============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 1, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 10:30:57 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-96 ALERT: Fred Meyer will be in surgery again tomorrow (Monday). All cards sent to his Escanaba address will be forwarded to him and greatly appreciated, I'm sure, although he won't be able to respond to them. Poor guy: they're removing a rib and using it to rebuild a part of his spine. Also, they'll be adding some kind of metal rod to his backbone; he fears he'll set off alarms in airports! His spirits are good, but the surgery is serious (they'll have to collapse a lung, excise some damaged tissue, rebuild, etc.) so if you're inclined to pray, this would probably be a good time to do so. He's quite weak...can't even get from the bed to the wheelchair without help. He's been through a lot this year. OZIANA: The SPEEDY sequel is about 30 pp. typewritten. No, it's not a full-length novel, but it's a very clever, satisfying sequel anyhoo. OZIANA doesn't have the budget to print a full-lenth novel, and I don't have the keyboarding skills to type one all out, either! ERIC: If you wait 'til WinkieCon to buy OZIANA, you're not shopping early. OZIANA is out in June. You'll have to order it through the club; I justs edits it. I do plan to have some at Winkies, though. "TRIANNUAL"? -- Hmmm. I think I'd just say "three times/year" or somethin' like that. READING TO CHILDREN: Of course! It's gotta be the *best* way to introduce a child to the joys of the written word. Maybe that's why so many of us (MOPPet Warning!) associate Oz and other childhood lands with comfort, warmth, and love. ...snuggling into a lap and sharing a book...cuddling together in bed and having a beloved voice read aloud just for you...being able to identify the next word Mom's finger points to on your OWN!...all of that good stuff. --Robin ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 10:32:32 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-96 IWOC Election Results: The new board members of the International Wizard of Oz Club are Lee Jenkins, Jay Scarfone, and Warren Hollister. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 12:23:01 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy DIgest Aaron: It just goes to show that two people who love Oz can have very different tastes in Oz books. HANDY MANDY? :-) Barbara D: As others have said, Buckethead is a VERY small outfit and the actual dsitribution comes from friends. Chris runs off a set of books, and then someone volunteers to store them and mail them to people who buy them. Chris: Hey, Mark! send Barbara a copy of BILL CLINTON IN OZ Mark: Okay! Sometimes, people are a little slow, you every month or two, you may want to drop Chris a note reminding him. GOOD NEWS: Chris' father-in-law is giving him a new computer and I am in the process of persuading him to get on the Internet! That way, you guys can bug him directly about your Oz books! :-) Gili: Is your Tove Jansson the same one who wrote the Moomintroll series? I would LOVE to send Moomintroll and Snufkin to Oz! :-) Also, Moominpappa and the Woggle-Bug could have some very interesting conversations. As for Enid Blyton, I read some of her stuff when I lived in England. Although she clearly wrote for girls, I still have a copy of "Summer Term at St. Clares" and I love it! :-) Bear: Eric already mentioned that some BEOO books have given Pastoria's wife (the mortal "mother" of Ozma) the name of Ozette. Other BEOO naming conventions: Ozroars wife: Ozara (This one is Pastorias father) Ozroars wife: Ozia (The "first" Ozroar, according to HACC theory) Katy Lau: YOu had a lot a great ideas! I liked your "do-it-yourself" attitude when it comes to making decorations. There are plenty of ways that people can have an Ozzy theme by just using stuff around the house! :-) My favorite idea of yours is the yellow chalk for the Yellow Brick Road. As for Las Vegas, I know there is a gift shop full of Ozzy items, but maybe someone on the digest who has actually been there can tell you more. Barbara B: Eric G. has already mentioned something about your question. Let me expand upon it. When the Oz series was first written, it was under the auspices of one publisher and only one author at any given time. The books were widely distributed and it was a very controlled operation. Nowadays, this is no longer the case. Oz books are coming out from all over, with little or no knowledge of each other. THese books are usually in very small printings and are generally NOT available to most people. It is a hodgepodge of stuff and the only thing they have in common is the Famous Forty, or the "FF". It is this reason that most people consider the FF to be the "official" or "core" part of the Oz saga, with other books being attached on to the end. For the record, I believe that most people consider the other books to be "almost" official, and that events in them really "happened". The only difference (for most people) is that if there is a contradiction or a non-FF books leaves something out, most people will defer to the FF to find out the "truth". This is why I plan to write and post textual summaries of non-FF books on my web page, so that people will be able to get a gist of these books, since it is virtually impossible to find them anymore. Barbara B again: WHen I first started to compile the digests, I used Microsoft Word and took out a lot of the carriage returns. This was a lot of work and also a bad idea, so I stopped. Later digests should not have this problem. As for references to earlier conversations, Nate Barlow put out something called the Ozian Times, which was the predecessor of the current Ozzy digest. I have those to, if you would like them! (Oh, no! more stuff!) :-) WHO IS LAUMER?: This question has been answered fairly well by Dave in his FAQ, so let me just add a couple things. IMHO, Laumers books are accurate to the FF and are NOT pornographic, which is what Chris Dulabone will tell you if you ask him. Laumers specialty (according to himself) is resolving contradictions in the FF. His books are (as Dave said) written with a more adult view in mind, but IMHO they are among the best Oz books ever written. Nalrodi: If his books are accurate, why aren't they in the HACC? Well, the HACC, like many things in life, is the result of compromise. Chris Dulabone (the other half of the HACC), does not like Laumers books AT ALL. I gave in on this point, and Chris gave in on some other points, and thus the HACC was created. Now that most differences are ironed out, I may just put them in there anyway and Chris can like it! :-) John White: I now concede that it IS possible that Woot already knew of the history of the Tin Woodman and just used that as an excuse to meet him and get a free meal. Of course, it is just as likely that Woot did not know, being from a small, no-account village. From the dialogue, Woot did not appear to be very impressed with his hometown. Barry: (regarding Daves MOPPeT): I believe that Dave simply used the word "wormhole" to describe the gateways that appear between our world and Oz ocasionally. They may or may not be wormholes in the Startek sense, so there would not necessarily have to be any distortion. It could simply be a "hole" or "tunnel" between worlds. Daves MOPPeT has been expanded by my MOPPeT to include gateways to many of the strange kingdoms in Oz. While "The Time Machine in Oz" has yet to be written, check out "Time Travelling in Oz" and "A WOnderful Journey in Oz", both available from Buckethead and both by Ryan Gannaway. They have some time travel in them. Eric and everybody else: Perhaps I should mark my musings with the term HACC theory to demonstrate that some things I say are not "fact" HACC Theory: (2, actually) There was aging and death in Oz until Ozma took the throne, and possibly a couple of years later, although aging was slowing down and it was becoming harder to actually die, and possibly certain areas of Oz were being affected at different rates that others (Aaron's magical hotspots). Also, there was magic in Oz even before Lurline arrived. Eric: Thanks for correcting me. It was indeed Mombi who made the Powder of Perpetual Youth (which did not work anyway). LAUMER INFORMATION: As Eric has mentioned on ocassion, he has "borrowed" quite a few names from Alexander Volkov. On the HACC: As Eric says, this is NOT official. If there was only one publisher, and they put their stamp of approval on it, then it would. Right now, the HACC is simply my best guess as to the flow of "real" Ozian history, using information from the books, my interpretations, and the advice and interpretations of other. IMHO, if it ain't perfect, it's pretty close! :-) Danny: I also like a little bit of tension/excitement, lest the story get too boring. Bill Wright: Actually, it was Mombi scamming Pipt. It has been observed that possibly Mombi was very cunning, if not powerful. The FAQ wars of Oz: Maybe we can avoid this by having Eric post your FAQ on his page as well :-) Dave and Danny: The subject of magic-workers in Oz and such questions as "What are the differnces (if any) between Witches, Wizards, Sorcerers, Fairies, etc." and "Who's more powerful" have been the cause of much conversation and theories. Here's MOPPeT: There is only one source of magical power for everybody to use (possibly Aaron's magic machine), but people access it in different ways. I got a lot of this from the conversation between Dorothy and Ozma in GLINDA OF OZ. Ozma implied that there are many ways to work magic, that some people