear to be Catwoman's grandmother. The accent didn't bother me, however. Maybe it's because I used to watch "Green Acres" once in a while. >What are the titles of the Snow Books, and where can we get them? >How soon before you would begin these books? Allow me to be one of hundreds advising you that the books by Jack Snow are _Magical Mimics in Oz_ and _The Shaggy Man of Oz_, both available from Books of Wonder. Since we are apparently going to proceed with the RPT books, it will be some time before they come up for discussion. Mark Anthony Donajkowski: I think it is terrific that you are trying to establish an Oz newsgroup. I've looked for one in vain in the past. Thanks and good luck! (I do not see it replacing the Digest, by the way. It's a different sort of animal.) This is slightly out-of-date, but David Hulan wrote: <> ISTR that Malcolm X, on his prilgrimage to Mecca, was struck by the fact that many of the Muslims he met in Saudi Arabia were blond and blue-eyed. Anyway, I suppose it is no harder to imagine Dorothy saying the Rosary every night than it is to imagine Button-Bright saying the Fatihah five times a day (maybe he gets lost a lot on purpose so as to be able to pray privately). J.L. Bell wrote: >Insisting that characters >who show no sign of worship should pray the rosary is projecting one's own >interests onto Oz, as much as telling us whom Glinda would vote for or what >laundry detergent the Scarecrow uses. Glinda would have voted for Woodrow Wilson. The Scarecrow uses Wisk (and the Cowardly Lion washes his ribbons with Bold). Maybe Gehan should have said that this is what _he_ would do in that situation. But I can't understand anyone in Oz saying the Rosary as it exists in the Outside World. The final words are "pray for us now and at the hour of our death." What death? Dave wrote: >Any thoughts on what we're >going to do about the ones not available from either IWOC or BoW, or >should we cross that bridge when we come to it? Let's not put it off as long as most people did the Y2K business (i.e., the eleventh hour), but I think we've got a while. Perhaps the books (between Pumpkinhead and Capt. Salt) will become available again before that, somehow. Personally, I have the old (1986) Del Rey editions, which are evidently no longer available for these titles (_Yellow Knight, Pirates, Purple Prince, Ojo, Speedy,_ and _Wishing Horse_). I never did understand why they thought they had to redo the covers. I suppose to make them look more like modern fantasy novels. Wisdom: Has _The Wisdom of Oz_ been discussed at all on the Digest? - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:39:33 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: NEW OZ MOVIE According to The HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, Rod Steiger will make his directorial debut with THANKSGIVING, an indie film by ZETA and CUTTING EDGE Entertainment about three senior men who come together for the holidays. Steiger, who also stars in the film, has additionally told syndicated columnist Cindy Pearlman that he has been getting together with Liz Taylor twice a week to help her prepare for the WIZARD OF OZ "sequel" DOROTHY AND OZ, about a 60+ year-old Dorothy who returns to a more-human Oz after her husband dies. Steiger will play a gangster Cowardly Lion in the film. ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 05 Feb 99 12:07:08 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things OUR HEARTS WERE YOUNG AND OZZY: As a big fan of both Cornelia Otis Skinner and Emily Kimbrough (not only _Our Hearts_ but their solo books are great too, though hard to come by except by ILL), I'm delighted to hear of these Ozzy ties they have. TO LISA: Sorry, I forgot to answer your question yesterday! As Tyler said, the Ozzy Digest is sort of the descendant of Nate Barlow's _Ozian Times_ and Chris Heer's short-lived Oz mailing list. The "charter members" of the Ozzy Digest are largely people who were on those lists: Me, Nate, Tyler, Eric G., Peter Hanff, Robin O., David Hulan, Jim Vander Noot, and a few others. I'll just differ with Tyler on one small point: Nate's _Ozian Times_ didn't really "sink" -- It just came out infrequently, and the semi-daily Ozzy Digest made it kind of redundant. As for Chris' list, it died with a proverbial "bang"...One day it just started bouncing all new messages and Chris himself vanished from the face of the Internet. Anyway, I then decided to form the Ozzy Digest to fill in the empty niche. End History lesson for today. :) COMMENTS BY DAVID G.: >I have the old (1986) Del Rey editions, which are >evidently no longer available for these titles (_Yellow Knight, Pirates, >Purple Prince, Ojo, Speedy,_ and _Wishing Horse_). I never did understand >why they thought they had to redo the covers. I suppose to make them look >more like modern fantasy novels. I have noted that at Barnes&Noble, the Del Rey Oz books are in the Adult Fantasy/Sci-Fi section (the BoW Oz are shelved with "Children's Classics"). >Has _The Wisdom of Oz_ been discussed at all on the Digest? No, but feel free to start a discussion on it. :) OZ FANS, LET US PRAY: I don't know if Oz is religious or secular, but all these things I'm hearing about the movie of _Wicked_ and this Liz Taylor/Rod Steiger Oz film is greatly increasing the amount of time *I* spend at the communion rail. -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://www.mindspring.net/~daveh47/ Take the time to taste the honey on a summer breeze, Touch the love song every bird has learned to sing. Feel the sunlight as it warms you on the coolest day, And you'll feel a part of what we're gathering -- The senses of our world." -- The Bugaloos, "The Senses of Our World" ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 6 - 9, 1999 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 19:56:13 -0500 From: Jill Moore Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-03-99 Let me preface this note by saying, this does not apply to all members of this group, those to whom is is written know who they are! Talk about SANCTIMONIOUS DIATRIBE!! I am sick and tired of being put down by the pompous, arrogant, condescending members of this group who disagreed with my postings. Take note that NOT ONE OF YOU took the initiative to help Dave, therefore you might want to consider the old adage about "those who live in glass houses" and take a long look in the mirror before you start judging others! In the future please leave me out of your discussions, as you can be certain that you will no longer be a part of my life! Your behavior in this situation has been despicable (no, this does not apply to all members of this group, those to whom is is written know who they are!) and not worthy of anybody who claims to have a loving relationship with Oz, or belief in the values Oz tried to teach some of us. And yes, those of whom this letter does apply should be very ashamed of yourselves. Now, since you are of such obvious high intellect, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to understand this last thing I have to say to you, " take this digest and shove it where the sun don't shine honey!!"! PS: Dave, I'm truly sorry that my efforts to assist you in your efforts to keep this digest available to all have caused such an uproar. I do hope that your Ozade '99 event was successful, and agree with the person who posted the note about charging for memberships. However, I also realize this would result in extra work for you and probably expense as well, so is probably not feasible for which I am truly sorry. Thank you for your kind support and it has been good knowing you! ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:57:54 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: oz kids can any one tellmme if these are worth watching my local library can get like 5 of them from another library i wanna know if itws worth my time can anyone tell me anything abotu them ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 08:08:42 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Ozma OZMA The mystery on Princess Ozma, her age, her parents e.t.c is perhaps one of the most hard-to-solve mysteries in the Oz books. We have plenty of statements about her in the FF, but when we put al those statements together, it doesn't make much scense. Lots of Oz Scholars and Oz Fans have tried to find a reasonable explanation, but it has been of no use, and most often, each solution only suits the person who invented it. Here is the evidence we get from the books: *.The Land of Oz Ozma's father ruled Oz before the Wizard, who "stole" the throne from him since he died. The Wizard handed the baby Ozma to old Mombi the witch who turned her into a boy. *.Ozma of Oz All the books which were writen since -Ozma- say that Mombi "herself" kidnapped the baby Ozma and turned her into a boy. *.Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz Mombi kidnaped Pastoria and his father. After Ozma was "born" she turned her into a boy. *.The Tinwoodman of Oz Queen Lurline enchants Oz and makes it a fairy country and leaves one of her fairies to rule. *.Glinda of Oz Ozma tells the Su-Dic that she was "with" Lurline when Oz was enchanted. Even though Baum says that she is fourteen or fifteen, he admits in *.The Magic of Oz .......that she is thousands of years old, yet no older than you or me. Ruth Plumly Thompson says the same thing in -Kabumpo in Oz- *.The Lost King of Oz Ozma remembers being with her father. *.The Magical Mimics of Oz Queen Lurline enchants Oz, and leaves the baby Ozma in the hands of Pastoria who acording to the bok, ruled the land at that time. Ozma admits that she was soon kidnapped by Mombi. Here are the un-fit statements *. If the Wizard came to Oz after Pastoria was kidnapped and after Ozma was born, how did he find her? How was it that she stil remained a baby? *. Why do some books say that Mombi kidnapped Ozma? Wasn't it the Wizard who found her first? -Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz- says that Ozma was born while Pastoria was Mombi's slave and that Mombi changed her into a boy soon afterwards. Yet -Land of Oz- says that the Wizard found her and handed her over to Mombi. Which is correct? *. Was Ozma Pastoria's biological daughter and born to his wife, or was she handed over to him by Lurline? *. If Ozma was no more than a baby when the Wizard found her/Mombi stole her, how can she be thousands of years old? If she is Pastoria's biological daughter, how can she be a fairy? *. Did Lurline leave a fairy to rule Oz, or was Pastoria the current ruler when she visited Oz? *.Ozma loks older in -DotWiz- than in -Land- or -Ozma-. How come she couldn't use magic, and didn't know that she was a fairy untill -Lost Princess of Oz-? Here is MRE (My Reasonable explanation): Ok. I'll try to fit in all of the FF statements in such a way, that they are all true, and all make scense...... Queen Lurline enchants Oz. She promised to send a fairy princess to rule Oz someday, so they will all be happy. This fairy was Ozma.That was the fairy ruler mentioned in -Magical Mimics-. Centuries afterwards, Pastoria became king and he,his wife and his parents were kidnapped. Queen Lurline knew that Oz was in trouble, so she decided to have Ozma born imediatly. There was a fairy called Ozma with her when she enchanted Oz who was a 1000 years old. She de-aged her into a human baby and gave her to Pastoria, who was a prisoner in Mombi's cottage/hut/castle e.t.c. Mombi found this out and transported Pastoria out of Oz and turned Ozma into a boy. She aged very slowly, living in Oz, and specially because she was a fairy.Maybe Pastoria managed to run-away from Mombi at first, and hide with Ozma and maybe Mombi used her witchcraft to find her. Maybe thats what Ozma meant by saying that she remebered "being" with her father. I beleive the Wizard didn't have anything to do with her dissapearnce, for he would have mentioned so in -Wizard of Oz-. I think Baum made a mistake when he wrote -Land of Oz- and Mombi did really tell Glinda that SHE was responsible for everything. Trouble is, Glinda says that the Wizard paid three visits to Mombi. Maybe he did so because he had heard that Mombi kidnapped the former ruler of Oz, and went to investigate. Mombi told him that she had everythinmg under control and Ozma would never be discovered, and maybe the Wizard told her to do so too, but he didn't realy LEAVE Ozma in Mombi's hands. Then, when Ozma was dis-enchanted, she didn't remember anything about her fairyhood, because when Lurline de-aged her, she turned her into a human. Therefore Ozma forgot that she was a fairy, and later, Lurline turned her back into her old fairy self. I don't think Ozma was Pastoria's biological daughter, because she never mentioned anything about her mother. I also beleive that ever since Lurline enchanted Oz, aging in Oz was slow, but it completely stopped ever since Ozma regained her fairy self. ___________________________________________________________________________ Thats my story anyway. Hope it fits in well. Please e-mail me, if there are any parts which you don't understand and tell me if it is "understandable". ====================================================================== From: JOdel@aol.com Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:03:18 EST Subject: Ozzy whatevers I seem to have had a posting disappear last week. David Hulan mentioned a somewhat similar observation to the one I had made, but his was not identic al, so I will re-send. MOPPeT; Since it seems unlikely in the extreme that the four (widely separated geographically?) wicked witches should have spontaniously decided to depose the royal family of the green county (who may have had some ceremonial or symbolic function to the rest of Oz as a whole, although I agree that they are unlikely to have ruled it) and take over their four main quadrants of the country at the same time, it seems reasonable to assume that there was a previously existing association between these witches, and that the conspiracy to take control of the county was hatched because of some particular opportunity having suddenly come into their hands--such as the flying monkey's cap. ILTT that they hammered out an agreement to not use it against each ot her and to share it around in turns. Mombi, whose powers were greater than those of most of the others, may have used it to capture and dispose of the various branches of the Royal Family, trusting to her own powers and resourcefulness to hold the North. The WWE may have used it to bring the Munchkins under her control, as the WWW did the Winkies. The WWS, whose powers may have also been strong, never got the chance to use it, due to the WWW'shanging on to it and hording her third command over the monkeys. Glinda overthrew the WWS before she was able to bring the south under her control by her own efforts. The WWS escaped to Jinxland, where Blinkie was already in control, and Glinda did not pursue, both because of the difficulty of access (for her forces, that is, she herself had her stork/swan chariot) and the fact that it took some years to consolidate her own rule, stamp out pockets of rebellion, set up her intelligence network, secure her borders and start to devise the Great Book of Records. Whether the former WWS was one of the associated witches who took part in the Freezing of the Heart is not certain. She may have been. But she may also have tried to sieze control of Jinxland during the intervening period and been eliminated by Blinkie before the incident of the Frozen Heart took place. A residual effect of the totalitarian rule of the witches in the East and West is still seen in these quadrents' remarkable degree of unification. The WWE's greater effectiveness in the more widely settled Munchkin country can be assumed by the fact that her rule appears to have touched everthing but various pockets hidden within the Great Blue Forest, while the weaker and more phobic WWW never seems to have actually controled some fairly sizable tracts of the wilder, and less settled western quadrant, such as the plains where the Cities of Thi and Herku are established at all, and the Good Witch Gloma was able to conceal and secure her own safety and that of all of her subjects by no more extreme measures than that of withdrawing to the forest under cover of eternal darkness (which the WWW feared). In the North and South, where the rule of the wicked witches was never firmly established, the preexisting conglomoration of largely independent city-states has endured. In the North , the largely mountanous character of the land itself would have further hampered any efforts towards unification. To Ken Cope; Amen. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:15:09 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David G.) Subject: Oz & religion, again That Old Time Religion: In the piece about Oz and Theosophy written by David B. Parker, he mentions that Baum may have intended the destruction of the china church by the Cowardly Lion as an objection to Christian missionaries in China. I doubt it, but who knows? In _Wicked_, Magure does not shy away from speculation about religion in Oz. There appear to be three main sects there: the unionists, who believe in the Unnamed God and behave a lot like Fundamentalist Christians; the Lurlinists, who are essentially pagans; and the pleasure-faith, which appears to be a hedonistic system directed to the party-hearty crowd. The WWW (a sympathetic character in this novel) is an atheist. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the real Oz. I mentioned before about writing angry letters and then not sending them. Now I am at the point where I am almost ready to start writing long discussions about God, religion, belief, and so on - and not send them, either. Except this one: Even though I agree with scarcely anything Gehan says on this subject (I am not RC and am not a member of any church), I am not offended by it and don't really understand why anyone else is, especially to the extent that Ken Cope is. I think I'd feel the same way if Gehan were on about Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, or anything else. Sure, it's sometimes a bit off-topic and gets a little old at times, but so do some other things. Why take it so seriously? I don't think mockery is called for. As for tolerating diversity vs. wanting everyone to >behave and think and believe the same way,< it seems to me that that critique applies just as well to people who cannot tolerate diversity if it includes Christianity. They often seem to want everyone to think like _them_ in anathematizing it. I don't think Gehan has tried to convert anybody or get them to think and act the way he does. He just won't shut up about it, that's all. So what? OTOH, the Freemasons forbid any discussion of politics or religion in lodge. Why? Because it might disturb the peace and harmony supposed to be maintained there. Maybe it's not such a bad idea? Steiger & Taylor: Give me a break! All this reminds me of the Buffalo Boggs character in Gardner's _Visitors from Oz_. - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:56:43 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: lost in the Ozian darkness Gehan Cooray wrote: <> Yes, a short one [which you later expanded]. That wording implied that everyone--both Oz characters and your fellow digest members--should think in a certain way. David Godwin wrote, <>. That would indeed be less likely to rasp other people's sensitivities and more likely to preserve our respect for your thoughtfulness. Gehan Cooray: <> You're making the case that Snow's novels are "exciting" and "imaginative," but those aren't opposites to "dark." I think Snow's books have less humor and whimsy than his predecessors'; his cute characters (clowns, wooden dolls) are somewhat derivative and sugary. But Snow was good at scary stuff (e.g., the Mimics stealing one's identity). As a result, I bet many readers felt and remember the dark parts of his books more powerfully. Eric Shanower's Oz comics and GIANT GARDEN novel have an even more serious tone, I think. Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> I don't remember which online Oz discussion group I was in years ago, but it did vanish as swiftly as and even more silently than a LUCKY BUCKY bubble. I enjoyed one lasting result: a remark on that list (I wish I could remember whose) gave me the inspiration for the "Jack Pumpkinhead's Day in Court" story that will appear in OZ-STORY this year. David Godwin wrote: <> Better than "in favor of..." J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:05:22 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-03 & 05-99 2/3: Gehan: >The Oz-as-history POV is that >the old woman handed Nimmie to the WWE later, and when the witch died, >Nimmie stole the Witche's magic potions (which she used to build the >invisible wall around her cottage) and maybe she never returned to the old >woman. Or maybe Baum made a mistake in -WIZARD- and maybe -TINWODMAN- is >correct, for it makes more scense. As I mentioned recently, the story in _Wizard_ was told by the Tin Woodman, not by Baum. I think the easiest resolution is that the old woman was in fact the WWE (as Ruth said), but Nick didn't know it at the time and assumed that the old woman had gotten the WWE to enchant his axe, rather than doing it herself. Sometime between _Wizard_ and _Tin Woodman_ Nick found out the truth (maybe looked it up in the GBR on a visit to Glinda?) and therefore told Woot a different story from the one he'd told Dorothy originally. Tyler: >Size does matter: (from an Oz-as-history POV) >People on the Digest have speculated that Baum shortened the travel storie s >by leaving out several repetitious "they woke up, marched for a while, the n >slept. Then the woke up again, marched for a while, and slept". However, >Baum definitely thought of Oz as a smaller, less settled more rural place >than Thompson did. Less settled and more rural I'll give you; I don't think there's much evidence that Baum thought of Oz as smaller. When you look at travel times both authors are pretty consistent - at least as much with each other as they are among their own books. I suspect that if Baum had lived to write another dozen books or so that his Oz would have gotten much more settled as well, assuming he kept the books in Oz proper rather than putting many of them outside Oz as he did with six of his fourteen. Each book introduces several new places that have to be fit into the map; I don't think Baum added much less per book than Thompson did, at least after the first two books (which seem to show an Oz that's entirely rural outside the EC). _Emerald City_ adds the Cuttenclips, Fuddles, Utensia, Bunbury, Bunnybury, Flutterbudget Center, and Rigmarole Town. _Patchwork Girl_ adds the Tottenhots, Hoppers, and Horners. _Lost Princess_ adds the Yips, Thi, Herku, and Bear Center. _Tin Woodman_ adds the Loons and Mrs. Yoop's castle (which is as big as many of Thompson's little "kingdoms", like Rith Metic or Catty Corners)_. _Magic_ adds the Hyups, though it's true that the rest of its adventures all take place in forests. And _Glinda_ adds the Spider Kingdom, the Mist Valley, the Skeezers, and the Flatheads - it's possible Reera should also be counted. J.L.: >Interesting. I bet the difference wasn't between America in 1900 and >America in 1939, both about a decade out of a severe depression. America wasn't really out of the Great Depression in 1939; unemployment was still quite high and the stock market was still way down. But, then, they hadn't entirely recovered from the Panic of 1893 in 1900, either. >Similarly, the >screenwriters made Dorothy's melting of the Wicked Witch of the West an >accident because good little MGM girls don't throw water just because >they're mad. Dorothy's melting of the WWW was an accident in the book, as well - the difference was that in the book she did intend to throw water at the witch, without knowing it would melt her, whereas in the movie she was throwing water at the flaming broom and the witch happened to be behind it. (Your point is well taken, but I didn't like your choice of words.) >In contrast, the banks who hold Uncle Henry's mortgage in >EMERALD CITY are more clearly images of the dark side of the American >economy. Collecting on loans isn't a personality flaw of banks; it's what >they're founded to do. I don't think this can accurately be described as "the dark side of the American economy." Collecting on loans is an essential corollary of making loans in the first place; if Uncle Henry hadn't been able to get a loan to rebuild his farmhouse the family would have been homeless at the end of _Wizard_ instead of threatened with it at the beginning of _Emerald City_. >Button-Bright's string of names includes some from Arabic, Latin, French, >German. It strikes me as possible that the ancestor Button-Bright called a n >Arabian Knight was one of the European Crusaders who maintained a state in >Palestine for a few decades during the Middle Ages--a knight in Arabia, bu t >not necessarily an Arabic knight. The Magic Umbrella would thus be in the >same class as the Shroud of Turin and other plunder brought back to Europe . Possible, but I doubt it. In the first place, Palestine wasn't considered part of "Arabia," though many of its inhabitants were Arabs and by the 11th century most of the rest probably spoke Arabic as their main language. In the second, if his ancestors had been crusaders it seems unlikely that his family would choose the name "Saladin" - who was one of the most successful foes the crusaders had - as his first name. (The famous Saladin wasn't himself an Arab, but a Seljuk Turk - but the name "Saladin" is a Europeanization of an Arabic name.) >Insisting that characters >who show no sign of worship should pray the rosary is projecting one's own >interests onto Oz, as much as telling us whom Glinda would vote for or wha t >laundry detergent the Scarecrow uses. I still think people over-reacted to Gehan's statement of his own belief. It's not as if he rubbed anyone's nose in it; he said it once, and hasn't been arguing about it since that I recall. And I'm not a Christian. David G.: >(a) Glinda overcomes the WWS, Blinkie, who flees to Jinxland. There, she >makes trouble. >(b) Blinkie is born and raised in Jinxland and never leaves it. She makes >trouble there. >If the GBR said, "Blinkie is making the lives of the people of Jinxland >miserable," why would Glinda be more apt to intervene in situation (a) tha n >in situation (b)? Good point. 2/5: J.L.: I've read the prairie-dog story in _Twinkle and Chubbins_ and don't recall any incident of a horse or other animal breaking a leg stepping into a hole, but it was years ago I read it and I'm not about to go back and reread to see. I wasn't quite as turned off as you were by the stories, but once is plenty. The electoral politics of the Holy Roman Empire were in fact the cause of the Thirty Years' War. At that time the electors were the bishops of Trier, Mainz, and Cologne, who were all of course safely Catholic; the Electors of Brandenburg and Saxony and the Elector Palatine, who were all Protestant; and the King of Bohemia, which was an elective monarchy itself. The throne became vacant just before the imperial throne, Protestants and Catholics elected different kings, and the war began when the two sides couldn't agree and went to war over it - though as time went on that aspect of the war became largely moot, as the Catholics kept control in Vienna and held the Imperial title thenceforth. Gehan: If you don't see how _Magical Mimics_ and _Shaggy Man_ are darker than anything of Baum's, then I don't know how to explain it to you. I didn't say they weren't exciting or imaginative, especially the first one; however, the books both seem to me to put characters in a great deal more serious peril than almost any of the other books - OJO is the only other one in the FF I can think of that's comparable in that respect. David G.: I'm not surprised that quite a few Muslims are blond and blue-eyed, but I don't think they're usually Arabs. The blond Muslims are, I think, mostly from the Balkans and the Caucasus region (and, of course, Muslim converts from Northern Europe and the US, though there aren't a whole lot of those). _Speedy_ and _Wishing Horse_ are available new from the IWOC, though only in hardcover. Very nice editions, though. The tough ones, that can only be gotten used, are _Yellow Knight_, _Pirates_, _Purple Prince_, and _Ojo_. Dave: Actually, I wasn't a charter member of the Ozzy Digest mailing list (it just seems as if I've been around forever). It had been going two or three weeks before Eric Gjovaag told me about it. I would guess that overall I've probably contributed more words to the Digest than anyone else, though... David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 20:40:35 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Request Non-Ozzy Thread: Could Geha, Ken Cope, etc. please take the religious thread to private e-mail? I fear it is causing the size of the Digest to expand like a balloon. Thanks, Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 12:21:32 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Aging in Oz AGING IN OZ The next un-solved mystery is the "Aging in Oz" mystery. According to -Tinwoodman of Oz- aging in Oz stopped completely ever since Lurline's enchantemnt, and everyone stayed the same age. But that can't be right, for it means that everyone in Oz has lived for centuries, and that means that everyone should know the Ozian History. Here is the evidence found in the Baum books, that reject the statement in -Tinwoodman-..... *. If Ozma was a baby when Mombi enchanted her, how did she grow up, considering the statement in -Tinwoodman-? *. -Patchwork Girl of Oz- says that Unc.Nunkie would have been king, had not the Munchkins united with the rest of Oz, and he fled to the forest, with his baby nephew Ojo. If no-one ages in Oz, and Ojo was only a baby, how did he grow up? I just gave two slight examples, but ofcourse there are much,much more. By reading just those two examples, we can reject the statement in -Tinwoodman-. It seems rather that everyone stopped aging after Ozma came to the throne, for no-one ever ages during her period, but there's evidence that they did before she came to the throne. So most Oz fans, including myself, beleive that all aging stopped after Ozma came to the throne. Maybe she used her fairy powers to do so. There are two stetments in the Baum books which reject this: *. The Pig Family in -Tinwoodman of Oz- tell the Scarecrow that they gave nine tiny Piglets to the Wizard of Oz during his first visit. Which means that they've lived for half a century or so, and are still piglets. But lots of statements in -Tinwoodman of Oz- are incorrect, and the Wizard didn't have the piglets in -Wizard of Oz- and he didn't have them with him when he left Oz in a balloon. So how did they appear in -Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz-? My guess is that he took them with him, on his journey from Oz to Omaha. Maybe his balloon fell near Mt.Much, and the Pig Family took care of him, and gave him the nine tiny piglets whom he adored. This means that he took them with him in -Wizard of Oz- on his journey back. But how come they didn't age in Omaha? He lived there for a few years, before his balloon fell into the Mangaboo country. The timeline between -Wizard- and -Dotwiz- according to the HACC and most Oz fans is 2 to 4 years. (1898,1899-1901,1902)My guess is that ever since Lurline enchanted Oz, aging in Oz was very slow, but it completely stopped since Ozma came to the throne. So maybe, Ozian Natives age slowly when they are out of Oz too, and maybe thats the reason why the piglets didn't age. Because they were from Oz. 2-4 years is such a short period of time, so its undestandable that the y didn't age even in Omaha, because of the slow-aging spell in Oz, and because they were Ozian natives. Know what I mean? *. The next statement which rejects my statement is that Unc.Nunkie tells Ojo in -Patchwork Girl- that he will be a grown-up someday. Maybe he didn't notice that all aging stopped in Oz since Ozma came to the throne, because he was an old man himself, and old people don't usually care about their age, so maybe he didn't notice the difference. This explains that aging in Oz was very slow since Lurline enchanted Oz but it stopped completely ever since Ozma came to the throne. The next question is Dorothy's age, which is very simple. In -Lost Princess of Oz- Baum says that she is an year older than Trot but an year younger than Betsy. In -Giant Horse of Oz- Trot calims that she is 10, which means that Dorothy is 11 and Betsy is 12. I beleive that -Wizard of Oz- took place in 1898 because that was the year Baum told the story, and -Emerald City- took place in 1903. Most Oz fans accept this. My guess is that Dorothy was 6 at the time of -Wizard- in 1898. Which means in 1903, when -Emerald City- took place, she was 11. It fits in perfectly. Some say that her total stay in Oz, in the first six books, came close to one year, and that her aged slowed down by that amount of time. I don't think the total amount of time came to one year, and it wouldn't have slowed her age down while she was Kansas. I think she didn't age in Oz, but aged in Kansas because she wasn't a native of Oz, so even though she'd been there, it wouldn't have affected her age while she was in the outside world like it affects the nine piglets who are Ozian natives. I think Dorothy's aging stopped ever since she settled there in 1903 when she was 11. It all fits in perfectly. ___________________________________________________________________________ Hope my article is clear. If there are any parts you don't undestand, please send me an email. Sorry for my terrible English. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 12:21:36 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest David Gowdin: >I can't imagine anyone in Oz saying the Rosary. The last words are:"Pray for us now and at the hour of our death. What Death?> Well, someday or another all of us, including those who live in Oz will have to face their death. Your forgetting that Baum mentioned that Ozites can die if they meet with an accident. No-one, not even a fairy can live forever. BTW........ Why do most Oz Fans dislike Jack Snow's books? And why do we have to ignore its contents? They point out lots of things. *.I beleive that Lurline DID leave Ozma in Pastoria's hands, for she never mentions anything about her mother, and neither did Pastoria. If Ozma was Pastoria's biological daughter, he would have searched for his wife as well . And he didn't, atleast not in the FF. How can Ozma be a fairy if she were Pastoria's daughter? *.-Shaggy Man- tells us of the origins of the Love Magnet. I think Jack Snow wanted to sort out all mysteries in the Baum books, and he did solve atleast two of them. I'm not saying that RPT's books are bad. They are very,very Ozzy. But she had no right to remove Baum's characters, just because she had more sympathy on the male characters. I don't much like the iedia of replacing the GWN with Joe King, and I don't like Cheeriobed much either. If I were a Royal Historian, and if my Oz books would be official, here's what I'll do: *. I'll mention the Mombi-Locasta-Orin-Tattypoo storyline, and Locasta's come back.That way, -Locasta and the Three Adepts- will also be "official". I'll remove Joe King and make Locasta GWN again. I'll remove Cheeriobed and Orin somehow and make the Scarecrow the Munchkin King or make Ozana the Munchkin Queen/Good Fairy of the East. I only wish RPT were here to read that story. If I can, I'll mention the Ozma-Dan and Glinda-Zim marraige too . It will be nice to see Glinda married to a sorcerer and Ozma married to a nobleman. That way, -Ozzy Feeling- will become official too. Ofcourse, all this would have hapened, IF I had been a historian, but I'm not, and will never be! --Gehan Cooray ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 07:10:00 EDT Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission - LA Times Visitors Review 117-118,120-122 From: "Earl C. Abbe" Book Reviews February 7, 1999 Surrender, Dorothy VISITORS FROM OZ: The Wild Adventures of Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Woodman; By Martin Gardner; (St. Martin's Press: 192 pp., $22.95) By JIM HOLT When I first saw "The Wizard of Oz" as a child, it was so long ago that Judy Garland's fan club was still heterosexual. Since then, I have sat through the thing at least a dozen times, always with enjoyment, sometimes with a tear in my eye. But now I discover that, to true Oz buffs, MGM's 1939 Technicolor extravaganza borders on sacrilege. Why? Because at its conclusion, the Land of Oz--with its Munchkins, wizard and witches, good and bad; with its cowardly lion and talking scarecrow and tin woodsman; with its yellow brick road snaking through an enchanted landscape to Emerald City--turns out to be a mere dream of Dorothy's. Nothing of the sort happens in the book on which the movie is based. "The Wizard of Oz" was written in 1900 by L. Frank Baum, a true American eccentric who was born in a little town in upstate New York in 1856 and who died in Hollywood in 1919. Baum followed up his first Oz book with 13 others. Dorothy figures in some but not all of them; in one, the little orphan from Kansas is magically teleported back to Oz as a permanent resident, along with her Uncle Henry and Auntie Em. The Oz that emerges from Baum's books has rather precise contours that are most un-dreamlike. For instance, its capital, Emerald City, is revealed to have 9,654 buildings and 57,318 residents--the latter a fairly constant number because no one grows old and death is rare. Oz pullulates with rococo beings unknown in the movie like the Woozy, a blue, square-shaped wooden animal whose eyes dart fire when anyone says "Krizzle-Kroo"; the Nome King, a somewhat loopy figure of evil who is Dorothy's arch-nemesis and who is afraid of fresh eggs; and Princess Ozma, the benign and exquisite sovereign of Oz. The reality of Oz has been compelling to the countless children who have devoured these books over the decades--including Gore Vidal, who some years ago stated in an essay that it was the Oz books that got him addicted to reading. As for adults, some stern-faced librarians might have been just as happy if this fantasy realm had never been conjured into existence, since it offers no "improving" moral lessons. Others find it seductively real: It was big with hippies back in the '60s, and today there are an International Wizard of Oz Club and a quarterly magazine devoted to Oziana, the Baum Bugle. In the eight decades since Baum's death, two dozen additional Oz books have been written by would-be successors; these efforts have varied considerably in quality, with only a few approaching the original heights of imaginative whimsy. And now, with the centennial of the whole thing drawing near next year, Martin Gardner becomes the latest writer to assume the mantle of the Royal Historian of Oz. Gardner, a longtime columnist for Scientific American, is a versatile, humorous and often profound writer and the author of numerous books on scientific, philosophical and literary matters. He has also served as something of a public debunker, a scourge of pseudo-science and superstition. One of his targets is Freud's theory of dreams and their significance. When Gardner has a character in "Visitors From Oz" say, apropos of the MGM movie, "How dare they turn Baum's faithful reporting [about Oz] into something as trivial as a dream!" the remark is really meant to have some resonance. To prove the world of Oz has a place in the real world, Gardner brings Dorothy, the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodsman to modern-day New York, where, as one might guess, they get into some sticky spots. (The Cowardly Lion wisely decides to forgo the trip, because outside of Oz he would lose the power of speech and be just another dumb beast.) In doing this, the author clears up a major conceptual difficulty with Oz: Just where is it supposed to be? "Somewhere over the rainbow" is, after all, a trifle vague. For Dorothy's first visit to Oz, she had been blown there from drab Kansas by a cyclone. A subsequent sojourn occurred after she was washed overboard from a ship en route to Australia; after Dorothy