could do things that Ozma couldn't imagine, and that nobody can do everything. Some people may use magic for combat, agriculture, transformation, information, engineering, etc. For the most part, people tend to classify themselves based on the way they use magic. For example, most (but not all) people who call themselves Wizards use machines and tools to mix magic and engineering (such as Waddy from SPEEDY IN OZ) and of course our own Wizard of Oz. Sorcerers usually go after informational magic, such as Glinda and her Great Book. There does seem to be some overlap. For example, Waddy and Coo-Ee-Oh are, respectively, a Wizard and a Krumbic Witch, yet their magic is very similar in nature. MOPPeT is that there are many ways to use magic, and people simply do what comes naturally. In the Oz series, we have people called Magicians, Witches, Wizards, Sorcerers, Seers, Soothsayers, Conjurers, Yookoohoos, Krumbics, Jinns, Wozards and so on. I do not believe for a minute that there are this many different classifications of magic. IMHO, there are at most a half-dozen and people just call themselves different titles based on their cultural background. I also do not believe that these titles all represent "ranks" in one generic field. Tyler: Let's see. I want to study magic, so at first, I'll start out as just a Conjurer, then I'll move up to Magician, get promoted to Witch, and then someday, I'll be a full-fledged Sorcerer. Despite Baums comments in LAND OF OZ and RPT's in COWARDLY LION, I believe that your title is something that you pick based on how you apply your magic and your background. We can have powerful witches and weak sorcerers. I do not believe that one "type" is inherently more powerful than any other. And yet, I like Dave's Richter scale of magic. MOPPeT is that there is ultimately only one source of magic, so it should be theoretically possible to measure each persons overall power. This still has some anomalies, however. GLinda, for examples, may have a rating of 9.5, yet a magician with a 3 rating may be able to do some stuff with plants that would amaze Glinda. --Tyler "longest post of all time" Jones ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 21:45:17 +0200 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-96 Aloha, Katy Lau! Your party ideas were terrific. Glad to have you aboard! Amy Jones - Your story about the book report reminded me of a report that I had to give in the fourth grade. I went to the fourth grade in California (I attended school in three different American states, in England, and in Israel) and one of our big projects for the year was to write a report about one of the states in the U.S.A., with some kind of presentation. Guess which state I chose? To this day, I remember that the the state flower of Kansas is the sunflower, the state insect the bee, the state bird the Western Meadowlark, the state song "Home on the Range", the capital of Kansas is Topeka and Topeka means "Good place to dig potatoes", and Buffalo Bill Cody lived in Kansas. Sigh. Fourth grade... |\ _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Gili Bar-Hillel, |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' avigailb@zoot.tau.ac.il '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat (c) by Felix Lee ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 15:10:53 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Just a reminder, when corresponding with Chris Dulabone about Buckethead Books, that Chris is running a non-profit organization, so please include a SASE when communicating. Hopefully, he will get on the Internet soon, and this problem will no longer exist. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 15:20:18 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc [on the subject of the 3 wise men of Mo] In my opinion these three "wise men" richly deserved their fate. Again and again they falsely accused completely innocent beings of a heinous crime rather than admit that they didn't know who did it. Tyler Jones writes: > I should have said that Ervic was the only competent BOY character ... Ervic was a young man, not a boy. Dave Hardenbrook writes: [a list of magic users sorted by power] I think there are some problems with your list. For instance, Ozma was probably more powerful than Coo-ee-oo, since she was able to counter Coo-ee-oo's eavesdropping spell. Ozma was certainly more powerful than Mrs. Yoop, as she defeated the latter in a magical contest and broke spells that Mrs. Yoop had thought were unbreakable. Reera was even less powerful, as her enchantments were particularly easy to break. Any mortal -- such as the Wizard -- would be intrinsically less powerful than a fairy -- such as Ozma or Polychrome. The Wizard may still be more powerful than Ozma because he spends a lot more time studying magic. In fact, Ozma didn't seem to know much magic until TIN WOODMAN. (MOPPeT is that the events in LOST PRINCESS motivated her to do some serious studying.) > What follows is my revised version of the FAQ. [Setting nitpick level to high] :-) > The Deadly Desert ... lethal heat and fumes. While the desert is hot, I can't recall it ever being described as "lethal heat". It seems to be more a matter of dryness. That is, the desert acts sort of like a magical desiccant. It draws the moisture out of things that touch it causing them to turn to dust. > ... and communication with Oz is only possible by radio, wireless > telegraph, and special magical wireless telephones. And by flying creatures such as birds acting as messengers, and by the adventurers who always seem to find some way to cross the desert, etc. > Ozma is a benevolent and beloved ruler, the only world leader with an > unwavering 100% approval rating; We would like to thank Princess Dorothy for providing us with the above statistics, although it is possible that they might be biased by the fact that only people who approve of Ozma are counted as having a valid opinion on the matter. :-) I would like to point out, however, that King John Dough the First also has a unwavering 100% approval rating, as does Tititi-Hoochoo. :-) > Ozma is also famous for her long brown hair, her strapless gowns, ... "strapless gowns"? Where does this come from? (The pictures in OZMA explicitly show straps.) Also, her hair has been described/drawn as ruddy gold and as black. Are you taking an average? :-) [resetting nitpick level to normal] -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 14:13:33 -0800 From: ozbot@ix.netcom.com (Daniel C. Wall) Subject: Ozzy Digest 1) Does anybody know if Shanower's graphic novels as reprinted by IWOC in full color? They don't mention this in their catalogue. Dark Horse Comics offer the same titles in full color and on good quality paper, but it would be much cheaper to go to IWOC. (Almost half as much) 2) Who can I expect to meet at the Winkie Conference? At this point, I may be only coming for one day, but if plans change, is someone looking for a roommate? Thanx to Dave for the Magic Scale. Admittedly, I don't have the Oz-posure to any of the non-FF books, and have hardly seen many RPT's. My assumption of magic and magic-users in Oz has actually been more influenced by Piers Anthony's Xanth: Citizens are either 1) ARE magic (Scarecrow, Jack P-head, Polychrome) or 2) USE magic (WWW, Ozma, Glinda) or 3) are normal (Dorothy, Ojo, Lion) There are blurry areas, like the Nome King, although his magic usage is generally through mechanical means, like the Magic Belt. Don't worry. I'm sure you'll all change me soon. --Danny ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 16:26:31 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-96 > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: The Wormhole to Oz > > Does anyone have bibliographic references for the play version of "The Wizard > of Oz" by Baum and "The Tik-Tok Man of Oz"? I feel like giving the ILL people > a hard time... I don't think they were ever published, so I doubt you'd have ANY luck. So please keep those ILL people from going crazy and don't even try... > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > The question of "Did the mixed up reference to Glindas palace in TIK-TOK > cause the mixup in the MGM movie?" is a good one. I do not know the answer. I doubt it very, very much. It was just Hollywood taking a few liberties to keep the movie from dragging too long. Other than the book "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," I think the only other source consulted was the 1902 play "The Wizard of Oz," which is probably where Dorothy's last name (she isn't given one in the book) and the snowstorm to overcome the poppies come from. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: My FAQ and other Ozzy things > > FAQ WARS??? :O : > (Barbara, to me) > >>Thanks so much for the FAQ. Sure cleared up a lot of confusion about the > >>layout of the land. > > (Eric, in reply) > >Heh, wait'll you get a look at MY FAQ. > > :( :( :( (...Or frowns of affront as the case may be.) No FAQ wars, please! (Hey, I've offered to put yours on my Web page, after all, and I have a link to Nate's as well.) It's just that I've tried to take a different approach to my FAQ, I believe, than either you or Nate, and tried to cover ALL the BASICS of Oz for mine, and assumed that many people reading it have NOT read any of the books or been privy to many of our conversations here. But I also think that, as hard as I try, I can't cover it all, which is why I feel yours and Nate's are also important, they cover areas I didn't, and that others may have heard about or have an interest in. --Eric "Can't we all just get along?" Gjovaag # Come visit my "Wizard of Oz" web site! http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/ # ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 01:00:36 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> Subject: Today's Growls >> Well Eric, would you like to do any more "jibing and teasing" or are you >> finished? >I think I'm done now... "done?" - Good, I wouldn't want you to end up feeling half-baked. :) Dave - Your Magic Index is great. Where do you place Lurline? It was pledge night in Silicon Valley and PBS gave us "The Wizard of Oz in Concert." I have not heard it mentioned in the Digest. Is this an old production? It followed the movie quite closely although they put in the "Jitterbug" number. I gather "Jewel," who played Dorothy, is some country and western singer (you can see I am out of touch with C&W). I found myself cringing when she sang "Somewhere Over The Rainbow." Beyond that I thought she did a good job although she was about twice the size of OUR Dorothy. Natalie Cole made a great Glinda and the Lion stole the show. Jackson Brown did a leaden Scarecrow and Roger Daltry struggled with the Tin Man. For some reason they chose to insert two singers of questionable talent, Phoebe Snow and Ronnie Spector, as sort of guest singers rather than leave the songs to the cast. The band, which could not be considered an orchestra, was led by a man with his shirt-tail hanging out. Incredible. In any event, another cut at the WOZ. It was followed by the Angela Lansbury's, "Making of the Wizard of Oz." Has everyone seen this? It did show other books that Baum had written, but did not mention any other authors. I recorded it and will enjoy watching it again. It contains a lot of good information and anecdotes. Regards, Bear (:<) ============================================================================= Date: Sunday 31-Mar-96 23:16:26 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things MAGIC SCALES AND _LOCASTA AND THE THREE ADEPTS OF OZ_: I concede that my Magic Scale is not perfect, and I agree with Tyler that in the Ozzy Universe at least (others may differ), there are no rigidly defined "ranks" of magic. There are many types of magic involing different specializations, and it's hard to say that A is more powerful IN ALL WAYS than B...Glinda, as Tyler said, is very good at "informational" magic, but we gather she is poor at transformations. I just wanted to give Danny MOPPeT of where everyone stands as far as *overall* magnitude of their powers (though I take note of Jim's suggestions of modification of where I've placed some folks, especially the Yookoohoos), and to provide a starting point for discussion about Ozzy magical powers. Although this is currently how the scale appears in my manuscript for _Locasta_, I will probably modify it based on everyone's suggestions...As it is, I present my scale in the book, and then go on to prove Tyler's point -- I rank Locasta pretty low on the scale, but in the end, *ONLY LOCASTA* knows the special magic needed to conquer Ruggedo's seemingly implacable accomplice. Maybe I'll add a "commentary" by Glinda at the end to the effect that such "Magic Scales" are helpful for painting a general picture, but that they should not be taken absolutely literally... I'm glad though that in general you guys like the Magic Scale! As I say it will be improved. As for Bear's question of where I would place Lurline, I never thought about her! (Shame on me!) Anyone have any suggestions? Speaking of _Locasta_, based on my research and the comments from people on the Digest, I have concluded that Turner cannot sue me for the use of the name Locasta. :) What finally put my mind at total ease on the subject was hearing the story of how Warner Bros. (producers of _Casablanca_), tried to sue the Marx Brothers for making a movie called _Night in Casablanca_, with WB claiming that they had a copyright on the name _Casablanca_! The court threw the case out at first glance, and Groucho, in his whimsical way, basked in victory by writing a joke letter to Warner Brothers suing *them* for the use in their company name of "Brothers", a word which Groucho in jest claimed the Marx Brothers had exclusive rights to! :) TYLER: >Chris runs off a set of books, and then >someone volunteers to store them and mail them to people who buy them. So for all Chris knows, the books I and others ordered have already been sent? I'd better write him... :) >This is why I plan to write and post textual summaries of non-FF books... And the FF too, right? :) > ... it is virtually impossible to find them anymore. I wouldn't go as far as to say "virtually impossible"...All one needs to do is join the IWOC and the Royal Club of Oz and one has access via their respective book catalogs to pretty much the whole FF and then some. >I believe that Dave simply used the word "wormhole" to describe the >gateways that appear between our world and Oz ocasionally. That's correct. IMHO, the gateways to Fairyland are wormholes as described by black hole guru Kip Thorne, who says that Einstein's equations indicate that a wormhole will be permanently "constricted off" and what lies on the other side will remain totally cut off from the outside world unless either magic or "exotic matter" holds the hole open long enough to allow safe passage through. The Ozzy Universe itself is not "inside" the wormhole, but simple connected to our universe by the hole. >The FAQ wars of Oz: >Maybe we can avoid this by having Eric post your FAQ on his page as well :-) He has offered to do this, and I hope the offer is still open... :) JOHN'S "NITPICKS": >And by flying creatures such as birds acting as messengers, and by the >adventurers who always seem to find some way to cross the desert, etc. How about "Communication with Oz is only possible by magic or a lot of perserverence?" :) >>Ozma is ... the only world leader with an unwavering 100% approval >>rating; >We would like to thank Princess Dorothy for providing us with the >above statistics ... They were provided by Dan, actually. :) >I would like to point out, however, that King John Dough the First also >has a unwavering 100% approval rating, as does Tititi-Hoochoo. :-) And also Ruggedo, when he was King -- Anyone who didn't approve of HIM was sentenced to death by egging... :) >> Ozma is also famous for her long brown hair, her strapless gowns, ... >"strapless gowns"? Where does this come from? (The pictures in OZMA >explicitly show straps.) But in various places she *is* strapless, including _Dorothy and Wizard_ (color plate where Ozma and Dorothy are talking), _Emerald City_ (on the covers of both my Dover and Random House Editions), _Magic_ (at her B-day party, where she's at the head of the table), _Visitors_ (Dick Martin's color illustraion at the beginning), _Enchanted Apples_ (on the cover), etc., etc. Of course there are also numerous examples of her in straps and more conservative dress, but I guess I'm biased. :) >Also, her hair has been described/drawn as ruddy gold and as black. >Are you taking an average? :-) Shanower draws it brown so maybe HE'S taking an average... :) DANNY: >1) Does anybody know if Shanower's graphic novels as reprinted by IWOC >in full color? Yes they are. They are fantastic! >2) Who can I expect to meet at the Winkie Conference? I'd love to go, but I probably won't be able to afford it this year. Do you live in Southern California ( Or Arizona? :) ) If so, maybe you could come out and meet me at the South Winkie Conference? :) OLIVE BRANCH TO ERIC: >No FAQ wars, please! (Hey, I've offered to put yours on my Web page, >after all, and I have a link to Nate's as well.) It's just that I've >tried to take a different approach to my FAQ ... Well, thanks for clearing that up. I don't want a FAQ or any war here! We're all friends united in the common cause of telling the world that there's more to Oz than Judy Garland!!! :) :) :) But it did come across to me as though you were trying to belittle my efforts, and I felt a little hurt...I guess I'm overly sensitive. I'm sorry I misunderstood. Yes, let's all get along! (And feel free to post my latest version of my FAQ on your site! Thanks lots!) OUR LETTER TO CHRISTY IS IN THE MAIL FOLKS! PHASE ONE OF THE CAMPAIN FOR AN OZZY CHARON HAS BEGUN!!! :) :) :) -- Dave ============================================================================= ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 2, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:28:50 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Gili asked: >Does anyone have bibliographic references for the play version of "The Wizard >of Oz" by Baum and "The Tik-Tok Man of Oz"? I feel like giving the ILL people >a hard time... Gili, you can find that information in my Oz Encyclopedia website. There is approaching 1000 pages of Ozzy info there all cross hyperlinked, and indexed. If you haven't found the site yet, the URL is: http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/ I am soliciting input on what additional information folks would like to see added to the Encyclopedia, so let me know. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:51:02 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Tyler said: >Actually, it was Mombi scamming Pipt. It has been observed that possibly >Mombi was very cunning, if not powerful. Well, if she was so cunning hows come a mere "magician" was able to pawn off on her some worthless powder for the real thing she gave him??? BTW, my conclusion on Mombi not being all that powerful is based on the character as Baum wrote about her, not others who came later. In Baum's stories she doesn't hold sway over anything but a four-horned cow. She has no territory or people under her control. Bill ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 00:01:20 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Bear asked: >It was pledge night in Silicon Valley and PBS gave us "The Wizard of Oz in >Concert." I have not heard it mentioned in the Digest. Is this an old >production? This was a TV production a few months ago, either just before or after Thanksgiving. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 14:08:35 +0200 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-01-96 Eirc - I think triannual means, or can mean, "once every three years". Hmm... (I just noticed that I've permutated your name in a completely new way. Maybe we should just call you Ervic.) Tyler - yes, I was referring to Tove Jansson of Moomintroll fame. How about: "Moominpapa's Voyages in Oz"? And don't you think Snuffkin would like the Shaggy Man? About Enid Blyton: she didn't write only "girl's" books. She wrote the "Secret Seven" series, and the "Famous Five" series, and the "Noddy Books", and the "Faraway Tree" books, and the "Mr. Pinkwhistle Books", and so on and so on forever. She's written so many books, that she must write them at the rate of one per week. The problem is, once you've read one of each of her genres, you've read them all. The older I got, the less I liked her books, and by now I find myself actively disliking them. Hmmm. Anyone out there interested in trading me for a videotape of "Wizard of Oz in Concert", and "The Making of the Wizard of Oz"? |\ _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Gili Bar-Hillel, |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' avigailb@zoot.tau.ac.il '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat (c) by Felix Lee ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 08:25:58 -0500 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: Buckethead deliveries Dave, I ordered a bunch of stuff from Buckethead on February 19, 1996, and the books have been coming in from all over the country. Last week two came in from someplace in New England. I'm now waiting for one last book, so hang in there. It's a lot like waiting for the next "Bugle"! (:-D))) Also, thanks for your help in sending the recent Digests. Dick Randolph (DIXNAM@aol.com) ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 07:06:10 -0800 From: glassman@ix.netcom.com (glassman ) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-01-96 Rich Morrissy: >David also made a few comments about THE GLASS CAT OF OZ. The >publishers must be even more conservative than I thought if they >objected to the Bad Lads smoking! I'd understand (and probably >agree with) them if you'd had Dorothy or even Ojo smoking, but >surely it's evident that these were the villains of the piece? As the editor and publisher of THE GLASS CAT OF OZ, I am genuinely amused to be accused of being conservative. Certainly this is not something I've ever been accused of before! Too liberal, yes; conservative, no! However, having worked with children directly and in the field of children's books for over 20 years, I would like to think I know a few things about them. One thing I definitely know is that the behavior of those labeled "bad" is often seen as glamorous and worthy of emulation. And smoking cigarettes is perhaps one of the best examples of this. In most schools, it's the "bad" boy and/or girls who first start smoking, then other kids see how "cool" they look doing this and soon some of them are smoking too. If your definition of being conservative is someone who doesn't want to encourage smoking in any way whatso- ever, than I guess I'm conservative. Katy: >"I'm going to Las Vegas next month. Any good Ozzy things that I >shouldn't miss at the MGM? I'm also going to see the Oz ice show >in Las Vegas." This sounds like an exciting trip and a great subject for an article by YOU in the Emerald City Mirror. Why don't you write an article about your trip (maybe even illustrate it with some of your own drawings?) and send it to the Emerald City Mirror? I'm sure that Billina and the gang would love to publish it! Send the article to: The Royal Club of Oz Attn: The Emerald City Mirror P.O. Box 714 New York, NY 10011 This is also an open invitation to any of you out there who are also members of the Royal Club of Oz and would like to contribute articles. - Peter Glassman Books of Wonder ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 10:11:21 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Ozzy gematria > On numbers: > It's interesting that Carroll's favorite number (42) and Baum's (47) are > so close. Maybe Baum got his from Carroll. Of course, 42*47=1974, the year Douglas Adams graduated from Cambridge, showing Baum and Carroll as his precursor. Also, let us note that in Hebrew gematria, 42=mem-bet, 47=mem-zayin (or mem-vav-aleph) Rearranging these two gets us mem-vav-mem-bet-aleph or Mombi! Do you suppose this is mere coincidence, or did she have her hand in it? --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 11:51:43 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest On Fred Meyer: I am sure that all of us wish the very best for Fred Meyer and hope for a successful surgery as well as a speedy recovery. Fred has been a major force in the club for as long as I have been a member and even longer and we will all be a little less without him. Gili: Assuming that we are speaking of the same Tove Jansson (of MOOMINTROLL fame), then upon further reflection, it would be the muskrat who would have the most interesting conversations with the Wogglebug. I can also see some common elements between Snufkin and the Shaggy Man and little My and the Patchwork girl! :-) John and Dave: Daves magical chart was, as he said, a good starting point. It is rather "rough", but we can all help to smooth the edges. I think we can agree, for one thing, that certain titles do not have pre-set richter ratings. Ie, "sorcerers" are not always necessarily very highly rated, and witches and magicians are not necessarily low-rated. The work goes on. As for Lurline, I would put her rather high, but not a perfect 10. However, I believe that fairies have some magical ability inborn, so that they might "start" at a level 2 or 3. Others (such as the Wizard or Dr. Pipt) would have no inherent magical ability and would have to study and practice from day 1. Even for fairies, though, I believe that they would need to study and practice to rise above their starting level. Ozmas fashions: I believe that Ozma would probably be partial to a number of styles and types of clothing, as are the other Oz characters. John R. Neill kept Dorothy up with the times, dressing her in styles from the 20's and 30's as time went by. For all we know, Ozma now wears shorts and Pearl Jam T-Shirts! :-) Ozmas hair: In most books, it is drawn as black and that is how I have always thought of her. She could dye it every once in a while as many people do. Maybe she's EC's answer to Dennis Rodman. Hairstyles and clothes? This is beginning to sound like that Melrose Place newsgroup!. (Don't get me STARTED on Jane's new do...! :-)) Danny: As far as I know, all of Shanowers graphic novels have been published in full color. Since the late Marcus Mebes was a close friend of Shanower, I was privileged to view some of the preliminary drawings in black and white, but he whipped out his crayons and stayed inside the lines before they were published. BTW, Xanth now knows that people can both BE magic and USE magic. I would put Polychrome and all fairies in this category. ***** SPOILER FOR TIK-TOK OF OZ, CRUCIAL PLOT INFO ***** While most of the Nome King's magic is thru the belt, he apparantly knew some other magical things, such as the spell to destroy eggs, which did not work in TIK-TOK because Quox had un-magicked him. On the magic scale: The only problem is, of course, the Thompson part of the series. With wishing magic and the Magic Belt's seemingly limitless powers, all barriers were broken and people could do anything. Dave: Your remarks about "Casablanca" remind me of a cartoon in MAD Magazine that had Charlie Brown suing the Planters company for using the name "Peanuts". HACC theory (partially developed by Dave, myself and others) does indeed have Oz in a separate Universe, although their Universe seems to be much smaller that ours. The "wormholes", or whatever you want to call them, are simply the gateways between them. If you like, our Universes are rooms while the wormholes are the doors. Oz itself is not in a doorway, but you use the doorway to get there. GO OZZY CHARON! :-) --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 08:07:58 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Hanff With respect to the Famous Forty, perhaps the most important point is that L. Frank Baum's own family was directly involved in approving the selection of Ruth Plumly Thompson as Baum's successor, and all subsequent Oz books, save Merry Go Round in Oz, were controlled by the Baum Trust in cooperation with Reilly & Lee. Royalties were shared between the Baum Trust and the successor authors. Peter ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 09:44:37 -0800 From: Bob Shepherd Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-01-96 Gili: Your 4th grade recollection of picking Kansas as the state to write your report on put a smile on my face. My daughter, Valerie, did the same thing this year in 3rd grade. Her teacher said, "I should have guessed you'd pick Kansas!" An another note....I was in an antique store this weekend and spotted "The Cowardly Lion of Oz". It had a note on it that said "12 color plates", and was for sale for $495! Can I assume this is a first edition? Is anybody surprised by that price? I sure was. No, I'm not thinking about buying it - I'm just curious. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 16:22:31 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-01-96 OZ PLAYS: WIZARD's script changed many, many times. It interpolated topical references ad nauseam. Many of the interpolated songs don't make a lot of sense as a part of Oz. There are some versions of it available...like in the Library of Congress, I guess...but I don't know if a complete copy exists of the original. What we've found didn't seem to lend itself to resurrection. TIK-TOK fragments were found and Marc Lewis knit them into what we hope is a reasonable facsimile of the original. Several of us acted it out over the years at all 3 major conventions. I don't think you can ILL it. I no longer know where my copy is. If you *really* want to pursue it, write Marc Lewis in New York. His address is in the IWOC Directory. I don't know if he'll be willing to xerox for you. He certainly won't be anxious to do so. I wonder if we should consider a revival of it. (shudder--it was quite an experience.) ENID BLYTON: I meant to ask Gili why she ughed the author. Blyton's work is, to say the least, uneven, but some of it seems pretty good. Anyone who cranked out as much as did that gal is bound to have some clunkers. POLL?: I'm curious about which books are our faves. If you wish to do so, e-mail me ( robino@tenet.edu ) and tell me your top 3 Baum faves, your top 3 Thompsons, and your top three overall in the FF. Feel free to tell me why you chose those last 3. If I get enough of your responses, I'll get them into some kind of order and post them *in the DIGEST if Dave agrees to having such a list.* Let's set the deadline for responding for April 9. I'll try to collate/organize 'em by the end of next week. --Robin O. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 12:15:50 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-01-96 Before I start replying to this issue, I have an idea that's been cooking in my head, and I want to know what you all think. This talk of Oz RPG's has got me thinking again about an Oz collectible card game. CCG's are all the rage right now, fueled by "Magic: The Gathering" (there are many others out right now as well, such as games based on "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and one coming soon based on "Doctor Who"), and Oz seems to be a natural for such a game. You can have cards for characters, magic items, obstacles to overcome, and so forth. I'm not sure how it would all work yet, but I thought I'd bring the idea up, see what happens. Okay, and now on to the Digest! > From: Robin Olderman > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-31-96 > > ALERT: Fred Meyer will be in surgery again tomorrow (Monday). Poor guy. I do hope all goes well. Robin, you will keep us all posted, right? > ERIC: If you wait 'til WinkieCon to buy OZIANA, you're not shopping > early. OZIANA is out in June. You'll have to order it through the club; > I justs edits it. I do plan to have some at Winkies, though. Not being early I don't mind. It's just so much easier to get it at Winkies, is all. > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy DIgest > > On the HACC: > As Eric says, this is NOT official. If there was only one publisher, and > they put their stamp of approval on it, then it would. Right now, the HACC > is simply my best guess as to the flow of "real" Ozian history, using > information from the books, my interpretations, and the advice and > interpretations of other. IMHO, if it ain't perfect, it's pretty close! :-) While I disgree with the idea that there is a need for the HACC, I do think that Chris and Tyler are doing a good job with it, and at least it's a way of presenting ALL Oz books in one place. Perhaps in a future update of my FAQ I'll have a link from the "unofficial" Oz books question to the HACC (and maybe the HICC, if it gets up on the Web somehow). > From: ozbot@ix.netcom.com (Daniel C. Wall) > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > 1) Does anybody know if Shanower's graphic novels as reprinted by IWOC > in full color? They don't mention this in their catalogue. Dark Horse > Comics offer the same titles in full color and on good quality paper, > but it would be much cheaper to go to IWOC. (Almost half as much) All IWOC is doing is reselling Dark Horse's (or maybe even whatever was leftover from the original First) printings at a discount. I very much doubt that IWOC has actually printed them. > 2) Who can I expect to meet at the Winkie Conference? ME! > From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> > Subject: Today's Growls > > It was pledge night in Silicon Valley and PBS gave us "The Wizard of Oz in > Concert." I have not heard it mentioned in the Digest. Is this an old > production? No, it was just shown over Thanksgiving on TNT. Glad to hear that PBS is showing it, I think that would make a great money-raiser for them. Must talk to my own PBS station about setting up an Oz night ("Wizard of Oz in Concert," the Angela Lansbury-hosted thing, and maybe even Aljean Harmetz's "The Making of 'The Wizard of Oz,'" which I know some PBS stations showed back in the late 70's-early 80's). > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > I wouldn't go as far as to say "virtually impossible"...All one needs to > do is join the IWOC and the Royal Club of Oz and one has access via their > respective book catalogs to pretty much the whole FF and then some. But what about all of the BEOO books that are now out of print? Or books from other publishers? I think that's what was being referred to. > >The FAQ wars of Oz: > >Maybe we can avoid this by having Eric post your FAQ on his page as well :-) > > He has offered to do this, and I hope the offer is still open... :) Of course! > OLIVE BRANCH TO ERIC: > >No FAQ wars, please! (Hey, I've offered to put yours on my Web page, > >after all, and I have a link to Nate's as well.) It's just that I've > >tried to take a different approach to my FAQ ... > > Well, thanks for clearing that up. I don't want a FAQ or any war here! And I certainly didn't mean to offend! All I meant, in my original comment, was that my FAQ covers a lot more material. What do you have on the MGM movie in yours, eh, Dave? --Eric Gjovaag ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Come visit my "Wizard of Oz" web site! http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/ # *** WATCH THE NEW "DOCTOR WHO" TELEVISION MOVIE, COMING TO FOX *** *** TELEVISION MAY 14, STARRING PAUL McGANN AS THE EIGHTH DOCTOR *** ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 20:52:46 +0000 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-30-96 In re: reversing the woggle-bug. No, his perception would be reversed left/right, not up/down. As a bipedal creature, he would be aware of the tug of gravity, securely orienting him on the Z axis, and his perception is along the Y axis, so that leaves only the X axis to be confused. (This goes along with the old puzzle "Why does a mirror reverse left and right, and not up and down?" The answer is, in all seriousness, that if we were in the habit, when we were facing north, and wished to face south, of accomplishing the desired reversal by standing on our heads, why then we would be asking the question the other way around. Physics is (mostly) symmetrical. Biology (mostly) isn't. In re: Heinlein's possible error. I'm not sure just when it was that the question of defining the cardinal points off Earth was settled. It may have been quite recent. The fact that astronomical telescopes reverse (fixing it to not reverse requires adding an otherwise unnecessary lens, acceptable in terrestial telescopes, but too costly in lost light for astronomical use) may also have something to do with it. // John W Kennedy -- Hypatia Software -- "The OS/2 Hobbit" ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 23:11:22 +0000 From: rri0189@ibm.net Heigh-ho! The audience of tonight's "High Incident" was treated to a rather confused presentation of how "Frank L Baum" (sic) wrote "The Wizard of Oz" in "eighteen-ninety-something" about "the gold standard". Toward the end, the hearer was to be seen reading Aljean's book. // John W Kennedy -- Hypatia Software -- "The OS/2 Hobbit" ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 20:50:48 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: I have received the following inquiry. Does anyone on the digest have an answer?? >I am looking for recordings of the stage version of the Wizard of Oz. We >will be doing it as a high school musical next fall. Do you have any >leads for me? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Tuesday 02-Apr-96 00:56:07 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things NUMBER JUGGLING IN OZ: Mike T. wrote: > Of course, [42 times 47]=1974, the year Douglas Adams graduated from >Cambridge, showing Baum and Carroll as his precursor. Other 47's ( Some of these are personal associations for me, but still... :) ): -- According to the HACC timeline Ozma assumed the throne in 1903, when Baum was 47. -- The chemical number for silver, the substance comprising the famous magic shoes, is 47. -- Pluto's (and Charon's) year lasts 247 Earth years. -- I joined both IWOC and the Royal Club in 1994 (94 = 2 x 47). -- The P.O. Box of Louis Rhodes, who runs the South Winkie Convention ( my first Ozzy Convention! :) ) is 9447 (94 = 2 x 47 and 47!). -- 1974 is also the year I deduce that I had my last birthday before my dad read the Oz books to me for the first time. ( I'm not sure if he started reading them to me in late '74 or early-to-mid '75, so I worked it out with a birthday "work-around". :) ) FASHIONS: I agree with Tyler's statements about fashions in Oz...Shanower has continued the trend with Dorothy and co. now donning Tee-shirts, jeans, and shorts! I imagine the fashions in Oz to be very varied among different people, ranging from Grecian to Elizabethian to Edwardian to Modern, just depending on an individual Ozite's taste. Somehow, I just can't see Ozma in a Pearl Jam Tee-shirt though. :) ( A Tee-shirt that has "I love ABBA" on it on the other hand... :) :) ) ERIC: I'm glad we've cleared up our misunderstanding. :) :) :) Would you like me to send you a copy of my FAQ or can you extract it from the Digest? JOHN K.: > ... "Frank L Baum" (sic) ... My mom admired Frank Lloyd Wright when I was a "little shaver" :) , so back when I was first having the Oz books read to me, I got it in my little head that they were by a guy named Frank Lloyd Baum! :) OZ BOOK FAVS. (I've E-Mailed them privately to Robin as well.): Top Baum: 1. _Patchwork Girl_ 2. _Scarecrow_ 3. _Tik-Tok_ Top Thompson: 1. _Giant Horse_ 2. _Silver Princess_ 3. _Wishing Horse_ Top FF: (see Top Baum) -- Dave ============================================================================= ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 3, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:39:47 -0500 From: David A Gerstein Subject: Bucky Woggle-Bug? For the first time, here's some news that will interest both members of this Ozzy Digest and those of the Disney Comics digest, too. As it happens, the connection between Disney and Oz dates back far before 1957's proposed "Rainbow Road" film (which IMHO I'm glad was NOT produced, given what we saw on the Disney TV show). Last week at the Walt Disney Archives in Burbank, I was reading syndicate proofs to 1932 Bucky Bug comics ("Bucky Bug" being the second Disney comic strip, run under the Silly Symphonies banner for several years and later revived as a comic-book feature). At the beginning of the first story, the bug is nameless, and asks readers to send in names for him to choose from. "Woggle Bug" is one of them. This will be seen in reprint form soon, as this first Bucky story is slated for reprint in next month's Walt Disney's Comics and Stories #604. David Gerstein ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 12:29:34 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest THE POWDER WARS (and Bill Wright): Now I'm getting confused. If I remember correctly, Dr. Pipt gave MOmbi the Powder of life and Mombi gave Dr. Pipt the Powder of Pperpetual Youth. Now, the powder that Pipt gave Mombi was good, while the powder that Mombi gave Pipt was nothing. It can be argued that Pipt gave Mombi a bad batch, since she had to say the incantation to get it to work, but it has been theorized that since this was the first batch, it was a little crude and it was only later that Pipt refined it so that the incantation was no longer needed. As for Mombi's power, I had assumed that she was one of the more powerful Wicked Witches around, based on the later FF books and non-FF books that had her doing most of the work involved in kidnapping people, etc. Since then, I have changed my mind and now believe that Mombi was not very powerful, and was doing the grunt work at the behest of the other Wicked Witches. Peter Glassman: I observed the same effect in the show "ROC", IMHO one of the best shows on the air at the time, tried to show kids how bad drugs were by bringing a young actor to play a drug dealer. Unfortuantely, this person became the most popular actor on the show, so they killed him off. I beleive that this attitude (being attracted to bad things) is common in people of all ages, although kids may be more easily lured in due to their lack of real-world experience. Bob Shepherd: COWARDLY LION was first published in 1923 by Reilly & Lee. If it has color plates, then it is probably a first edition. The price seems a little high, though, but I'm not sure. Eric Gjovaag: Thanks for your admiration of the HACC, if not outright support. I believe that it is very important to have a list of ALL Oz books, just so that people know what's out there. Of course, it would be nice to have a list of publishers and where they are, but that's in the works! :-) On ordering Buckethead: As I have said before, it is quite an adventure awaiting books from BEOO. My advice was (and is) to keep a list of books that you have ordered so that you know what you paid for. What I do is to write the names of each book that I order on the check, copy the check and then pin the copy to my bulletin board. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 12:13:25 -0500 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 4-2-96 Dave, Like all Oz fans and friends, my thoughts, prayers and best wishes are with Fred Meyer today. Bob Shepherd, The "Cowardly Lion of Oz" which you saw is not necessarily a first edition. There were later editions with color plates. (Bibliographia Oziana gives the criteria which a first edition must meet.) No, I am not surprised by the $495. price tag, but it does seem a bit high for that RPT book. At a recent show Atlantic City, which the Warkalas mentioned last week, some LFB first editions were priced over $1,000. I was very interested in a 1st ed. Dot/Wiz, in very good condition, but the $750 price put it beyond my reach. (:-( Robin O, My favorites, for your poll, are on the way to you. Looking forward to the results! Dick Randplph ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 05:30:05 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> Subject: Today's Growls Tyler >Ozroars wife: Ozara (This one is Pastorias father) >Ozroars wife: Ozia (The "first" Ozroar, according to HACC theory) I'm sorry, I just can't decipher this? Could you run it by again? Gili - >Anyone out there interested in trading me for a videotape of "Wizard of Oz in Concert", and "The Making of the Wizard of Oz"? I would be happy to supply. However I am just about to leave for 10 days in Oregon and Washington. If no one has helped you by April 15th send me an e-mail with your mailing address. Goodbye Ozzy World....... Bear (:<) ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:35:25 +0200 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-96 Bill Piglet - actually, it wasn't me who asked for the reference for the Oz plays, but I'm sure whoever did appreciated your answer. I WISH I had ILL. But I don't. Mike Shaggy Man - actually, mem-vav-mem-bet-aleph would be "Momba" not "Mombi". Perhaps a sister witch? Nice try anyway. And 1974 (42*47) also happens to be the year I was born. Also, I'm sure Martin Garnder has Dr. Matrix say some interesting things about 47. I think Shakespeare was 47 when he supposedly translated the King James Bible, and there for there is some sort of reference to Shakespeare in psalm 47... don't take my word for this. I'll check it when I get home. |\ _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Gili Bar-Hillel, |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' avigailb@zoot.tau.ac.il '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat (c) by Felix Lee ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:21:48 -0500 (EST) From: David Parker Subject: Baum/Populism essay Many thanks to Barbara Belgrave, Rich Morrissey, Bill Wright, Richard Bauman, and of course Gili Bar-Hillel for their recent kind words in the Digest for my essay on "The Rise and Fall of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a 'Parable on Populism.'" In this morning's Digest John W Kennedy wrote: > The audience of tonight's "High Incident" was treated to a rather confused > presentation of how "Frank L Baum" (sic) wrote "The Wizard of Oz" in > "eighteen-ninety-something" about "the gold standard". This shows how much Henry Littlefield's thesis has become part of our popular culture--unquestioned and, apparently, not terribly well understood. Again, I'll be happy to forward (by e-mail) a copy of my essay to anyone interested. Respond privately to dparker@kscmail.kennesaw.