decided to move there forever, the good witch Glinda cut Oz off from our world. She accomplished this, Gardner explains, by shifting it 10 yards or so into the fourth dimension. So near, yet so far. Improbably enough, however, Oz is accessible by e-mail. That is how Hollywood's wealthiest producer of blockbuster movies gets in touch with Glinda. An Oz freak, he wants to make a computer-animated movie about the magical land in time for the 100th anniversary of the first Oz book. And who better to help this studio head launch the publicity campaign in New York than Dorothy and her sidekicks? Dorothy, the Tin Woodsman and the Scarecrow are game for the adventure. The problem is getting them from Emerald City to the Big Apple. It looks insuperable at first, but another famous denizen of Oz, Professor Wogglebug, solves it. A pompous (and very large) insect comes up with the idea of using a Klein Bottle: a bizarre mathematical object whose neck passes through the fourth dimension. An obliging Emerald City craftsman fashions a human-sized working version of the Klein Bottle and, with the aid of this topological prop, our Ozites have soon dropped into the middle of Central Park--but not before they have encountered the Greek gods, Mary Poppins, Humpty Dumpty, the Mad Hatter and other over-the-hill fantasy stars who reside in the outer reaches of Oz. If all this sounds a little remote from MGM's Oz, matters become even more so once the scene shifts to contemporary New York. There, our trio meet Mayor Rudy Giuliani at City Hall; appear before amazed audiences on "Oprah" and "Rivera Live"; get denounced as demoniac by Pat Robertson; and are interviewed by political reporter Margaret Carlson (for sheer fright value, I would have used Bob Novak). They are also pursued by a couple of murderous thugs in the employ of a rival studio head who is planning to make a new version of "Peter Pan" and is jealous of the buzz the Ozites are generating. Now here is what's weird. This sinister rival production is to star Madonna as Peter Pan, Roseanne as Tinkerbell and Sylvester Stallone as Captain Hook, with music by Andrew Lloyd Webber and . . . lyrics by John Updike! What the devil is Updike doing in this galere? Presumably, Gardner is taking a gentle dig at the exalted novelist by lumping him with such low commercial talents, but won't the joke be lost on younger readers? Thanks to some magic pearls Princess Ozma has given her, Dorothy manages to thwart her various adversaries before returning to Oz. Surprisingly, Gardner's heroine is a rather brassy and even pugnacious creature, given to using every means short of a head-butt to extricate herself from a tight situation. One misses the meeker, sweeter Dorothy of old. Nevertheless, "Visitors From Oz" did hold my attention, though no tears came to my eyes while I was reading it, and I never really felt scared. The language is simple, and there are passages in it that could, I am sure, delight an 8-year-old. Yet, for my money, a Land of Oz that you can get to through a Klein Bottle seems a lot less real than one that exists in a dream. Gardner's update of the Oz saga is a must for all true believers. It is a maybe for the rest of us. Jim Holt Writes About Science and Philosophy for the Wall Street Journal and Lingua Franca Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 8 Feb 99 10:19:33 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: bookish royalty Tyler Jones: Now that you mention it, yes, Major Charles Emerson Winchester and Frasier Crane are rather alike. In fact, both rather Wogglebuggish. J.L. Bell: Interesting set of comments on the MGMness of the MGM "Wizard." I don't think there's been an article that compares the period quality of the movie as compared to the book in the way David Godwin was asking about (maybe David G. should write an article on the subject), but there are some that get at some smaller aspects of these ideas. Salman Rushdie's short book on the movie includes some discussion of the farm-life-in-Kansas as shown, though. // I looked up some background on the Chicago Junior League at one point, and I think I recall that the "Wizard" was their second or third production. (They opened with "Alice in Wonderland," IIRC.) Ken Cope: Hotly put, but evidently needed. Dave Hardenbrook and J.L. Bell: Another tie Emily Kimbrough had with Oz is that she once attended an Oz convention in Minneapolis (as a guest of Laura Jane Musser, who sponsored the convention). David Godwin: Well, I'm typing this February 8, when the discussion of "Royal Book" was supposed to begin, so at this point I'll go back to your comments from January 3. You "heartily disliked _Royal Book_" feeling it was "outrageously non-canonical (not to mention the fact that it harshly stereotypes the Chinese)." You specified (January 15) that it was non-canonical in portraying the Scarecrow as having come alive when he was placed on the beanpole and the spirit of Chang Wang Woe took over the convenient body, whereas in "Wizard" the Scarecrow has memories of being constructed and painted, before he was put on the pole. I don't think this discrepancy is serious enough to matter. The Scarecrow, finding himself on the pole, and not remembering the Chang Wang Woe past, might have extrapolated a plausible background for himself which he then remembered as "real" memories. Or, scarecrows in Oz may be sentient and self-aware but not interested in going exploring, and the addition of CWW to this particular Scarecrow may have been the factor that made him unlike the rest in asking a passerby for help. Or, the characters' belief that the crocus spell succeeded in getting CWW reincarnated in the Scarecrow might be entirely mistaken, and their mistaken belief would not change any of the events in the story (except that if the Grand Gheewizard had succeeded in disenchanting the Scarecrow, he would have turned into some scattered hay and rags, not into CWW). Secondarily, you pointed out the Scarecrow's "Royal" belief that his CWW past explains his cleverness is inconsistent with his belief otherwise that its his Wizard-made brains. But actually, the Wizard at that time was a humbug, and the Scarecrow's belief that his wisdom came from the "bran-new brains" is mistaken, in any case. He might temporarily be accepting the "correct" explanation (and then abandoning it again in later books for the explanation he's more used to), or he might be thinking that his cleverness must be a combined product of CWW & Wizard-work, and focusing for the moment on the one part of the combination. I don't think the story really draws on harsh stereotypes. If we have any Chinese or Chinese-descent people on the Digest, perhaps they may argue otherwise, but it seems to me that distinctions should be made between negative and positive stereotypes. Even positive stereotypes cause some problems, but nothing like the kind of problems caused by negative ones. And the stereotyped views of the Chinese used in "Royal Book" are largely positive (courteous, elegant, beautiful) -- the negative elements are either specific to a few individuals (the princes are treacherous and their kids are "dull," but non-royals like Happy Toko and the populace generally are loyal and open to new ideas) or are minor (the Scarecrow thinks Chinese cooking sounds unappetizing -- RPT evidently didn't know what he was missing!). I think what I especially like in the book is RPT's picking up and dramatizing from such a different perspective Baum's interest in the paradoxes of what it means to be an individual person. Instead of having different bodies competing for the same personhood (like the delightful paradoxes of "self" in the tin/flesh mix-ups of "Tin Woodman," or the spliced people in "Sky Island," or the confusion of heads represented in such characters as Languidere, Jack Pumpkinhead, or the Magical Monarch of Mo), she has one body getting a choice of character, as the Scarecrow tries to figures out "who I were," and finally realizes that defines himself by his actions, and an inherited identity doesn't particularly matter. RPT is sometimes accused of having over-worked the plot of disenchanting someone under a spell, but here it's interesting to see that she's running that plot upsidedown and backward, as the Scarecrow resolutely refuses to be disenchanted -- and the three sons, who never were enchanted in the first place, turn out to have defined themselves by their treacherous actions as beings so inhuman, that the disenchantment-magic turns them into two pigs and a weasel as their "real" selves. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 09 Feb 99 09:58:43 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things "ONE NEVER REVEALS A WOMAN'S AGE -- IT'S JUST NOT CRICKET.": Gehan wrote: >*.The Magic of Oz >.......that she is thousands of years old, yet no older than you or me. Ruth Here's the exact quote from _Magic_: "[N]o one knows how old Ozma is, although she appears to us to be just a young girl as fresh and fair as if she had lived but a few years." Just for the record, I think "few" could simply mean "a number vastly smaller than 'thousands'"; it need not necessarily mean a number smaller than 15. So I don't consider this "evidence" that Ozma is "a little girl after all." OFFICIAL?: Gehan wrote: >It will be nice to see Glinda married to a sorcerer and Ozma married to a >nobleman. That way, -Ozzy Feeling- will become official too. Ofcourse, all >this would have hapened, IF I had been a historian, but I'm not, and will >never be! Well, thanks for the kind thought... Currently, I'm not as interested in my Oz manuscripts being declared "official" as I am in their just being declared *not* vile blaphemous heretical pond scum. EMILY KIMBROUGH: Ruth wrote: >Another tie Emily Kimbrough had with Oz is that she once attended >an Oz convention in Minneapolis... Was EK an Oz fan then? BCF: Next Monday is our official starting date for _Royal Book_, although it looks like the discussion is gradually phasing in already... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://www.mindspring.net/~daveh47/ Take the time to taste the honey on a summer breeze, Touch the love song every bird has learned to sing. Feel the sunlight as it warms you on the coolest day, And you'll feel a part of what we're gathering -- The senses of our world." -- The Bugaloos, "The Senses of Our World" ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 10 - 11, 1999 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 9 Feb 99 16:03:15 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: royal dating Dave Hardenbrook: Emily Kimbrough was enough of an Oz fan to accept Laura Jane Musser's invitation to attend an Oz convention -- not a strong interest, but enough to enjoy attending the con. // Start- date of "Royal Book" discussion -- you did say January 23 that it was to start February 8, and I didn't spot any change of date later (in spite of the intervening discussion over the possibility of jumping to Snow instead). // By the way, looking ahead to the RPT books that are not currently in print, I'd suggest that when you announce the start-date for the book AHEAD of the first of the out-of-print ones, you include an announcement along the lines of "those of you who don't have copies already may want to start looking for them now, as the next book after this one will be ...." Jill Moore: Well, you know, I'd suggest you go back over your own postings and look for rudeness there before getting so angry at anyone who answered you rudely. It seems to me that you were a good deal more rude to the group as a whole and to those of us who disagreed with you than any of the people disagreeing with you were. Keep in mind that you had a purpose in view, the purpose of getting people to help out Dave Hardenbrook with Ozzy Digest expenses, and every time you scolded someone you probably made many people feel that they would much rather not help out Dave. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you owe an apology to the group as a whole and to those of us who disagreed with your postings. Including scatalogical directives to people you don't like is (to borrow the expressive Regency novel phrase) The Outside of Enough. Earl Abbe: Thanks for the copy of the Holt review of Martin Gardner's book. Some interesting comments. Mark Anthony Donajkowski: The Oz Kids titles I've seen (Nome King and Santa Claus) were a little stiff, but on the whole quite enjoyable. Worth your time -- yes, probably so. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:25:41 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-09-99 Ozma and Oz: One could also advance the multiple-universe theory wherein everything that is told to us did happen, including all the contradictory theories, but in alternate universes. But I prefer to think Baum simply didn't know everything about Oz at the time. In Oz-as-literature, of course, he hadn't thought about everything right away . . . How powerful was the WWE: Whether she was more powerful than the WWW or not, she couldn't have been THAT powerful, if she let herself be killed because of a simple house . . . 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: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:32:33 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Gehan: You forgot one piece of evidence. In _Scarecrow_, Baum says that Ozma "is descended from a long line of fairy queens". This implies that Ozma was the biological child of Pastoria and his wife. Our two views of this are pretty similar except for this and some other minor points. Others have speculated that members of Lurline's fairy band have been born into the royal line, and that maybe Ozma was never a member of Lurline's band at all. Another point is the Wizard's silence in the first book. Why would he have mentioned Ozma at all? I doubt that he would have dropped that into the conversation. "By the way, I only rule here because I sneaked the original ruler out of here". IMHO, it's something that the Wizard would want to keep quiet. You, of course, are using only evidence in the FF, but I also accept the events in _Oz and the Three Witches_, wherein he does admit to delivering Ozma. I also fully agree with you that aging slowed after Lurline's enchantment, but did not fully stop (or revert to individual choice) until Ozma took the throne. Joyce O: The assumption generally is that the four Wicked Witches acted in concert. We don't know too much of the details of their plans, or how far they go back, or if there was a leader, or subplots, etc. It would be a fascinating book, though. Gehan: If you take just the Baum 14, then it would seem that aging stopped completely after Ozma took the throne, but in the RPT 19, princess Pajonia ages a few years, which would be impossible. MOPPET is that originally, Lurline meant for aging to stop, but realized that it would be cruel to force people to stay at an age they don't want, plus forcing some parents to change diapers until the end of time. There is some evidence in the RPT 19 that people age as they wish to. Again, using only the Baum 14 as a reference, your theory works fine. I, however, accept many other non-FF books that take place in the time of the early Baum books. I list _Wizard_ as taking place in 1899 and _Emerald City_ in 1905. I believe Dorothy was six at the start, slowed a year, then was 11 at the time of _Emerald CIty_. I have to stretch things much more than you, but then I've got more material to shoehorn in there than you do. Gehan on Jack Snow: I don't know how many people do or do not like SNow's two books. I liked _Magical Mimics_, but I did not care for _SHaggy Man_. It was poorly written. I'm not sure that we ignore the events in Snow's books. There are five items of significance that occur in these two books: 1. The tunnel of the Nome King is re-visited. This has caused quite a debate as to how/if the tunnel was filled, if at all. 2. Snow reported a "barrier of invisibility". This seems to be an extension of Glinda's original spell. 3. Snow gives another version of Ozma's history. 4. There is some kind of fairy conference, to which Glinda is invited. 5. The historyof the Love Magnet is given. The problem is that much of this contradicts every other Oz book. The barrier of invisbility is found nowhere, and Ozma's history here is the one thing that I've just never been able to reconcile with all of the other bits and pieces in the FF. I, at least, ignore him because I can't fit his stuff in with all of the other stuff. I'm also not sure what you mean by saying that RPT "removed" Baum's characters. Many of the Baum characters enjoyed large roles in the RPT 19, such as Dorothy, the Scarecrow, Ozma and the WIzard. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 22:46:23 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: Religious Monomanias (with Narnia spoilers) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Baum's pantheistic Oz, with everything alive and anthropomorphic, is as much heretical to some dogmatic worldviews as it is just plain childlike and innocent. I would like to think of Oz as absent of most identifiably religious sentiment. It's thus very subversive, and positive, and that much more universally appealing. If Oz were to be placed on a continuum among works of fantasy with Middle Earth and Narnia, I suspect that there is so little theology in Oz compared with the other two that its absence is nearly conspicuous. That absence is, to me, one of the virtues of Oz that I value. To look for religious ideas and metaphors and Christian allegory in Narnia is quite natural. Middle Earth takes on more of a Norse, somehow pagan view, existing in a time so long ago that it would be absurd to attempt to overlay any contemporary religious worldview on top of that which it presents. The pantheon of the Silmarillion is quite thoroughly explicated. Middle Earth is the tale of an age ended. My childhood's Narnia no longer exists. Narnia ended in its last battle, where its champions ended their English lives, dead in a rail way accident, finding themselves in an endless world with sons of Adam and daughters of Eve, in contrast to which Narnia was a pale reflection, or so I was told. I tried to believe it at the time. There can be no question which world that is understood to be. The Narnia stories are the property of the Episcopalian Church. Oz will never be destroyed; Oz will live forever. Oz remains contemporary. Oz is immortal. To live in Oz is to live forever. If a nome is cut into pieces, that is unfortunate, but it is still alive. Is service to Ozma so bad that a messiah must be awaited to lead believers out of their bondage to the fairy princess of Oz? I'm not offended by the notion of religion, nor am I offended that some retain what beliefs they brought with them to Oz; if Princess Ozma has no problem with Cap'n Bill, why should I? Whatever I may feel about the rosary, or the wearing of the Chador, or the honoring of the Sabbath, the notion that Oz would be improved if its Royal Court observed one imported religion's custom or another's, or that Oz was in need of redemption and grace, I find less offensive than merely absurd. The skeptic, satirist and caricaturist in me is stirred in response to such notions, notions that appear (to me) to mock the gentle fantasy world that I am inspired to imagine Oz to be. Mockery is never called for, but when it's cordially invited I can seldom resist providing it. That fault of mine does not, in any way, excuse the mockery I made of Tom Lehrer's lyrics to The Vatican Rag in my vain effort to inspire Gehan to "when in Rome make like a Roman." Although if I had to choose, I'd rather act like a Roman in Oz than an Ozian in Rome. It's easy enough to change my behavior to Ozian once there, much harder to find myself in Oz in the first place. In the meantime, I'll endeavor to learn what it means to act like an Ozian even though I find myself among more Romans than Ozians. Tyler Jones asks: > Non-Ozzy Thread: > Could Geha, Ken Cope, etc. please take the religious thread to private > e-mail? I fear it is causing the size of the Digest to expand like a > balloon. I fail to see how speculation as to Baum's religious views is Non-Ozzy, but as a member of the Religious Right, Tyler is The Authority on things both Canonical and Non. However, As Henry Hyde replied, when asked if he'd follow Pat Robertson's proposal that Republicans just give up the attempt to remove the impeached president in graceful acknowledgement that Clinton had won, "We don't take orders from the Christian Coalition." However, I shall be happy to accomodate Tyler's request and refrain from causing his Digest to balloon with more of my hot air. I'll confine future postings to the Digest to a one line URL pointing to any contribution I might otherwise have made (since I do contribute so frequently). If anybody has any interest in pursuing further discussion relating to Oz, Theosophy, any religion you like or don't, and the perennial question, "what did L. Frank Baum believe" via private e-mail, please send some to me. I'll happily reply to anybody who wishes to express any opinion, but who also would rather avoid offending, boring, or amusing others on the Digest, who presumably would rather talk exclusively about Oz. Thanks for the private e-mail I have so far received, and please use the address ozgnostic@ozcot.com if you wish to continue this topic. If this turns into more than a few notes back and forth, I'll post a URL pointing to whatever it is we come up with. Ken Cope Ozcot Studios mailto:ozgnostic@ozcot.com http://www.ozcot.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:55:19 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Ozzy Matters The Wicked witches of Oz: I don't think any of the witches used the golden cap, other than the WWW. The Winged Monkeys tell Dorothy:"Gayalette couldn't bear to face us again, and so Quelala told us to avoid her seeing us. Thats all we ever had to do untill the cap flew into the hands of the WWW". The quote plainly shows that the WWW was the only witch who used the cap. I think she needed it because the Winkies were hard-working and were strong! Too strong, that the witch needed more power to conquer them. The WWE may have had an easier chance, for the Munchkins sem to be a timid, peaceful race, who were too kind and timid that the WWE managed to frighten them and conquer them. I dont think Mombi ever even tried to conquer the north. I think she just helped the other witches in their wicked deeds, and maybe she finaly thought, that she could atleast try to cause trouble in the north, but Locasta stopped her. We also know that Glinda was in Oz long before Pastoria or his father through -EC- so maybe she managed to stop Singra in time. Tyler: I mentioned earlier that I will not post in religious articles again. I'm not doing it to please other non-beleivers, but because its wrong to argue on religions,m and because there should be no flame wars! David Hulan: Ruth's theory can't be correct, because Nick says in -TW- that he told the WWE not to intefear in Nimmie's life, and that she overhaerd his conversation with Nimmie while he was visiting her in her hut. This totally rejects the staement in -Wizard- because he says that Nimmie lived with an old woman, who asked the WWE to stop her marraige and gave her two sheep and a cow. I prefer to beleive that -Wizard- was wrong and -Tinwoodman- was correct, for it makes more scense. I still don't se any reason for JS's books to be called "dark". I noticed that Shaggy man- was quite boring, but certainly not dark. --Gehan Cooray ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:45:53 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David G.) Subject: Oz "Howl! Howl! Howl!" (King Lear, act V, scene 3) I am planning to use the Digest to advertise and publicize my new novel, _That Queasy Feeling_, in which Ozma gets married and converts to Roman Catholicism. :) Ruth: Thanks for your explanations of the apparent contradictions in _Royal Book_. With all due respect, I would have to say that most of the rationalizations that attempt to reconcile the Scarecrow's memories with his animation by the spirit of Chang Wang Woe sound pretty lame. The only one I might be provisionally willing to accept would be the one about his having a sort of slug-like consciousness until said spirit came up the bean pole. I would prefer to believe that the Silver Islanders were simply mistaken, but then there's the bean pole to explain. Another confusing element is that, strictly speaking, the Scarecrow was a reincarnation or re-embodiment of the spirit of Chang Wang Woe and not a transformation or enchantment. He is himself and not Chang Wang Woe under some sort of spell. So why would a disenchantment have any effect? BTW, the introduction of a knight in armor and of beasts common to Asia and the Middle East would seem to me to argue in favor of the hypothesis that RPT tried to "Europeanize," or at least de-Americanize, LFB's vision of Oz, but it seems doubtful that everyone will ever agree on that one. Another BTW: the Doubtful Dromedary seems to be the first in a long line of RPT's devoted beasts (or fawning beasts, if you take a jaundiced view) - a line that includes the Iffin, Terrybubble, etc. and finally reaches its conclusion (?) only with the Flittermouse in the McGraws' _Merry-Go-Round_. I'm not sure whether I find this charming or annoying; she seems to lay it on a bit thick at times. In any case, it strikes me as slightly eccentric. I can only conclude that RPT was definitely a "dog person" and not a "cat person." Back to _Royal Book_, I think what it boils down to is that, as a child, I did not like this book and I don't like it now. I don't like the concept of the bean pole going through the earth, I don't like the Silver Islanders, I don't like the Doubtful Dromedary or the Comfortable Camel, and I don't like the notion that the Scarecrow is a reincarnated emperor. Sir Hokus is okay, but I don't like Pokes. And so on. Any reasons I could advance would simply be an after-the-fact attempt to explain my (irrational?) feelings. Of course, I am aware that not everyone shares my opinion, and that's perfectly okay. However, from my viewpoint, I still have to consider _Royal Book_ to be, to use Gehan's word, "un-fit." - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Feb 99 11:24:05 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: patchworking A map thought: One of the oddities of "Patchwork Girl" is that Ojo, in chapter 1, mentions that his lonely forest home has a view of the Hammerheads' Mountain (in Quadling country, according to "Wizard"). He and Unk Nunkie then go a short journey north and wind up in chapter 2 at the Pipts' house on the Munchkin/Gillinkin border. This sequence is impossible -- Munchkin/Gillikin border is the north side of Munchkin territory, and the Quadlings are in the south. But I was looking at the "Tiktok" map the other day, and it becomes obvious what was going on. The locations are hard to spot, as they're obscured by markings for mountains and forests, but the map shows Ojo's home and the Pipts' home in the SOUTH of the Munchkin territory. And although the Hammerheads' Mountain in Quadling territory is off a good deal to the side of Ojo, if the mountain is tall, he might have a view of it as described. "Tiktok," of course, was published a year AFTER "Patchwork Girl," but obviously Baum had drawn a version of the map about the time he started work on "Patchwork Girl." In fact, it was very likely the start of "Patchwork Girl," knowing that he was dealing with a quest-plot and therefore a lot of gadding about on the quest, that made him decide to put together his map. He could hardly have done the map any earlier, since it includes locations as specific as those two houses for those two opening chapters of "Patchwork Girl." (The map, as it appears in "Tiktok," has many locations that did not appear in the stories until later, but they are all towns and large natural features. The only locations as tiny as individual dwelling places on the map are from earlier books.) But at some stage in the first part of "Patchwork Girl" he realized that if Ojo took the obvious route from the Pipts' house in southern Munchkin territory to the Emerald City, he would follow the yellow brick road to the poppy field and repeat much of the territory already explored in "Wizard" -- and decided that it would be too repetitious to send Ojo in Dorothy's footsteps. So he moved Ojo and the Pipts' north to the Munchkin/Gillikin border, and brought Ojo Emeraldwards on a northern branch of the Yellow Brick Road (dutifully added to the map by Jim Haff and Dick Martin, when they did their map showing Ojo and the Pipts on the M/G border as required by the story, but NOT included on the "Tiktok" map, which shows only the main line of the Yellow Brick Road, the one Dorothy travelled in "Wizard"). And then he evidently forgot to change the reference to the scenic Hammerheaded view in the first chapter (or maybe he told himself comfortably that it didn't matter -- he hadn't actually SAID that Ojo was on the south side, and readers might figure the mountain was so extremely tall that it could be seen even from the north side, or might figure that there was a second group of Hammerheads on a north Munchkin mountain, or might even figure there was a stray bit of magic in the air just there that gave Ojo his unlikely view). And when the map got used in "Tiktok" he likewise forgot to change the locations of Ojo and the Pipts. If his draft was as heavily shaded in that section as the published version, he might not even have noticed that he had two houses there when he went over it at "Tiktok" time adding not-yet- used locations to give the map a more charted look (assuming that he did go over it at that time for that purpose, as seems likely enough). I suspect that Ruth Plumly Thompson, working out a background for Ojo and Unk Nunkie in "Ojo," was going by the map when she specified that Seebania was a southern Munchkin territory. She was probably assuming that Unk Nunkie took refuge in the nearest wilderness. For her purposes, it didn't really matter, as a reader who looked at Chapter 2 of "Patchwork Girl" instead of at chapter 1 and at the "Tiktok" map could assume that Unk Nunkie had decided it would be safer to take refuge in a more distant wilderness. But her feeling that Seebania should be in the south probably reflected her careful study of Baum's map. In terms of Oz-as-if-real, the houses for Ojo and the Pipts were always in the north, and I'd opt for the stray bit of magic in the air as the explanation for Ojo's view of the Hammerheads (and extra caution on Unk Nunkie's part in choosing a refuge). But in terms of how the Oz books got written, the map explains why the first two chapters of "Patchwork Girl" are inconsistent with each other. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 18:19:00 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-09-99 Mark Anthony: The Oz Kids videos are fun; most of them are based on one or another of the Baum books, though the characters are the "children" of the book characters. (How the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and Jack Pumpkinhead had children is never explained...) I'd say they're definitely worth the time to watch them if you can get them from the library; whether they're worth buying is a closer call. Gehan: You missed one reference to Ozma's origins, which if accepted shoots a hole in part of your theory: in _Scarecrow_ Baum says she was "born of a long line of Fairy Queens." This would pretty much require that she was in fact physically born in human form to a female in Oz, since Baum elsewhere (I think in _Magic_) states that all fairies were created at the beginning of the world, and therefore not "born" at all in the usual way of things. Tyler has a theory about this that works for me; I'd rather he spelled it out himself, though, rather than my trying to remember the details. There are two flatly contradictory accounts of how the Wizard acquired the Nine Tiny Piglets; any reconciliation of them has to assume that at least part of what the Wizard said in _DotWiz_ or the Swynes said in _Tin Woodman_ isn't true. Several people have written stories to try to do this reconciliation. My preferred solution is that the Wizard indeed acquired the piglets from a sailor who'd been to the Island of Teentyweent, as he said in _DotWiz_. When they all got to Oz the piglets became favorites of Ozma's [known fact], and when they requested she bring their parents to Oz [speculation] she did so - although since adult pigs aren't really the sort of animal you want around a royal palace, or that would be comfortable there, she established them in a cottage out in the Munchkin country. Their statement that they'd given the piglets to the Wizard, rather than having them kidnapped by a sailor, was probably just an attempt to make themselves look important. This eliminates any problem about the piglets' aging. >Why do most Oz Fans dislike Jack Snow's books? And why do we have to ignore >its contents? They point out lots of things. I don't think most Oz fans dislike Jack Snow's books; I just think that when he contradicts Baum, as he does regarding Ozma's origins, then we have to assume that the error is Snow's. (Of course, Baum contradicts himself at times. But when Snow says something that doesn't agree with _any_ of Baum's formulations, then I for one assume that Snow is wrong.) Joyce: I like your theory pretty well, although I don't see any real reason why the WWS shouldn't have been Blinkie herself. I also don't think there's that much evidence that the WWE controlled even a majority of the Munchkin Country; Seebania apparently covered much of the southern part and was never under her rule, and the Ozure Islands and Kereteria also seem to have been independent all along. (It was Mombi, not the WWE, who isolated the Ozure Islands.) Also Gloma didn't withdraw into the Black Forest until after Dorothy liquidated the WWW; before that she says she ruled the whole southern third of the Winkie country. J.L.: I agree with you that Eric Shanower's Oz stories are even darker and more serious than Snow's. Earl: Thanks for the review of _Visitors_. Ruth: I pretty much agree with your comments on _Royal Book_. It's not one of my favorite Thompsons - she was clearly still feeling her way into an overall vision of Oz - but it's not one of the worst Oz books, either. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:51:39 -0800 From: "bee g." Subject: wizard of oz checks? i am looking for checks with the wizard of oz on them. does anyone know where i can order them? please help. thanks, bee -- PK ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:31:22 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: immortal names in Oz Sender: "J. L. Bell" To: OzzyDigest Content-Disposition: inline David Hulan wrote: <> Quite true. As I wrote, "That's what banks do." Yet just as providing capital for a new house is the "light" side of capitalism, taking that house if you can't repay the loan is the dark side. In EMERALD CITY Baum devotes a fair amount of space to foreshadowing the damage the bank's foreclosure will do to Dorothy's family. Neill contributes that drawing of Uncle Henry that's worthy of Walker Evans. Shortly after that, Baum shows the Ozian economy as beneficent and overflowing, by contrast further darkening the picture of the family's plight. Though they had suffered from drought and storms and illness and earthquakes, what Baum says finally drove them to Oz was a social invention: the mortgage. David Hulan wrote: <> The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem extended to Aqaba, through area known in the 19th century as "Arabia Petraea." I recall that the Crusaders who ruled in those kingdoms were seen by newly arrived Europeans as having "gone native." Some probably married women from local Christian families, and perhaps others. That would create a line with ancestors both Arabian and European, as Button-Bright's names are. But can we trust those names to be family names? This is a couple who raised their boy with the moniker "Button-Bright," after all. "Saladin" is, as you say, <> for a Kurd; if Button-Bright's family were honoring their Arabic ancestry, why didn't they choose the Arabic form? "Paracelsus" was a pen name a physician made up for himself, not a name that appears in many families. Those choices seem more like how a free-thinking humanist of European background might honor people she found admirable. I'm not sure Button-Bright's statements should suffer so much analysis, however. The name was a set-up for Trot's "salad" line, and the phrase "Arabian knight" a puns on the ARABIAN NIGHTS. Gehan Cooray wrote: <> How do you know? Gehan Cooray wrote: <> Thompson and Neill say that children do grow up in Oz, and stop aging only when they choose to. I don't recall if Baum is that explicit, but does he ever say people *have* to stop growing if they don't want to? Unless he did, many of the points you use to argue that post-Lurline aging was slow but steady would need rethinking. Gehan Cooray wrote: <> You may also need to review what in LIFE & ADVENTURES OF SANTA CLAUS Baum called "the difference between mortals and immortals." J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 11 Feb 99 15:18:37 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things THOSE MURKY EARLY DAYS: Tyler wrote: >You, of course, are using only evidence in the FF, but I also accept >the events in _Oz and the Three Witches_, wherein he does admit to >delivering Ozma. My own theory (advanced in that blasphemous manuscript of mine) is that Mombi disguised herself as the Good Witch of the North (prior to her passing the form on to Orin/Tattypoo), so the Wizard thought he was handing Ozma over to someone who would at least be kind to and protect her, and whom he didn't suspect of knowing Ozma's true identity. So I try to exonerate Oscar a bit... SNOW VS. SHANOWER: FWIW, I think _Murder in Oz_ is darker and less Ozzy than anything of Shanower's. (Though those Ice People scare the hippikaloric out of me!) -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://www.mindspring.net/~daveh47/ Take the time to taste the honey on a summer breeze, Touch the love song every bird has learned to sing. Feel the sunlight as it warms you on the coolest day, And you'll feel a part of what we're gathering -- The senses of our world." -- The Bugaloos, "The Senses of Our World" ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 12 - 14, 1999 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11-99 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:15:21 PST Tyler: >I'm also not sure what you mean by saying that RPT "removed" Baum's >characters. Many of the Baum characters enjoyed large roles in the >RPT 19, >such as Dorothy, the Scarecrow, Ozma and the WIzard. Gehan was probably referring to the Good Witch of the North (and possibly to Ojo and Unc Nunkie, who were "removed" from the Emerald City). For the most part, though, Thompson kept Baum's characters intact. David Godwin: >With all due respect, I would have to say that most of the >rationalizations that attempt to reconcile the Scarecrow's memories >with >his animation by the spirit of Chang Wang Woe sound pretty lame. The >only >one I might be provisionally willing to accept would be the one about >his >having a sort of slug-like consciousness until said spirit came up >the bean >pole. Judging from the cases of Benny and Humpy, it's likely that Thompson (in her Oz books, at least) considered inanimate objects to possess some sort of consciousness (a somewhat disturbing thought, when you think about it). It's likely that Thompson thought that the Scarecrow had possessed a consciousness similar to that of the statue and the dummy before the spirit had entered him. >Another confusing element is that, strictly speaking, the Scarecrow >was a >reincarnation or re-embodiment of the spirit of Chang Wang Woe and >not a >transformation or enchantment. He is himself and not Chang Wang Woe >under >some sort of spell. So why would a disenchantment have any effect? Perhaps the Grand Gheewizard's "disenchantment" was actually a formula to restore a spirit to its last incarnation. If so, this would suggest that the three Princes had been pigs and a weasel in their past