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:59:46 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-96 > Before I start replying to this issue, I have an idea that's been cooking > in my head, and I want to know what you all think. This talk of Oz RPG's > has got me thinking again about an Oz collectible card game. Strangely enough, my brother and I were talking on the phone last night about CCG's. His opinions on them that they have a very low chance of success. This is due to several factors: 1) Unless you have someone else to play with that has the game as well, they are useless (with the exception of some that use only one person's deck, such as "Sim-City: the card game") 2) When/if the bottom falls out of the collectible market, you are left holding something that holds no intrisic value (you paid $100 for a "Black Lotus"? Great. Who's gonna give you that price five years from now?), since the game becomes too unbalanced/no one is going to risk a card that has had that much money paid for it. 3) Many dealers have greatly reduced prices of packs, due to a glut of games on the market. Only very rarely does a CCG do well. > (This goes along with > the old puzzle "Why does a mirror reverse left and right, and not > up and down?" The answer is, in all seriousness, that if we were in > the habit, when we were facing north, and wished to face south, of > accomplishing the desired reversal by standing on our heads, why then > we would be asking the question the other way around. I always heard the answer was "It doesn't. It reverses back-to-front. You just assume your reflection is a person turned around." As for my favorite Oz books...Hmmmm...it's been so long since I've read them (over the course of 25 years, and rarely with repeats), I'd be hard-pressed to say.... Baum: 1. LAND, 2. LOST PRINCESS 3. MAGIC RPT: 1. KABUMPO 2. PIRATES 3. GIANT HORSE Together: 1. LAND 2. LOST PRINCESS 3. KABUMPO BTW, I just got in the mail the Shanower books "Blue Witch of Oz" and "Forgotten Forest of Oz", as a present for my son. Have a happy Passover, chag kasher v'sameach, (Jellia: Oh, sure, _You_ don't have to clean crumbs out of an entire palace!) --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky, ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:34:23 -0500 (EST) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: What's in a name? Bill, I wasn't planning on changing my name to Gili, though it does have a certain ring to it. (: My favorites? Hmmm. Baum: 1) _The Tin Woodman of Oz_ (I liked the exploring of his past) 2) _The Patchwork Girl of Oz_ (deluge of wonderful characters) 3) _The Wizard of Oz_ (the book I got started on) I haven't read all the Thompsons yet, so I don't think my sampling would be valid. As to overall, that's even harder to pick out, though I did enjoy very much _The Magical Mimics in Oz_ and _The Hidden Valley of Oz_ and think they both deserve some representation in any "best of" list. Percy: You tell 'em, kiddo! Bill (again): According to Thompson (_The Lost King of Oz_, which wasn't bad) Mombi used to rule the Gilikins until she was ousted by Tattypoo. I would think Gilikinland would count as territory. Gmatriyah? NO! PLEASE, NO! Why don't we just pull out tarot cards to determine whose theories are right? Mombi: The Empress inverted indicates that March Laumer's theory about what happened to Gayelette is correct, while the Fool here means that Ozma and Dan will live happily ever after... Oh, if you want non-FF favorite books, I put in a vote for Laumer's _The Frogman of Oz_. ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 17:09:26 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-96 FRED:Fred made it through the surgery. CARD GAME: Why not? BTW, Dick Martin had one out years ago. It was cute. WINKIES: Whoever it was wanting to know who'd they'd meet there...probably me. And Pete Hanff. And (I hope) Ken Cope. Certainly Eric. Maybe Peter Glassman. Lotsa neat people who aren't on the DIGEST but are terrific folks! ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 17:42:06 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-96 > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > As for Lurline, I would put her rather high, but not a perfect 10. If there IS a perfect 10, I'd say it would be Ak the Master Woodsman of the World, Kern the Master Husbandman of the World, and Bo the Master Mariner of the World, all from "The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus," who rule over all the other immortals. > Ozmas fashions: > For all we know, Ozma now wears shorts and Pearl Jam > T-Shirts! :-) One of the more amusing mental images I've had from reading an Oz book (one of Laumer's in this case) was Ozma wearing a T-shirt and jeans, and tying her hair back with a rubber band. It just seemed amusingly appropriate, somehow. > Ozmas hair: > In most books, it is drawn as black and that is how I have always thought > of her. She could dye it every once in a while as many people do. Maybe > she's EC's answer to Dennis Rodman. You realize you made me splurt root beer all over the place when I read THAT! I just can't see Ozma with fuschia hair, I might add... > From: Bob Shepherd > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-01-96 > > An another note....I was in an antique store this weekend and spotted > "The Cowardly Lion of Oz". It had a note on it that said "12 color > plates", and was for sale for $495! Can I assume this is a first > edition? Is anybody surprised by that price? I sure was. No, I'm > not thinking about buying it - I'm just curious. Not necessarily a first, but definitely early if it has all twelve CP's. Considering the prices I've seen in some stores for collectible Oz books (as opposed to the ones you can actually read), I'm not surprised, but it will be either a cold day when Satan skates to work or a HUGE upturn in my financial fortunes (probably both) before I'd pay that much for any edition of "Cowardly Lion." "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," now, that might be another story... > From: Robin Olderman > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-01-96 > > POLL?: I'm curious about which books are our faves. It's a forty-way tie for first with me... > From: rri0189@ibm.net > > Heigh-ho! The audience of tonight's "High Incident" was treated to > a rather confused presentation of how "Frank L Baum" (sic) wrote > "The Wizard of Oz" in "eighteen-ninety-something" about "the > gold standard". Er, what's "High Incident"? > From: "W. R. Wright" > > I have received the following inquiry. Does anyone on the digest have an > answer?? > > >I am looking for recordings of the stage version of the Wizard of Oz. We > >will be doing it as a high school musical next fall. Do you have any > >leads for me? Which stage version is THIS??? If it's the 1902 play, I don't think any recordings exist. If it's the other versions, all based on the MGM movie, there's the Rhino 2-CD set, the Royal Shakespeare Company's cast album, and various others out there. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > ERIC: > I'm glad we've cleared up our misunderstanding. :) :) :) Would you like me > to send you a copy of my FAQ or can you extract it from the Digest? E-mail me a version, please. That way I'll have it on hand whenever I can get around to updating the Web page. (Besides, I don't have the Digest anymore. Am I the only one who DOESN'T save them?) --Eric "I'll try to remember to remove my .sig tonight, sorry" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 21:17:23 -0500 (EST) From: swarkala@cris.com (Sharon Warkala) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-96 Bob Shepard: The book you saw could have been a first edition but just because it has color plates does not in this case mean it was a first. Cowardly Lion was published from 1923 to about 1935 with color plates. The common mistake many people make that are selling Oz books who are not that familiar with the many printings is that if it has color plates it must be a first. Up until Speedy in Oz all the Oz books had reprints with color plates.(Peter Hanff I hope I'm right on this.) If the copy you saw was truely a first and in good condition then the price of $495 would be fair but I would try to negotiate. Prices vary so much it really is up to what you are willing to pay. Chris Warkala ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 22:33:16 +0000 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-30-96 (addendum) in re: me. I believe I'm the only John Kennedy here. Eleanor Kennedy is my wife. rri0189@ibm.net is also us. It's an account I get from IBM as a courtesy for beta-testing their software, and they don't attach a human name to it, so we're stuck with that as our "name", as well as our account. The Ozzy Digest is about the only time we use it for mail, since we have accounts on all the usual services, so usually send mail via the service our recipient uses. in re: headers I believe those headers are what is used to see to it that the mail gets where it's going, so they can't be suppressed. Most Internet mail readers can suppress them in the display, but not all the commercial services with Internet capability know enough to do that. in re: Woot's prior knowledge I think we're all forgetting that Oz is a country without (at least at that time), radio, television, or even rural newspapers. (The Ozmapolitan appears to have been pretty much limited in circulation to the Emerald City and America.) // John W Kennedy -- Hypatia Software -- "The OS/2 Hobbit" ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:05:08 +0000 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-30-96 (addendum) [sigh!] I hate to be picky, but, the Baum Bugle is not a newsletter, as the FAQ says; it's a magazine. // Eleanor Kennedy ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:23:49 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Musical Oz info The original Royal Shakespeare Company recording is available on TER, cd # CDTER 1165. This is about $25. A highlights version of this recording is available at Musicland or Sam Goody or Media Play (same parent company) on their house label, Excelsior, for about $8. Tracks include: Overture Over the Rainbow The Twister Munchkinland Ding Dong the witch is dead If I only had a brain We're Off to see the Wizard If I only had a heart We're Off (reprise) If I only had the nerve We're off (reprise again) Poppies/1st act finale Entr'acte The Merry Old Land of Oz If I were king of the Forest The Jitterbug Winkies March Over the Rainbow (reprise) Ding Dong the witch is dead (reprise) Finale act 2 The songs included all the intros written for them when they were published to be sung separate from the original score. The Jitterbug and the reprise of Over the Rainbow were cut from the film but are restored