lives. >BTW, the introduction of a knight in armor and of beasts common to >Asia and >the Middle East would seem to me to argue in favor of the hypothesis >that >RPT tried to "Europeanize," or at least de-Americanize, LFB's vision >of Oz, >but it seems doubtful that everyone will ever agree on that one. I would tend to agree, but I don't necessarily see the "de-Americanization" as a bad thing. Anyway, Baum introduced plenty of non-American elements himself. When was the last time you saw a wild lion or tiger roaming through the States? -- 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: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:00:12 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Ozzy Things David Hulan: Oops, I forgot one thing.....How come the piglets parents, if they livede in the island of tweenty-weent as you said, be adult pigs? Baum says that everything there is tiny. Unless they were already adult pigs when they came to the island..... --Gehan Cooray ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:41:50 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Books and such: Following David Godwin's lead, I will push another book in a few months. It's non-Ozzy, though, so I'll take Ken Cope's lead and just post a URL. Jeremy: I don't know that we can use Dorothy's house as an example of the WWE not being all that powerful. Anybody can be taken by suprise or have an accident. For example, suppose I was a 4th degree black belt in three kinds of martial arts and a dead-eye shot with any weapon. A 90 pound weakling could still walk up behind me and blow my brains out and there would be nothing I could do about it. Having a house drop on your head is not something people really ever expect or prepare for. She may not have looked up until the last minute. IMHO, nobody could react quickly enough to do something if a house were 1 second away from smashing you, no matter how powerful you are. John Bell and Gehan: Baum explicitly stated that once Lurline enchanted Oz, that all people everywhere in Oz stopped aging at the point where they were. He went into some more detail, and he sounded pretty certain. MOPPET is that either Baum was in error or that the form of the enchantment changed, allowing people to age if they want to. I've always assumed that Baum was in error, since his few peeks into Oz may not have revealed much aging on the part of certain people. He might have just assumed that all aging stopped, when in fact it was just very slow. Gehan: David Hulan handed off to me, so here's my Ozma theory. I won't go into details of the evidence that I culled in and out of the FF, or how I reconciled contradictory statements, but I will say that since Jack Snow's story contradicted everything else, I had no choice but to reject it. So here goes... Lurline flies over Oz and enchants it. At the time, it was a land of many independent kingdoms. Ozroar, ruler of a small kingdom of Morrow is chosen by Lurline. His descendants will someday rule the newly proclaimed Land of Oz. The enchantment proves to be a bit more than she thought it would be, though, so she tinkered with it from time to time. Also, fairies were born into Ozroar's line from time to time to help the enchantment along. The rulers (and spouses) were from time to time called Ozroar, Oz, Ozma, etc. Many generations later, the enchantment was almost in its final form. Ozma (our Ozma) is born, and she is destined to be the final and permanent ruler of Oz. She is part fairy and, since there are fairies in her family tree, she truly was "born of a long line of fairy queens". Mombi's subsequent kidnapping and transformation throws the plan out of kilter for a while. My only quandary is the question "was Ozma a member of Lurline's band before she was born as a mortal/fairy?". I tend to the answer "no", since she does not demonstrate much knowledge of Lurline throughout most of the series. My jury, though, is still out on that. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:33:23 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Roleplaying game Hello! I plan to start an Ozzy Roleplaying game. Mail me at calamity@eureka.lk if you would like to participate. (Along with the name of the character you would like to be) I'd like to be Cap'n Fyter,the lavender/pink bear/ Jinjur/Langwidere/ Coo-ee-oh/Trot or Toto. Being a guy, I'd prefer to be Captain Fyter(a.k.a the TinSoldire),Toto or the Lavender Bear. --Gehan ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:35:53 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David G.) Subject: Oz More on the copyright question: I don't know how this would apply to Oz stuff particularly, but Fox has recently sent out a letter of warning - via Federal Express, for crying out loud - to virtually _all_ publishers. It states in no uncertain terms that anyone who uses Fox material (including X-Files, Simpsons, movies such as Braveheart, etc.) without specific authorization from Fox are in Big Trouble. They appear to be mainly concerned with "unauthorized" biographies, exposes, and so on and the unauthorized selling of stills from any of the stuff they own. Just a cautionary note to the effect that the big boys are not always so insouciant as they may appear about the use of copyrighted materials. Jeremy Steadman wrote: >How powerful was the WWE: >Whether she was more powerful than the WWW or not, she couldn't have >been THAT powerful, if she let herself be killed because of a simple >house . . Not the sort of thing one takes routine precautions to avoid... Ozma De-Aging: It occurred to me that the explanation for Ozma having lived for thousands of years and her being a baby when she came under Mombi's tender care might be an analogy with the Dalai Lama. Back in the good old days in Tibet, when the old DL died, they used to search among the children of Tibet for his reincarnation. When they found some child who could pass the tests (recalling events in the life of the last DL, for example), he would be the new DL. This sort of reminds me of Glinda's search for Ozma and finding her transformed into Tip. In other words, the Ozma we know was just the latest incarnation of "the royal Ozma." Unfortunately, this theory doesn't work out very well with everything else we know about early Ozstory, although it would fit okay with LFB's theosophy. Wisdom of Oz: I asked awhile ago if this book had been discussed on the Digest, and Dave said no, but I was welcome to start such a discussion. Thanks. But I didn't want to say anything until I had heard someone else's opinion. As it is, I think I will stick to the old rule about, "If you can't say anything good..." The book is so positive and well-meaning that any negative criticism would make me seem like the grousing old Nome King. I'll just stay silent on the subject for a while. - David G. ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:25:19 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11-99 Tyler: You say that the barrier of invisibility is found nowhere outside Snow's books. Isn't that a key part of what Glinda did at the end of EMERALD CITY ? (Incidentally, I've never read Snow's books, so I'm not confusing them with Baum.) I've asked this before, but does anyone know where I can get a copy of OZ AND THE THREE WITCHES? Is it not still available retail? Thanks. Until next time, 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: Sun, 14 Feb 99 13:27:18 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things OZ AND THE THREE WITCHES: Jeremy wrote: >I've asked this before, but does anyone know where I can get a copy >of OZ AND THE THREE WITCHES? Is it not still available retail? >Thanks. This brings up an important issue, I think. _Oz and the Three Witches_ is still under copyright, but it is also an out-of-print, virtually impossible to acquire, and yet very critical volume, because of the light it casts on the murky subject of pre-Dorothean Oz and "What did the Wizard know and when did he know it?". Does anyone besides me think we should contact Hugh Pendexter and respectfully request that he release _Oz and the Three Witches_ into the public domain, for the benefit of Oz Historians? POWERS OF WWE: Tyler wrote: >Having a house drop on your head is not something people really ever expect >or prepare for. She may not have looked up until the last minute. And then there's my MOPPET that she was fast asleep at the time. -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://www.mindspring.net/~daveh47/ Take the time to taste the honey on a summer breeze, Touch the love song every bird has learned to sing. Feel the sunlight as it warms you on the coolest day, And you'll feel a part of what we're gathering -- The senses of our world." -- The Bugaloos, "The Senses of Our World" ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 15 - 20, 1999 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11-99 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:15:21 PST Tyler: >I'm also not sure what you mean by saying that RPT "removed" Baum's >characters. Many of the Baum characters enjoyed large roles in the >RPT 19, >such as Dorothy, the Scarecrow, Ozma and the WIzard. Gehan was probably referring to the Good Witch of the North (and possibly to Ojo and Unc Nunkie, who were "removed" from the Emerald City). For the most part, though, Thompson kept Baum's characters intact. David Godwin: >With all due respect, I would have to say that most of the >rationalizations that attempt to reconcile the Scarecrow's memories >with >his animation by the spirit of Chang Wang Woe sound pretty lame. The >only >one I might be provisionally willing to accept would be the one about >his >having a sort of slug-like consciousness until said spirit came up >the bean >pole. Judging from the cases of Benny and Humpy, it's likely that Thompson (in her Oz books, at least) considered inanimate objects to possess some sort of consciousness (a somewhat disturbing thought, when you think about it). It's likely that Thompson thought that the Scarecrow had possessed a consciousness similar to that of the statue and the dummy before the spirit had entered him. >Another confusing element is that, strictly speaking, the Scarecrow >was a >reincarnation or re-embodiment of the spirit of Chang Wang Woe and >not a >transformation or enchantment. He is himself and not Chang Wang Woe >under >some sort of spell. So why would a disenchantment have any effect? Perhaps the Grand Gheewizard's "disenchantment" was actually a formula to restore a spirit to its last incarnation. If so, this would suggest that the three Princes had been pigs and a weasel in their past lives. >BTW, the introduction of a knight in armor and of beasts common to >Asia and >the Middle East would seem to me to argue in favor of the hypothesis >that >RPT tried to "Europeanize," or at least de-Americanize, LFB's vision >of Oz, >but it seems doubtful that everyone will ever agree on that one. I would tend to agree, but I don't necessarily see the "de-Americanization" as a bad thing. Anyway, Baum introduced plenty of non-American elements himself. When was the last time you saw a wild lion or tiger roaming through the States? -- 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, 14 Feb 1999 19:33:23 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Roleplaying game Hello! I plan to start an Ozzy Roleplaying game. Mail me at calamity@eureka.lk if you would like to participate. (Along with the name of the character you would like to be) I'd like to be Cap'n Fyter,the lavender/pink bear/ Jinjur/Langwidere/ Coo-ee-oh/Trot or Toto. Being a guy, I'd prefer to be Captain Fyter(a.k.a the TinSoldire),Toto or the Lavender Bear. --Gehan ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Feb 99 09:33:03 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: Animals of Oz Dave Hardenbrook: I don't think it would be a good idea to ask Hugh Pendexter to give announce that anyone for any purpose could reprint his "Oz and the Three Witches," but it would probably be a good idea to ask him (if you have a current address for him) for permission for you to reprint copies at cost for members of the Ozzy Digest. It isn't very long and wouldn't be particularly expensive. (If you don't have a copy yourself, I could make a copy of my copy for you to use for that purpose.) Making copies to order can add up to a significant amount of work (depending on how close a photocopy store is), so you might want to ask for a volunteer to run that service. (For that matter, you could ask him for permission to charge more than cost, as a way of raising a smidgen of money for Ozzy Digest expenses, although in that case you would probably also want to offer to charge enough more to be offering him some kind of payment as well. I doubt that there'd be enough takers to add up to much, but it might be enough to sweeten the deal on both sides, if you or some volunteer filling in could take the time to keep track of the amounts.) Nathan DeHoff: Sonia Brown (Oz fan and circus enthusiast) once suggested that both Baum and RPT chose most of their animals who are major characters from among the most popular circus-act animals. You do (or did, in the days when travelling circuses were more common) see animals of their favorite kinds roaming the streets of America when the circus parades through town. (Or, of course, they might have been more familiar with them from zoos, but it seems plausible that circuses would have been at least part of the equation.) David Godwin: RPT had a lot of devoted beasts, but she didn't really start the tradition of such characters in Oz -- Baum had Toto, Cowardly Lion, Hungry Tiger, Hank, et al. He and RPT both seem to have preferred dogs to cats (in spite of their fondness for Big Cats). Jeremy Steadman: Tyler's reference to a barrier of invisibility as something that Jack Snow added is confusing if you haven't read "Shaggy Man." It isn't that Snow added a barrier making Oz invisible, but that he added an extra power, not previously mentioned, to the barrier (it makes people inside it invisible to each other and themselves). David Hulan: I like to think that the sailor who visited Teentyweent was Trot's father. If the sailor (whoever he was) didn't tell the Swynes his name (or, some to think of it, even if he did, if they didn't happen to hear the Wizard referred to by name later on), they might have assumed that it was the Wizard they dealt with, having learned later that their Piglets were in the Wizard's charge. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:22:25 -0500 From: "Lisa M. Mastroberte" X-Accept-Language: en Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-14-99 Hey everybody! How does everyone feel on that new Oz movie they want to make with 60-some odd old Dorothy? (Liz Talyor) Personally, I think that its going to be crap. It totally goes against the Oz books. Opinions open. Peace! Lisa ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:30:33 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: ROYAL BOOK OF OZ taken out of library Thanks, Tyler Jones, for noting: <> I agree with you that Baum was probably in error as a historian on whether Ozians had to stay young since his books contain examples or hints of aging. When he wrote about Lurline in TIN WOODMAN, of course, he was older, in ill health, and approaching his own death; forced to be supine, he might thus have been prone to emphasize the end of aging. Tyler Jones wrote: <<. . . Ozma (our Ozma) is born, and she is destined to be the final and permanent ruler of Oz.>> Interesting theory about Ozma's forebears. In true history-writing, such a presentation would be accused of "presentism": it says that many actions in the past were aimed at the creation of our present situation, and that our present is the culmination and peak of all historic trends. Of course, in Oz, those could both well be true! Thanks, Ruth Berman and David Godwin, for starting our ROYAL BOOK discussion on a high level. David wrote: <>. To which Nathan DeHoff replied: <> A good point, but lions and tigers come from nature, not culture. For artifacts, Baum rarely borrowed things for Oz which American children couldn't see around their homes: scarecrows, china figures, phonographs, teddy bears, balloons, cooking utensils. His warriors wore not medieval armor but 19th-century dress uniforms. In contrast, Thompson builds her story around things an American child is likely to see only in other storybooks: a knight in shining armor, pack-laden camels, a Mandarin court. Furthermore, she states the links between these things and the contexts from which she borrowed them. She compares the Silver Islanders to "the pictures of some Chinamen...in one of Dorothy's books" [49]. Dorothy treats Sir Hokus "exactly as she had read in books" [83]. [Dorothy has also read Lewis Carroll--239.] Compare this attitude to how Baum told us to treat old stories skeptically in SEA FAIRIES and "The Witchcraft of Mary-Marie." I read ROYAL BOOK as implying that Sir Hokus and the camels actually came from the Outside World. The knight says he was transported to Pokes "centuries ago," when knights dominated Europe, and has no knowledge of Oz [80]. The camels never spoke to humans before, as Oz animals normally do [221]. In YELLOW KNIGHT Thompson works hard to provide another explanation of these oddities. In the absence of that later information, however, readers would deduce that Sir Hokus is truly from medieval Europe and the camels from the contemporary Near East. Thompson's originality came not from inventing societies as novel as Baum's Mangaboos, Herku, and Flatheads, but from how she plays with standard literary settings. I don't think she set out to introduce European traditions into the series, but Old World fairy tales were the foundation of her storytelling. ROYAL BOOK definitely starts a "Eurasianization" of Oz. Ruth Berman wrote about ROYAL BOOK: <> I agree that Thompson's use of Chinese stereotypes is far from uniformly negative. A few traits she highlights would probably rub sore nerves among Chinese-Americans, however. Cutting queues was one way Euro-American rowdies tormented Chinese immigrants [105]. And it's not just that <>--Thompson tries to gross out her American readers by showing the Silver Islanders eating household pets [139]. But what probably caused the most worry for Peter Glassman are the inhumanly slanted eyes in Neill's drawings of all the Silver Islanders. Ironically, the Emperor's serious and studious grandchildren resemble a current stereotype that I'm not sure was widespread in 1921: the "model minority" student of Asian origin. The scene of the Scarecrow meeting those children reminded me so much of THE KING & I that I wondered whether Thompson may have been influenced by ANNA & THE KING OF SIAM. I haven't been able to find when that book was published. Last year Gordon Birrell made a very interesting connection I hadn't seen before: the fairyland on the other side of the Earth from Oz in TIK-TOK <> Indeed, "here be dragons" in the Silver Islands, too. In contrast to Baum's subtle links, however, Thompson explicitly ties her land to China. One important aspect of the Silver Islands reminds me not so much of China, however, as of Tibet. Waiting for a ruler to come back in a new body, recognizing that ruler by his traits and unexplained knowledge (in this case, the Scarecrow's voice and innate use of the language [49-50])--those seem to mirror how Tibetan lamas look for the rebirth of their rulers' souls. I see Nathan DeHoff picked up on Buddhist beliefs by writing: <> (And David Godwin mused about applying the same ideas to Ozma.) David Godwin wrote: <> I doubt it. But only because I think you mean the Comfortable Camel, who's much more vocally devoted to his Karwan Bashi. Wasn't it nice when the most devoted animal in Oz, Toto, was also the most taciturn? I realized as I read ROYAL BOOK this time that Neill drew the Dromedary larger than the Camel, and I'd always thought of them the other way around. In the plate opposite 191 (Books of Wonder edition), doesn't the Camel have a more dubious expression and the Dromedary a more comfortable one? David Godwin wrote: <> Fox is part of Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp, which also owns HarperCollins publishers. The firm has made its main strategy the exploitation of its intellectual properties in all media. The book wing has, for instance, sold off several imprints that specialized in serious titles and weren't appropriate homes for SIMPSONS calendars. So I'm not surprised that Fox is clamping down hard on uses of its brand names. Ruth Berman wrote: <> Interesting work! Putting Ojo's castle in the south sounds like it might also be a solution Neill (or whoever drew the TIK-TOK map) came up with after reading chapter 1 of PATCHWORK GIRL. Baum's stories rarely forced him to reconcile conflicting statements, but the cartographer had to. Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <<_Oz and the Three Witches_ is still under copyright, but it is also an out-of-print, virtually impossible to acquire, and yet very critical volume, because of the light it casts on the murky subject of pre-Dorothean Oz and "What did the Wizard know and when did he know it?". Does anyone besides me think we should contact Hugh Pendexter and respectfully request that he release _Oz and the Three Witches_ into the public domain, for the benefit of Oz Historians?>> It would probably be better to petition Pendexter (or, if need be, his literary looker-afters) to put the booklet back in print, either on his own or through someone else. Books used to be sold "by subscription," with orders taken by mail and no volumes actually printed until enough had been spoken for. If enough people asked him, he might see a reprint as worth his while. I think that's especially important because OZ & THREE WITCHES is largely a work of imagination, not true history or literary criticism, so we can't really argue that we need it in the public domain for scholarly purposes. Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> When I finally got to reading Snow's "Murder" last year, I came away thinking of it as a sketch, not a full story. The piece was a bit of a disappointment after I'd heard about it for probably two decades. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:15:58 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz ********** SLIGHT SPOILERS FOR SOME FF BOOKS (NOT MAJOR) ********** Jeremy: At the end of _Emerald City_, Glinda says that her spell would only make Oz invisible. She said nothing about it being a physical barrier, only that people could not see it. In _Scarecrow_ the invisibility seems to have disappeared. In _Wonder City_, Oz can only be seen by magic. In _Shaggy Man_, the barrier is both physical and invisible. Only in Snow is the physical nature of the spell present. In no other book, in or out of the FF, does Glinda's spell physically prevent people from entering Oz. ********** END OF SPOILERS ********** Jeremy again: Chris Dulabone may know if _Oz and the Three Witches_ is still available. He is no longer a Digest member, though, so you'll need to e-mail him yourself. Dave: I think that contacting Hugh Pendexter would be a very good idea at this point about his book _Oz and the Three Witches_. There are only a few new characters in the story, and they are fairly minor. He may also allow e-text versions to be placed on the web. After all, as Dave says, the book is probably out of print and there were not very many editions anyway. There is no way he could profit on it now. Chris Dulabone may know how to get in touch with him. Does anybody volunteer to start hunting? If it falls through, I can write a detailed "book report" of this story and post it on my web site. That would be allowed. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:25:52 -0700 All: The Ozzy Digest is now archived up to and including January 1999. All back issues are available on my website http://tyler1.apprentice.com/oz/digest.htm Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:37:10 EDT Subject: Ozzy Digest Submission - Oz Theme Park Update From: "Earl C. Abbe" Wichita Business Journal - February 16, 1999 oz theme park still on track The cost of a Wizard of Oz theme near Kansas City project has soared to nearly $630 million. Officials promise that Oz Entertainment Co.'s venture can open in April 2002 on about 1,750 acres. But in order to get started, the group wants additional help from the Kansas state government, which already has approved $250 million in bond financing that would be payable with sales taxes generated by the development. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ====================================================================== From: "JOSEPH A KENNEY" Subject: Dreamer of OZ info Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:22:40 -0500 Hi, just searching the web with my new computer and found this address in Jims Wizard of Oz club page. I've always been a big fan since I was a kid. Still think that movie was way before it's time and that it couldn't have been done better today. I was wondering if anybody in the fan club happens to have a copy of Dreamer of OZ, with John Ritter, from 1990. I've been searching fo so long with no luck. I figured someone on the web must have taped it. Any help would be appreciated.Thanks and I'll be back visiting again. joseph.a.kenney@gte.net ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:52:48 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-11 & 2/14-99 2/11: Gehan: >I still don't se any reason for JS's >books to be called "dark". I noticed that Shaggy man- was quite boring, but >certainly not dark. You don't think that Shaggy and Tom being turned into zombies in the Valley of Romance wasn't darker than anything in Baum or Thompson? David G.: >BTW, the introduction of a knight in armor and of beasts common to Asia and >the Middle East would seem to me to argue in favor of the hypothesis that >RPT tried to "Europeanize," or at least de-Americanize, LFB's vision of Oz, >but it seems doubtful that everyone will ever agree on that one. Well, the first wild animal we meet in Oz is an African lion. Beyond that, we never, in any of Baum's books, meet a wild animal of a species that's definitely native to the United States. No bison, no cougars, no black bears (bears, but probably brown ones of the species that's found in Eurasia as well), no pronghorns, no moose, no prairie dogs, no bighorn sheep. It's true that jaguars have occasionally been spotted in the southern tip of Texas, but they're primarily from south of the border. On the other hand, we meet (or hear about) a lion, a tiger (maybe two, depending on whether the tiger who appeals to the lion in _Wizard_ is actually the Hungry Tiger or not), two kangaroos, a zebra, a leopard, a gray ape (what species I don't know; there aren't any apes that are normally gray), a giraffe, a wild boar, and a chimpanzee - if I haven't forgotten any - none of which could be from the US. Then there are animals that are found in the US but also elsewhere - rabbits, wolves, crows, bears, etc. Oddly enough, there _are_ wild camels in the US, down in the southwestern desert (I forget if it's Arizona or New Mexico, or maybe both); they were imported in the 19th century as an experiment for army transport in that region, and later were released and were able to survive and breed on their own. There aren't a lot of them - there may not be any by now - but they were definitely there in 1921. Not, of course, that Camy and Doubty were wild camels; they clearly were part of a caravan. The knight in armor I'll give you as European, but no more so than the descriptions of the soldiers in _Magic_ or the royal court of Bunnybury. >Another BTW: the Doubtful Dromedary seems to be the first in a long line of >RPT's devoted beasts (or fawning beasts, if you take a jaundiced view) - a >line that includes the Iffin, Terrybubble, etc. and finally reaches its >conclusion (?) only with the Flittermouse in the McGraws' _Merry-Go-Round_. >I'm not sure whether I find this charming or annoying; she seems to lay it >on a bit thick at times. I think the Comfortable Camel is more of the fawning beast than the Doubtful Dromedary, but you do make an interesting point. Thompson did a better job with her animal characters who were at least somewhat acerbic in personality - Kabumpo, Wag, Pansy, Chalk, Pigasus, Roger, etc. Though I still like Terrybubble. But Camy, Bill, the Iffin, Nikobo, and others of their ilk do detract from the books they're in. As to whether Thompson was more of a dog person, that's hard to say. The only dog character she uses is Toto, and he doesn't do anything but get Dorothy lost in _Grampa_ as far as I recall. OTOH, Pansy the Watch Cat in _Speedy_ is one of her best animal characters for my money, though the cats of Catty Corners are a nasty lot. Ruth: Interesting speculation on the map. From the Literature POV I think you're probably right. J.L.: >Thompson and Neill say that children do grow up in Oz, and stop aging only >when they choose to. I don't recall if Baum is that explicit, but does he >ever say people *have* to stop growing if they don't want to? He says in _Tin Woodman_ that from the time of Lurline's enchantment no one in Oz had aged a day, including the statement that babies stayed babies forever. And in _Glinda_ he says that Dorothy "could not grow big," not "need not grow big." But either (a) Lurline modified the enchantment at some time between _Glinda_ and _Kabumpo_ (when Pompa says "I'm never going to be eighteen again"), or (b) Baum misunderstood the nature of the enchantment. I tend to favor the latter idea, but either one works. Dave: >SNOW VS. SHANOWER: >FWIW, I think _Murder in Oz_ is darker and less Ozzy than anything of >Shanower's. (Though those Ice People scare the hippikaloric out of me!) Probably so, but I think most of us were referring to Snow's FF books rather than a short story. 2/14: Gehan: We don't know how small things are in general on Teenty-Weent. Even the Wizard only knows what the sailor told him about it (at the time he describes it in _DotWiz_, at least), so there's no strong reason to believe that the adult Swynes wouldn't be normal-size pigs. Besides that, they probably aren't; Baum makes a point of how tiny their house is - too small for Woot to enter, with a door that is only as high as Woot's waist. That wouldn't be suitable for a normal adult pig. You may be misled by Neill's drawing that shows the Swynes' house as being quite large. David G.: What is _The Wisdom of Oz_? I assume some kind of self-help book based on (probably the movie version of) Oz? I've never seen it, or even heard of it until you mentioned it here. Jeremy: Glinda made Oz invisible, but Snow changed that to a zone surrounding Oz (more or less coincident with the Deadly Desert) in which everything became invisible. This is never mentioned in descriptions of travels across the desert in _Scarecrow_, _Rinkitink_, and _Magic_, and certainly in the first two you'd expect it to be if it existed. (Thompson and Neill desert-crossings are even more explicit that nothing becomes invisible in the course of crossing it, but Snow didn't accept Thompson or Neill. However, he doesn't seem to have accepted - or at least noticed - a lot of Baum, either.) Dave: If someone on the Digest knows Hugh Pendexter I think it would be a good thing to ask him to authorize either a new edition of "Oz and the Three Witches" or its release into PD. (I have a copy myself, but I think it's been OP for at least ten years.) If only a relative handful of people (say 30 or fewer) are interested I'm willing to do a photocopied edition that I'll sell at cost (probably about a buck including postage and envelope) if Pendexter will give permission. It won't be as attractive as the original, but if the main thing people want it for is the information it contains then a legible reproduction should suffice. I don't know Pendexter, though, so someone else would have to approach him on the subject. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:27:43 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Royal Book of Oz I did make some notes on the BCF as I reread it, and since there hasn't been a Digest since I posted my response to the last two and I have a little time on my hands, I thought I'd add a second post discussing them. The endpapers (of the BoW edition, which I assume are the same as in the 1st) provide an interesting challenge: name those characters! Most are pretty clear, but there are a few that I'm not sure about. I'm guessing the cat on the left is Eureka and the one on the right is Bungle, because the latter looks more glassy, but I can't say for sure. The only owl I can remember through the first 15 books is the Foolish Owl in PG, but the owl on the endpapers doesn't look much like the FO as Neill drew her previously. I'm guessing the plump-faced kid behind Cap'n Bill is Button-Bright, though it doesn't look like any other illustration of him Neill did. The character peering over the Wizard's shoulder is a Skeezer; I'd assume Ervic, but I wouldn't bet on it. And is that Reera behind him in a hat resembling a chef's toque? She wore that kind of hat in one of her guises, so that's my guess. I suppose the bear on the far left is Bru, but maybe it's Dyna's blue bearskin? And the simian to the right of the owl I guess is Rango. But who's the horse in the right foreground? I thought there weren't any known real horses in Oz between the time of Jim's departure at the end of _DotWiz_ and the discovery of Highboy (if you want to call him a real horse) in _Giant Horse_, or (if you don't) the horses of the barons in _Jack Pumpkinhead_. Am I forgetting one, or did Neill just decide to stick a horse in the picture because he wanted to draw a horse? And does anyone have any idea who the bald man in glasses between the Nome King and Jack Pumpkinhead might be? I did note that this book marks the first (and for all I know the only) reference to the Ozian continent as the Continent of Imagination. I didn't find that the Scarecrow's motivation was very plausible. He'd never cared about the Professor's opinions before, and several of the other celebrities present (Scraps, Tik-Tok, Jack Pumpkinhead for three) had no more lineage than he did. Why did he suddenly start worrying about who he were? I suppose you could say that it was a matter of magic at work; something had to get him to the Silver Islands on the 50th anniversary of Chang Wang Woe's enchantment, so if it hadn't been for the Royal Book some other mental itch would have sent him back to the beanpole. I don't understand the statement on page 27 that there isn't a ferry in the kingdom. There was certainly one in _Land_, and one in _Lost Princess_. Others turn up in other books as well, I believe. (Certainly in _Merry-Go-Round_, but I think there were others, though I don't recall one for sure besides the two I mentioned.) One wonders how the A-B-Sea Serpent managed to have five great-grandmothers. Most beings have four at most. Unless he's counting step-parents. (By that standard my daughter has had six grandmothers at some point in her life, with more than twice that many great-grandmothers. Besides her two "natural" grandmothers there were the mothers of her mother's second and third husbands and my second wife's mother and stepmother. And my mother, at least, had her own mother and a stepmother; I'm not sure about the rest.) The first time I heard the Flanders & Swann song "The Hippopotamus," with its chorus of "Mud, mud, glorious mud," I was strongly reminded of the Middlings' national air. Dorothy obviously didn't know much about King Arthur or she'd have known Sir Hokus hadn't served him. If King Arthur existed at all it was somewhere in the fifth or sixth century, and plate armor didn't come in until around the thirteenth, IIRC. Certainly not until well after Arthur's time. Aside from that, he'd have spoken an archaic form of Welsh, or possibly a form of Latin - certainly not anything intelligible to someone whose only language was English. (Of course, we find out in _Yellow Knight_ that it wasn't King Arthur, but I won't say more than that here.) Is my memory failing me, or did early editions of RB have a typo on page 90, where the Poke vendor handed Dorothy a "comb" instead of a "cone"? I suppose I could look it up in Bib Oz - it sounds like the sort of thing that would be an identification point - but Bib Oz is downstairs and it's easier for me to Ask The Experts. I just remember being puzzled over eating a comb when I read the book when I was 8 or so, and that was very likely a 1st edition. (The older son of the lady I borrowed them from would have been 7 when RB came out, which is probably about the time she started buying them as soon as they appeared. I'm sure the book hadn't been on sale more than a year by the time she bought it, so it could still have been a 1st easily enough.) The statement that the Scarecrow returned on the 50th anniversary of the enchantment of Chang Wang Woe is a bit puzzling; it would seem to imply that _Royal Book_ takes place 50 years after _Wizard_. Either (a) the beanpole stood in the cornfield untouched for nearly 30 years; (b) the Scarecrow hung on the beanpole for about 30 years before Dorothy happened upon him; (c) _Wizard_ took place in the 1870s (highly unlikely, since _Emerald City_ can't have taken place before 1900 or so because of a reference to Marconi, and Dorothy's age presents a problem with even 6 years between _Wizard_ and EC); or (d) some combination of the three. Unless somebody has another idea? The Scarecrow overrates his brains, I think - the use of the fan to defeat the invaders was a matter of luck, not brains. (But then the Scarecrow often overrates his brains.) Other than "because it makes for a better story," why on earth should a "fine wide road", with nothing but Pokes at the end of it, degenerate into a mere track before it gets somewhere else? If people had lived along the part of the road nearest Pokes then I can see a point in the road being good until it got past them and then deteriorating, but when no one lives along a road then it should decay into a track along its whole length at about the same rate. Anybody have any ideas? It's interesting that Sir Hokus's sword snaps off at the hilt on page 155, but yet he has a sword to kill the dragon with on page 257, with no mention of acquiring a new one. Possibly there was one in one of the camels' packs? (Or more likely, sloppy copyediting...) The statement by King Fix Sit that "furniture lasts longer than people" is true for our world, but it shouldn't be true for Oz. This is, in fact, another bit of evidence that the immortality aspect of Lurline's enchantment hadn't been in effect long enough for people to have noticed it much. Even Dorothy (or Little With D) agrees with the statement, so it can't have become very ingrained in her way of thinking. I feel rather sorry for the dragon that Hokus slew. It wasn't doing any harm. Does anyone else think that Princess Orange Blossom bears a striking resemblance to the Six Snubnosed Princesses in _Sky Island_? (The illustration, I mean.) Well, those are my comments. Maybe they'll stimulate some discussion. As I've said, I don't think this is one of Thompson's better books, but it's not one of her worst, either. I'd put it about on a par with _Gnome King_, _Giant Horse_, _Jack Pumpkinhead_, and _Pirates_; better than _Cowardly Lion_, _Grampa_, or _Ozoplaning_; worse than the rest. About a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 among FF books, where 1 is _Wonder City_ or _Scalawagons_ and 10 is _Ozma_, _Lost Princess_, _Speedy_, or _Wishing Horse_. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Feb 99 17:43:40 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things OZ MOVIE: >How does everyone feel on that new Oz movie they want to make with 60-some >odd old Dorothy? (Liz Talyor) Personally, I think that its going to be crap. >It totally goes against the Oz books. Opinions open. Not only do I think it will be crap, but I think it will be hippikaloric... ( Which we all know is the worst anything can ever be! :) ) My only consolation is the thought that the MGM-only fans will probably share our outrage... GEHAN'S OZZY ROLE-PLAYING GAME: Just so everyone knows, I've talked with Gehan and I have dibs on the Adepts because of my development of their personalities, and also Jellia, although I will sacrifice my claim on her if someone else really wants her... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://www.mindspring.net/~daveh47/ Take the time to taste the honey on a summer breeze, Touch the love song every bird has learned to sing. Feel the sunlight as it warms you on the coolest day, And you'll feel a part of what we're gathering -- The senses of our world." -- The Bugaloos, "The Senses of Our World" ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, FEBRUARY 21 - MARCH 1, 1999 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-20-99 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 20:15:25 PST David Hulan: >As to whether Thompson was >more of a dog person, that's hard to say. The only dog character she >uses >is Toto, and he doesn't do anything but get Dorothy lost in _Grampa_ >as far >as I recall. It's not part of the FF, but Thompson's _Yankee_ uses a dog as a main character. Personally, I didn't care much for Yankee (I don't think Oz needs a protagonist who refers to Ozma as "a doll"), but Thompson gave him a fairly heroic role. Incidentally, I believe that Yankee is named after a pet of Thompson herself. >OTOH, Pansy the Watch Cat in _Speedy_ is one of her best >animal characters for my money, though the cats of Catty Corners are >a nasty lot. While I'm on the subject of Thompson's non-FF Oz books, I'll mention that the colony of dogs in _Enchanted Island_ wasn't much friendlier than Catty Corners. (Actually, the dogs seemed to have something in common with _Lucky Bucky_'s Dollfins.) >I did note that this book marks the first (and for all I know the >only) >reference to the Ozian continent as the Continent of Imagination. In _Pirates_, Roger refers to the Ozian world as "Imagi-Nation." That's not exactly the same thing, though. >I don't understand the statement on page 27 that there isn't a ferry >in the >kingdom. There was certainly one in _Land_, and one in _Lost >Princess_. >Others turn up in other books as well, I believe. (Certainly in >_Merry-Go-Round_, but I think there were others, though I don't >recall one >for sure besides the two I mentioned.) There was one in _Wishing Horse_, too. He took Dorothy and Pigasus across the Winkie River. -- 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: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:03:28 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: David Hulan: Well, Shaggy and Tom weren't exactly Zombi's. They were just under an evil spell, and were under a transe. I've seen stuff like that inlots of cartoons. Therws nothing really frightning, or terryfying. If -Shaggy Man- is dark, what do you think of Disney's RTOZ? Remember Mombi's chamber? The sad music? There was nothing really funny in the movie, but I liked it very much. More than the MGM movie in a way. The spell that was cast on Shaggy and Tom is often used by evil magicians and witches, and its certainly more exciting than just transforming people or turning them into ornaments........... Dave: Mombi couldn't have disguised herself as the GWN, for she admits that Oscar thought her tricks. It can't be a lie because if so, Glinda's pearl would have turned black. And Oscar wont teach a Good Witch magic tricks. My MOPPET is that Oscar handed Ozma to Mombi, for if Mombi had lied about that the pearl would have turned black. Maybe Ozma told Baum to say it the other way around to protect Oscar. My guess is that Mombi pretended to be a helpless old widow, and offered to raise Ozma in exchange for magic tricks. She would have done this to test if Oscar were a real Wizard. So maybe Oscar thought that Ozma will be well looked after. My question is, how come Ozma were still a baby, when Oscar came to Oz. It was decades after her birth and after Pastoria's kidnapping.Where did he find her? Maybe Pastoria left Ozma in the hands of a villager who lived in his kingdom, and perhaps the villager died, and left Ozma in the Wizard's hands. Thats my MOPPET. That also shows that Oscar didn't kidnap Ozma, and he only gave her to Mombi, thinking that she will be kind to her, and because he couldn't look after her himself. My guess is that ever since Lurline enchanted Oz, aging in Oz was very slow, but stopped since Ozma's accenssion. That explains why Ozma was still a baby. Lisa: The Liz Taylor will be garbage. It should be in the dust-bin........ Have an Ozzy day! --Gehan "I'm natures arm! Her spirit! Her will! Hell, I am Mother Nature! And the time has come for plants to take back, the world so rightfully ours! Cause its not nice, to fool with Mother Nature!" --Poison Ivy (Batman and Robin. Warner Bros.) ====================================================================== From: ZMaund@aol.com Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 11:56:30 EST Subject: Dave: Please post! Greetings: I would appreciate hearing from anyone who wishes to donate or consign material to this year's Oz Club auctions. Thanks in advance. Patrick Maund ZMaund@aol.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 14:52:52 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David F. Godwin) Subject: Oz things Ruth Berman wrote: >RPT had a lot of devoted beasts, but she didn't really >start the tradition of such characters in Oz -- Baum had Toto, >Cowardly Lion, Hungry Tiger, Hank, et al. Yes, but Toto, the CL and HT, etc. were devoted in action and did not go out of their way to verbalize their loyalty. I seem to remember several of RPT's animal companions saying things like, "I dote on you" (right out of _Midsummer Night's Dream_, BTW). I don't think any of Baum's creatures spoke in any such demonstrative (cloying) fashion. I brought up the dog/cat thing because, if dogs in our world could talk, they might indeed say, "I dote on you." (Toto has the restraint not to do so.) No cat would ever be caught dead saying any such thing. And yes, of course I did mean the Comfortable Camel rather than the Doubtful Dromedary. Documented proof that I can type faster than I can think. Earlier, Ruth wrote (conerning the Silver Islanders): Baum introduced plenty of non-American >elements himself. When was the last time you saw a wild lion or tiger >roaming through the States? Well, not roaming around, but I've seen my share in zoos, circuses, etc. Not to mention David Hulan's >two kangaroos, a zebra, a leopard, a >gray ape..., a giraffe, a wild boar, and a chimpanzee<. I've seen camels >and dromedaries in zoos as well, but not fully caparisoned and ready for >duty. I suppose I've seen knights in armor, too, at the Renaissance Fair, >but such fairs didn't exist at the time of _Royal Book_. Besides, at the >time Dorothy et al. encountered the CL, they were in a primitive forest >all too likely to be inhabited by dangerous carnivores. Not exceptionally >American, I grant you, but not exceptionally medieval European or >Levantine, either. I can recall that when I was a small child, it was >entirely plausible to me that any stretch of woods, including even the >overgrown vacant lot behind our house, was liable to be infested with >lions and tigers and bears. But not camels. My point is that lions and >tigers may not be American animals. but they are still powerful images in >the minds of American children. When driving to work early one morning some 25 years ago, I did see an elephant (gray, not pink) running across the freeway some distance ahead. David Hulan wrote: >Other than "because it makes for a better story," why on earth should a >"fine wide road", with nothing but Pokes at the end of it, degenerate into >a mere track before it gets somewhere else? The question is, what's at the other end of the road? Judging from the Haff/Martin map, it might lead to Sun Top Mountain. Perhaps construction began on the road during a previous administration (Pastoria? The Wizard?) but was later forgotten and abandoned. OTOH, roads in Oz, particularly RPT's Oz, seem to have a random and arbitrary nature that defies explanation and logic. At least one of them gets up and runs around. Personally, I am - disturbed, shall we say? - by the storm that caused Dorothy and the CL to stray into Pokes in the first place. Such weather is so rare in Oz that I expected some sort of explanation for its special occurrence, but none was forthcoming. I can't recall any other such storm in the FF, unless it was that house-dropping cyclone. >What is _The Wisdom of Oz_? I assume some kind of self-help book based on >(probably the movie version of) Oz? I've never seen it, or even heard of it >until you mentioned it here. This is a book (San Diego: Inner Connections Press, 1998) by Gita Dorothy Morena (LFB's granddaughter), who is a practicing psychotherapist. It is not a self-help book, I think, but an explanation of how the story of WWiz is a psychological/spiritual journey that is empowering for anyone who is willing to listen to its lessons and walk the Yellow Brick Road of life and incorporate the non-conflicted blend of the wisdom of the Scarecrow, the compassion of the Tin Woodman, and the courage of the Cowardly Lion. Or something like that. There are some nice photos I hadn't seen before and a short but informative account of LFB's life, along with brief but interesting descriptions of the important figures in the author's lineage. Back in October of last year, reporting on the South Winkie convention, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: >We >then had lunch, during which we had a surprise visit from Baum's great- >granddaugter and Ozma Baum's daughter (Help! I can't remeber her name!). >She discussed her new book, _The Wisdom of Oz_, a study of the issues of >life that are examined in _The Wizard of Oz_. This is the only thing that has appeared on the Digest with regard to this book, aside from my own queries about it. I saw it advertised in the BoW catalog, ordered it, and am now almost through reading it. I didn't want to commit myself on it until I drew out somebody else first, because my impression is that this lady radiates such goodwill and good feeling that any negative comments about her book would seem to necessarily consist of ill-willed curmudgeonly fault finding. Nevertheless, Lurline bless her, my impression is that this book, although it certainly has its good points, is somewhat poorly edited and proofread and consists primariy of what I tend to think of as New Age psychobabble. If you prefer to use the word "birthing" when "birth" would be perfectly adequate (e.g., "The Birthing of Oz") and phrases such as "honoring your inner child" ring your chimes, this is the book for you. (But what about the inner Munchkin?) I do not object at all to her feminist slant, although she does largely fail to consider how the book can have a similar "healing and empowering" effect on a male. She does fall into what I regard as a politically motivated historical fiction, namely the idea that the persecution of the so-called witches during the "burning times" consisted entirely of a move by a repressive patriarchy to keep women in their place by singling out midwives and herbalists. Sort of a medieval, sexist AMA flexing its muscles. (And yes. I realize that the phrase "sexist AMA" is redundant.) There is one chapter wherein she assumes the persona of Dorothy Gale and explains how her experience in Oz empowered her and taught her to accept herself and her circumstances and "soar freely in the skies of reality." Maybe so, but the Dorothy Gale I know would never talk like that. To conclude, I recommend this book to aging but nostalgic hippies, New Age enthusiasts, and pop Jungians, meanwhile being duly thankful that the author did not claim to channel it directly from Glinda. Next: _The Zen of Oz_. Gehan's FRPG: It is, I think, noteworthy that so far no one has volunteered to play the central roles of Ozma, Glinda, or Dorothy. I think Gehan said he would play Trot if he had to, and Dave seems willing to enact Jellia Jamb. Aside from that, the game is running into the difficulty that most of the important characters in Oz are female while most people willing to invest their time in an RPG are male. Yet at the same time, I don't see people lining up the play the Wizard, the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, etc. Most folks seem to be more interested in relatively minor characters. _Oz and the Three Witches_: How long is this book? If it's fairly short, perhaps someone could (with the copyright holder's permission) scan it and put it on the Digest, or on somebody's website. J.L. Bell wrote: >Books used to be sold "by subscription," with >orders taken by mail and no volumes actually printed until enough had been >spoken for. Apparently some present-day publishers put books in their catalogs as "new releases," but don't even start work on them unless they get enough back orders to justify the expense of publishing. I'm thinking of one publisher in particular, but I won't name names. That's what happens when we go six days between Digests. I end up writing enough to fill one by myself! - David G. ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 16:41:25 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-20-99 New Oz movie with Liz Taylor: Sounds suspiciously like DOROTHY OF OZ to me . . . No ferry in the kingdom: Perhaps there aren't many . . . but in the Forest of Burzee, on the other hand, ferries abound . . . (Come on, you must have known someone would say that!) Until next time, 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: "Warren H. Baldwin" Subject: Copyright Suit Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 19:11:46 -0600 Someone, apparently, is challenging the copyright extension. The United States, it seems, was the only country in the world where international conventions were not observed, and thus the only country whose heritage was not enriched by another year of timeless manuscripts becoming public domain. Interested parties are directed to: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ or http://www.cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ (Not sure about the "www.") ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:49:33 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz All: Regarding the recent thread of relative power amongst the good and evil witches. I was looking through _Wizard_ on a different subject, and in chapter 2, the GWN says that she was not as powerful as the WWE. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:45:03 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz _Oz and the Three Witches_: If Hugh Pendexter is willing, maybe someone could volunteer to transcribe an e-text version of the story and post it on the internet. Failing that, an e-text version could be created, and someone could distribute hard copies only. The Barrier of Oz: Ruth explained Snow's version of the barrier better than I did. It was in fact not a new spell, just an enhanced version of the old one. Lisa: Liz Taylor is truly not Dorothy-like material. It just doesn't fit. However, for the most part, being true to the books is probably not a priority with Hollywood. To them, Oz begins and ends with Judy Garland. John Bell: As you say, it's very possible that such "presentism" was part of Oz history. With magic, etc. such things are easily attained. I may have been influenced by _Oz and the Three Witches_. According to Glinda, Lurline had spread prophecies throughout Oz that helped to shape the vision of Oz that she wanted. I took the next step and assumed that she influenced events, family trees, etc. to help out. This line of thinking is very similar to THE BELGARIAD/MALLOREAN series by David Eddings. Prophecy and people tinkering with things to make that prophecy come true are a central part of that series. American and European Oz: Tigers abound in Asia, Lions roam the wilds of Africa and Kangaroos hop all through Australia. Oz is truly of all parts of this world, with the possible exception of Antarctica. John Bell: I think that we do need _Oz and the Three Witches_. Granted, none of this is (or can be) verified, but in the realm of Oz history, it is a scholarly work that examines the early history of the Wizard in detail. While it can't be considered "official" in any sense of the word, it is written well enough to warrant a second look. For those not terribly interested in consistency or in historical analysis of Oz, it matter not one way or the other. For those who are interested in such things, though, this book is an invaluable research tool. The information is well presented and it's a good story. Gehan: If it was possible, you could read March Laumer's explanation for the discrepancy of the origin of the Nine Tiny Piglets. It's ingenious and fully ties the two of them together. One thing of note. The Wizard himself did not actually go to the Isle of Teenty-Weent. He bought them from a sailor who went there himself. David Hulan: If I read the book correctly, you "fine and wide" road appears in the chapter "Sir Hokus Overcometh the Giant". As our friends leave Pokes, the road is indeed fine and wide. After a while, the road peters out into a little track in the forest. Let me ponder.. Okay, I've got a theory :-) A long time ago, Pokes was a relatively normal town. They wanted to build a road through the forest, possibly to link up with Perhaps City or the Emerald City. They built the road up to the forest, following an old animal trail, then something happened. The people of Pokes retired into their city and were no longer interested in the outside. This may have had something to do with the enchantment of Sir Hokus. The road stayed, but never reached past the forest. There is indeed a similarity between Orange Blosson and the Snubnosed Princesses. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:19:13 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 02-20-99 Ruth: I'd think that the contemporary readers of the Oz books would have been more likely to have seen circus animals than ones in zoos. Zoos were (and are) usually only found in good-sized cities; I think there are very few in cities under 100,000, and not many in cities under 500,000. And I know, as a bit of trivia I remember from my own elementary school days, that in 1940 there were only 101 cities of over 100,000 population in the country. In 1920 there were probably still fewer. Circuses, on the other hand, played in quite small towns even when I was a child in the '40s; there were usually two or three circuses a year that would come to the towns where I lived - none of which was bigger than 15,000. Even farm kids in most of the country lived close enough to a town big enough for a circus to have seen one. (Maybe not out in the Great Plains, but then not very many people lived there, either - and I expect a smaller fraction of them bought Oz books than in more populous areas as well.) >David Hulan: I like to think that the sailor who visited Teentyweent was >Trot's father. If the sailor (whoever he was) didn't tell the Swynes his >name (or, some to think of it, even if he did, if they didn't happen to >hear the Wizard referred to by name later on), they might have >assumed that it was the Wizard they dealt with, having learned later >that their Piglets were in the Wizard's charge. Possible, but I seem to recall that the Swynes said they'd given the piglets to the Wizard before he left Oz the first time. (The book is downstairs and it's not a big enough issue to go down and check.) Lisa: I agree with your prognosis about the Liz Taylor "Oz" movie, but I guess there isn't anything we can do about it. One of the hazards of having Oz in the public domain... J.L.: >Interesting theory about Ozma's forebears. In true history-writing, such a >presentation would be accused of "presentism": it says that many actions in >the past were aimed at the creation of our present situation, and that our >present is the culmination and peak of all historic trends. Of course, in >Oz, those could both well be true! Right, Ozian history, unlike our own history (at least as far as we know) is known to be "directed" to a major extent. In which case past actions frequently _were_ aimed at the creation of the Ozian present. I don't know when _Anna and the King of Siam_ was published, but I think it was in the late '40s. I know it was in about 1948, give or take a year, when the film version with Rex Harrison as the king appeared, and I believe that it was made then to cash in on the popularity of a best-selling book. It seems unlikely that a straight movie and a Broadway musical would both appear in a fairly short span (ISTR _The King and I_ dates to about 1953) based on a book that was two or three decades old. > I realized as I read ROYAL BOOK this time that Neill drew the Dromedary >larger than the Camel, and I'd always thought of them the other way around. >In the plate opposite 191 (Books of Wonder edition), doesn't the Camel have >a more dubious expression and the Dromedary a more comfortable one? Actually, I think here we have a case of Neill mistaking the meaning of the word "dromedary." While technically it applies to the single-humped camel, popular usage back in the early part of the century apparently applied it to the two-humped Bactrian camel. I know I can remember animal books I had as a kid making a big point that dromedaries have only one hump, with the kind of emphasis that indicated that a lot of people thought the reverse. (Something like seeing an error in usage of some sort pointed out in an English book; if it's pointed out it's a safe bet that some people somewhere tend to make that error. Of course, some "errors," like splitting infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions, are so common that objecting to them is really pedantry. But you don't see books telling you not to say "her have went," because no native speaker of English is ever going to use a construction like that except as a joke.) I base this partly on the fact that the caption says "The Comfortable Camel and the Doubtful Dromedary" and the single-humped camel is on the left, and partly on the fact that when Camy shows up again in _Yellow Knight_ Neill draws him with one hump. Dave: >GEHAN'S OZZY ROLE-PLAYING GAME: >Just so everyone knows, I've talked with Gehan and I have dibs on >the Adepts because of my development of their personalities, and >also Jellia, although I will sacrifice my claim on her if someone >else really wants her... Are we entitled to choose more than one character each? In that case I want to lay claim to the Glass Cat and Eureka as well as Professor Woggle-bug... David Hulan ====================================================================== From: David Whitten Subject: Where would I get the Thompson Books? Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:33:26 -0800 (PST) I'm interested in re-reading Thompson's OZ books. I have been told that a) they were printed by Del Rey b) they are not in print any longer. Is there a source (online or otherwise) to get them? On a different note, are there any MUSHes or MOOs (text based virtual realities) that have re-created OZ ? If there are not, I am a wiz at a MOO (telnet://park.dds.nl:7777) and would be willing to give quota to anyone who is interested in making a Virtual Oz on the internet...especially if they want to make it more than the glimpse of Oz seen in the movie. David (whitten@netcom.com) (713) 791-1414 ext 6116 ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:23:35 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Ozzy Matters I really didn't like Royal Book so much. It wasn't very ozzy, and was totally un-fit. I just read it very breifly online, and I must get the book soon. The synopsis intself doesn't sound all that inetresting. I think its one of Thompson's worst books. Not to mention, books like -Cap't Salt-, -Lucky Bucky-, -Royal Book- and -Scalawagons- dont sound ozzy, and they really aren't. They remind of books like Robinson Crusoe, Tresure Island e.t.c. They don't have that "ozzy feeling" like in the Baum books, and "most" of the Thompson books. I've started writing another Oz book, which has become a hobby, called "Princess Dorothy of Oz". In which Lorna the wood nymph steals the wishing emeralds from Ozma's palace, and uses them to change Coo-ee-oh back to her own self. They team up to conquer Oz and make everybody miserable and scared. Menawhile, Ozma and several other Oz friends leave Oz on a quest to get very rare presents for Dorothy's birthday.(Ex: Candy Trees, Toy Trees, Mist cakes e.t.c) They visit lands like Nursery Rhyme Land, Toy-town, Candy-land, Dreamland, and Upside-down town to get them. Plus, many,many more. Now its upto Dorothy,Glinda,and the Good Witch of the North and Gloma to stop Coo-ee-oh and Lorna. Polychrome, and her sisters have a part too. BTW, who is your FAVOURITE Oz criminal, and your WORST Oz criminal? My fav. are Jinjur and Queen Coo-ee-oh. I cant stand Ruggedo, Ugu, and all the villians in the Thompson books. Who is your favorite Oz hero/heroine? My fav. are Trot,Dorothy and the Scarecrow and maybe the Wizard.......... Have an ozzy day! --Gehan "I'm natures arm! Her spirit! Her will! Hell, I am Mother Nature! And the time has come for plants to take back, the world so rightfully ours! Cause its not nice, to fool with Mother Nature!" --Poison Ivy (Batman and Robin. Warner Bros.) ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 23 Feb 99 09:54:45 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: Anna and the King of Silverislands Lisa M. Mastroberte & Dave Hardenbrook: An Oz movie about Dorothy grown old (and into Elizabeth Taylor) doesn't sound promising, but it's hard to judge by plots. The plot shows ignorance of the later Oz books, but it might work well on its own terms. Considering that many movies that get announced and planned never get made, there's probably not much point trying to judge it until such time ("if any") as it gets made and released. My guess is that it won't get made. J.L. Bell: Interesting comments on RPT's use of European and Oriental motifs. The comment on the Silver Islands compared to the Oriental motifs of Baum's version of the far side of the (Ozian_ globe -- RPT was probably drawing to some extent on the notion of China as the place you could get to if you dug a hole straight through the Earth (you couldn't, not starting from a place in the northern hemisphere, but it was a common idea). But I don't think her Silver Islands are on the far side of the Ozian globe -- the whole story seems to be taking place in an immense underground cavern (perhaps comparable in size to the kingdoms underground in "Dorothy and the Wizard"). (Speaking of Gordon Birrell, I miss him.) Also interesting comparison of Scarecrow with the little princes to "The King and I." Certainly, RPT could have seen Anna Leonowens' memoir, "The English Governess at the Siamese Court," which came out in 1870. Phyllis Karr once commented that Gilbert&Sullivan's last operetta, "Utopia Ltd," played like a parody a half century in advance of "The King and I," and that it probably had the effect because Gilbert must have been reading Leonowens. // You suggested that an artist working from Baum's texts might have put Ojo's house near the Quadling border as a way of reconciling the discrepancant locations in the first two chapters of "Patchwork Girl." I think that's a bit unlikely, because the first chapter doesn't say that Ojo's house is near the Quadling border, but only says he has a view of the Hammerhead mountain. An artist working from the descriptions, I think, would ignore that bit of information and go by the specific description of the second chapter (near Dr. Pipt's house, and Dr. Pipt's house just on the Gillikin border). Also, of course, it's unlikely that an artist working from the texts would have felt free to add so many names to the map. Very likely a professional artist redrew it, but I think Baum himself must have drawn up a map essentially the same as the one that got published in. (Either that, or he was standing pretty nearly over the artist's shoulder while the artist worked.) David Hulan: In addition to the zombie-actors example from "Shaggy Man," a striking example of dark fantasy in Snow's books is the shape- stealing shape-shifters of "Magical Mimics." Snow was modeling these on Baum's Phantasms, but Baum undercut the scary element of his Phantasms by playing them for humor at some points, and Snow didn't. With the Mimics, as with the zombie-actors, there's nothing comparably dark in either Baum or Thompson. // I don't remember answers to the specific points you mention about endpapers and typoes, but will try to remember to take a look. What I always found confusing about the ice-cream in Pokes with Sir Hokus was the reference to hokey-pokey. It wasn't until I was an adult and thought to check it in a dictionary that I discovered that hokey-pokey was the name of a variety of (cheap) ice-cream. // Yes, that poor dragon seems to have been entirely innocent (unless belonging to a Gheewizard who works for the three wicked princes is an indication of evildoing). Ruth Berman ====================================================================== From: "Warren H. Baldwin" Subject: Ozzy Software Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:11:19 -0600 Corel Corp., maker of CorelDraw, has put out a boxed software creation called Corel Print House Magic "The Wizard of Oz" Edition. I quote from the sales literature: "Its easy and fun to create greeting cards, games, Color Me projects, party themes and more with Corel Print House Magic -- The Wizard of Oz Edition. Travel over the rainbow with Dorothy and her friends to a land of clipart images, special effects, exciting samples and easy-to-use tools. . . ." Inasmuch as several people have been inquiring recently about such items, I pass this on to whomever may be interested. Not being interested in such myself, I haven't bought it, so I can't say if, whether, or how much of the art is actually Ozzy in content. Probably your local software vendor would be the best one to ask, or you might try www.corel.com. MSRP is $44 U.S., but you could probably get it for less. ====================================================================== From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:14:58 -0700 Peter Hanff: I got a message bounce when I replied to your e-mail message. In short, you need to use PKUNZIP.EXE to unzip the archived files of the Ozzy Digest on my web site. Once you do this, they will be plain ASCII text, and Word should be able to open them. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:46:55 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Disney's Return to Oz Hi all! I was just wondering, how did Dorothy get to the EC so quickly from Munchkinland.(In Disney's RTOZ) She started at the YBR(Yellow Brick Road)and yet, arrived at the EC in minutes. How did she do that? She couldn't have run continuosly for miles and miles? What about all the dangerous things on the way? Didn't she face any of them? (Wild Animals, Vines e.t.c) Its as if, the distnace between MC(The Munchkin Country) and the EC is only a mile or two. I still don't get it......... BTW: How come Glinda and the GWN weren't able to stop Mombi and the NK(Nome King)? There is no sign that they even exist. They weren't there at the end, during the celebration at the EC. Thats one big mistake DIS made. Dorothy didn't even mention about either of them back in Kansas. Where were they, when Oz most needed them? I also think that the film needed a little more colour, and more cheerful music. BTW, who was the girl that rescued Dorothy in Kansas? They never mentioned anything about her in the end. She couldn't have been Ozma because Mombi trapped her in her Mirror. There are lots of un-solved mystries in RTOZ. And they are so hard to solve.............. Cya Later! --Gehan "I'm natures arm! Her spirit! Her will! Hell, I am Mother Nature! And the time has come for plants to take back, the world so rightfully ours! Cause its not nice, to fool with Mother Nature!" --Poison Ivy (Batman and Robin. Warner Bros.) ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:03:43 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: ROYAL BOOK OF OZ art and science Tyler Jones wrote: <> I always read the pink cloud which the Ork and the giant birds fly through as the mechanism for what Glinda called an invisibility spell. Anyone over Oz in a flying machine (an explicit concern of hers in EMERALD CITY) would see only an uninviting fog bank in the middle of a desert. If the land had been truly invisible, after all, that person would see an oblong-shaped black void in the Earth--far more tempting for further investigation. [For those of us who accept Glinda's hints that Oz is on the Earth.] As either an undescribed invisibility or a cloud, that barrier is indeed different from Snow's depiction. About ROYAL BOOK, David Hulan wrote: <> I think the horse is just half a horse: Hank the Mule. Neill's group pictures like this tend to include characters from the recent books, even if they're unlikely to actually gather together, so I bet your identifications of Reera, Ervic, Bru, Rango, etc. are correct. I also agree with your guess about Button-Bright, regressive as that image is. And over Reera's shoulder seems to be Blinkie or the Wicked Witch of the East! Though Sir Hokus appears in these endpapers, I note that for the cover Reilly & Lee and Neill carefully went with beloved characters from WIZARD only. Neill uses owls in ROYAL BOOK itself, on pp. 26-7. There sleeping owls demonstrate how late the Scarecrow is up. He's striding out of the frame opposite to the way we turn the book's pages--symbolically walking into the past. I also like the jeweled fence post. A very nice picture all around. Neill and Reilly & Lee seem to have liked the two-page chapter openers they used in GLINDA because they use an almost identical design in this book. That again implies that the publisher had a little extra time to do the necessary early layout. The major change in Neill's art for ROYAL BOOK is that it has no drawings taking up a full single page, as GLINDA had. I assume the publisher was less concerned about padding out a short manuscript to a length parents would value. The illustration of the Scarecrow on page 48 is printed upside-down, a detail Books of Wonder oddly preserved. Our straw-stuffed friend seems to attract that sort of mistake; I'll let you folks name another example from Thompson's books. David Hulan wrote: <> Yes, this is one of the many indications that Thompson did her homework before writing ROYAL BOOK. She uses landmarks from the TIK-TOK map: the Wogglebug's college, the Scarecrow's pole, the Scarecrow's castle. She also mentions the army of Oz as plural [57], the lack of horses [66], the Scarecrow's battle against the crows [119], and his idea for defeating Guph's plan in EMERALD CITY [162]. You rightly point out: <> I suspect that Thompson is thinking too hard of the same river the travelers had to cross in WIZARD, where the Scarecrow needed help from a stork. The image of Dorothy and the Lion asleep outside a city [69] also recalls this section of WIZARD. Another small change in ROYAL BOOK: Dorothy has learned to swim [186] since PATCHWORK GIRL. David Hulan wrote: <> I don't know about this, but I'm hoping someone can explain what Thompson means by a "hokey-pokey" at that moment. All that term means to me is a dance step you perform just before you "turn yourself about"--appropriate for what the Pokes want, but nothing to do with ice cream. I assume it's a slang term that was applied to lots of things at its peak of popularity and survived in meanings very different from its original (like the "Big Apple" or "polka dots"). Another irony about terminology: Thompson states that Oz looks like a "parchesi board" [58]. I never played Parcheesi growing up, so this metaphor (which I thing she uses again in later books) didn't help me envision Oz at all. But since I knew very well how Oz was laid out, it has helped me visualize a Parcheesi board. David Hulan wrote: <> Might it have taken ~30 years for the bean pole to grow through the earth to Munchkinland? Incidentally, am I wrong to suspect Thompson conflated bean poles with bean stalks? I doubt Baum, raised on a rural estate, would have done that. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:36:59 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: ROYAL BOOK OF OZ opener ROYAL BOOK gets off to a very strong start. The Wogglebug jumps up and says, "The very thing! . . . The very next idea!" Right away we want to know what his idea is. Furthermore, almost immediately, Thompson shows the Wogglebug being rude to a "little Munchin[sic] boy" who is "working his way through" school. Young American readers naturally identify with that boy. By snapping, "You're a nobody or a nothing," the Professor reveals that he'll be an antagonist in this story. We're primed to root against him, and thus for the Scarecrow and his friends [13-14]. In the midst of all excitement, however, it's easy to miss that the Professor's idea seems out of character--out of Baum's character, at least. The Wogglebug is a fellow who made up his own academic credentials ("T.E."), who dressed like a stereotypical parvenu, who epitomized the self-made bug. Yet he wants to glorify people's biological ancestry instead of their personal qualities and accomplishments. (Baum's own conception of the Professor shifted over the years, of course: from the title character of his own book and a musical to someone who "was very conceited and admired himself so much and displayed his cleverness and learning so constantly, that no one cared to associate with him" [GLINDA, 161].) Thompson makes fun of the Wogglebug's pretensions as a genealogist, but she never fully undercuts his "Royal Book of Oz" the way I suspect Baum would have. Near the end of this story the Wogglebug comes to realize he's undervalued the Scarecrow and Dorothy [298]. Does he then abandon his study as wrong-headed? Does he refocus it on what people have done rather than what families they were born into? No, he inks in a few changes--still focusing on the Scarecrow's imperial forebears rather than his crucial contributions to Oz. I suspect Thompson herself valued royalty and coming from the right sort of people too much to toss the "Royal Book" aside. We may see a little of the same attitude in how the Scarecrow bids the Silver Island farewell. In SCARECROW he told the people of Jinxland they had to choose their own ruler. The Silvermen get no such freedom. He uses his imperial authority and his magic fan to cow them into bowing to Happy Toko [272]. Does this show the contrast between Baum and Thompson in how they viewed the natural legitimacy of royalty? Or is Thompson implying that the Silvermen haven't reached the level of political maturity that would allow them to choose their own ruler? I think it's both. Thompson assures us that Oz is "quite democratic and no one is considered better than another," but slavery and rigid etiquette continue in the Silver Island [110--however, Thompson's GNOME KING will reveal that slavery continues in parts of Oz, too]. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 11:53:46 +1100 From: Gehan Cooray Subject: Lost in Oz Hi! What are your thoughts on Tim Burton's new -Lost in Oz-? I think it will be nice, but then again, I'm having doubts because Tim Burton is the director. However, who would suit the cast best? Here's my go..... Betsy: Mara Wilson Tinman: Nick Stabile Scarecrow: Timothy Adamms Jinjur: Uma Thurman Coo-ee-oh: Sarah Buxton Adepts: Kam Heskin,Alicia Silverstone, Vanessa Dorman Mrs. Yoop: The actress who played the beautiful but evil witch Claudia in "A Simple Wish" --Gehan "I'm natures arm! Her spirit! Her will! Hell, I am Mother Nature! And the time has come for plants to take back, the world so rightfully ours! Cause its not nice, to fool with Mother Nature!" --Poison Ivy (Batman and Robin. Warner Bros.) ====================================================================== -- Dave DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://www.mindspring.net/~daveh47/ Take the time to taste the honey on a summer breeze, Touch the love song every bird has learned to sing. Feel the sunlight as it warms you on the coolest day, And you'll feel a part of what we're gathering -- The senses of our world." -- The Bugaloos, "The Senses of Our World"