here. The production I saw used a reprise of The Jitterbug as a curtain call/encore with the entire cast jitterbugging all over the place. Imagine The Wicked Witch jitterbugging. Paints a picture, doesn't it? The musical uses all the original film score. It also really plays up the dream doubling of the cast: Hunk/Scarecrow, Hickory/Tinman, Zeke/Lion, Miss Gulch/Witch, Uncle Henry/Guardian of the Gates, Professor Marvel/Wizard, and a really great touch-Aunt Em doubling as Glinda. There are parts for Munchkins, Crows, Apple Trees, Winkie General, Nikko and the Winged Monkeys, Farmhands, Poppies, Snowflakes, Emerald City Citizens, Jitterbugs, and Winkies. Oh and Toto too! The original cast used children as Munchkins. The road company I saw used large puppets (children on an extended road tour would define hell, IMO). Don't be afraid to experiment with costumes. It is a great show (I liked it better than the movie!!!) Favorite Baum= Wizard, Rinkitink, Tin Woodman Favorite Thompson= Pirates, Giant Horse, Yellow Knight/Handy Mandy Mostly because of the characters, but a flying pirate ship? I'm there, baby! It still gets me. Long enough? Yeah. Mike B ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 00:45:24 -0500 From: RMorris306@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digests, 3/31-4/2 Hi Everyone! Several Digests to get caught up on this time! I've only read a few Enid Blyton books, all as an adult...she's not very well known here, despite some of the publishers' attempts. And the Secret Seven's U.S. publisher turned the kids into Americans, despite the fact that the stories don't transfer very well. Not only are the names uncharacteristically British (very few American boys are named "Colin," though possibly the popularity of Colin Powell will change that in the future), but the one I read involved the Seven trying to build the biggest bonfire for Guy Fawkes' Day. The rather lame excuse was that the kids were studying the U.K., and not only the school but the whole town was helping out by following that country's customs--which, as Michael Turniansky's brother Al noted when I showed him the book, must have been *really* strange when they got around to studying the Spanish Inquisition! Barry wrote: <> Pinocchio probably didn't live in *our* Italy: witness all the talking animals. (In my Braintree story, I deliberately left out any mention of exactly where Geppetto lived.) Eric wrote: <> Well, the IWOCC map shows Yew in the Nonestic Ocean, along with Pingaree, Roly-Rogues Island, and other lands whose inhabitants *do* visit Oz. I don't see why it couldn't be, since people seem to age there, meaning none of the characters in it (except perhaps the erstwhile Prince Marvel and the Red Rogue of Dawna) would be alive at the time of the Oz adventures. <<>> <> I'm a comics fan, but so far I've avoided that comic like the plague. Is it any good at all? <> Or they could have gotten her name from later books. The "Baum Bugle" article on the MGM movie indicates they read a few later books, since a handful of characters from them showed up in the movie (like the Sawhorse in the Tin Woodman's clearing...yes, I know he really should've been in the Gillikin country). Tyler wrote: <> As Dave noted, Eric Shanower's added modern aspects to the clothes of the characters, though, like Neill, he's kept them moderately timeless. People forget that even in the 1950's (the earliest Rachel Payes' book could have taken place) many girls already wore jeans or shorts, on informal occasions if not (then) at school. <> Or because the Water of Oblivion did have a permanent effect on the more esoteric spells he knew. That's presumably the same reason he can't pronounce "pyrzqxgl" any more. John W. wrote: <> Well, perhaps so. As Eric said, "Mo ain't Oz!" (Although neither is Sky Island...) Dave H. wrote: <> To which Tyler added: <> Yes, but where do Cookywitches fit in? Dave also wrote: <> You think *that's* ridiculous? What about Marvel Comics suing Topps, the publisher of the licensed X-FILES comic book, as an infringement of their X-MEN title since they "had a copyright on the letter X?" <> Which certainly indicates she aged past puberty relatively fast, since there wouldn't be any reason for the gowns to stay up if (as Baum said in OZMA) she appeared no older than the 11- (at most) year-old Dorothy... <> I envy Gili's knowlege. I don't even have that much of my own state, Massachusetts. Yes, I know it's the birthplace of several Presidents from John Adams right through to George Bush (Has Kansas *ever* given birth to a President, or are all its hopes for one riding on Bob Dole?), that its capital is Boston (well, I'd better know that, since I've worked there for over a decade), that its state song is "Massachusetts" by Arlo Guthrie...but I don't know the state bird, and I don't even know if it *has* a state insect, though it does have a state horse (the Morgan) and a state fish (the cod), which Kansas may not... Peter Glassman wrote: <> Well, I understand and appreciate your concern. As a lifelong nonsmoker, I'm certainly sympathetic to it...I rather doubt a single Oz book would change a kid's decision on the matter, but it was your call. I've really liked visiting your shop, and keep the Oz books coming! Later, Rich Morrissey ============================================================================= Date: Wednesday 03-Apr-96 01:06:38 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things MY MAGIC SCALE: John W. wrote: > ... Ozma was probably more powerful than Coo-ee-oo, since she was able > to counter Coo-ee-oo's eavesdropping spell. But she managed to hold Ozma and Dorothy prisoner! IMHO, the question is, how much of Coo-ee-oo's power was "real" and how much was "stolen" (from the Adepts). >Ozma was certainly more powerful than Mrs. Yoop, as she defeated the >latter in a magical contest and broke spells that Mrs. Yoop had thought >were unbreakable. Agreed. So Yookoohoo magic proabaly cannot be assigned a set index. >Reera was even less powerful, as her enchantments were particularly easy >to break. Which enchantments did she make and who broke them? (Didn't *she* break Coo-ee-oh's enchantment of the Adepts, a major feat?) >Any mortal -- such as the Wizard -- would be intrinsically less powerful >than a fairy -- such as Ozma or Polychrome. I assume that any mortal at birth regisiters '1' in Oz ('0' elsewhere). >The Wizard may still be more powerful than Ozma because he spends a >lot more time studying magic. Maybe "Knowledge is Power" applies to magic as much as to other things... Tyler wrote: >MOPPeT is that there is ultimately only one source of magic, so it should >be theoretically possible to measure each persons overall power. MOPPeT is that at some fundamental level there is a "machine language" of magic, and different magics (Fairy magic, Witch magic, Yookoohoo, etc.) are different "high-level languages". But could you ever make a scale of computer languages? IMHO, you could to an extent, but it gets sticky when you ask things like "Is FORTRAN more 'powerful' than LISP?" On the other hand, I would say that someone who knows FORTRAN *and* LISP definately has the upper hand over someone who knows only one. Maybe the Scale of Magic should refect *knowledge*...Any thoughts, everyone? Tyler wrote: >As for Lurline, I would put her rather high, but not a perfect 10 And Eric wrote: >If there IS a perfect 10, I'd say it would be Ak the Master Woodsman of >the World, Kern the Master Husbandman of the World, and Bo the Master >Mariner of the World ... MOPPeT is that just as you can never reach the speed of light, no one can ever become a "Perfect 10" = "All-Powerful", in spite of the inflated claims of some "All-Powerful" genies. I look forward to continued feedback on my scale. After tomorrow's comments to the above, I think I will post a revised scale and see what you all think... TYLER: > ... I have changed my mind and now believe that Mombi was not >very powerful MOPPeT is that you're right. The kidnapping of Pastoria and the banishing of Locasta were only possible because Mombi was being helped by . PIRATES IN OZ: Mike B. wrote: > ... a flying pirate ship? OH NO! Don't tell me a flying pirate ship has been done already???!!! (There's one in _Locasta_!!!) ROBIN: >FRED:Fred made it through the surgery. Oz fans rejoice! :) >CARD GAME: Why not? BTW, Dick Martin had one out years ago. It was cute. I have Martin's Oz card game, but I have to admit that I use them mostly for bookmarks. :O How about a traditional card deck with the Oz characters? (I had an Alice in Wonderland one once.) I'll tell you *my* little pet wish though: An Oz chess set!!! I love chess, and I'd love to be able to play it with my favorite fairyland! I even came up with a layout for the pieces: White Pieces Pawns King's Rook: Tin Man Soldier w/ Green Whiskers King's Knight: Cowardly Lion Trot King's Bishop: Scarecrow Capt'n Bill King: Pastoria* Dorothy Queen: Ozma Jellia Jamb Queen's Bishop: Scraps Ojo Queen's Knight: Hungry Tiger The Ork Queen's Rook: Capt. Fyter The Wogglebug *I suppose you'd all kill me if I *dared* suggest Dan for the King. :) :) :) Black Pieces Pawns King's Rook: Red Jinn of Ev Ruggedo King's Knight: Kabumpo The Woozy King's Bishop: Shaggy Man Betsy Bobbin King: The Wizard Augnetah* Queen: Glinda Auxannah* Queen's Bishop: Polychrome Audirfah* Queen's Knight: High Boy Locasta Queen's Rook: Tik-Tok The Ork *Auxannah, Augnetah, and Audirfah are my names for the Adepts ( Okay, the cat's out of the bag! :) ) I'd *love* to have a set like this, but I can't sculpt, except in a 3D modeling program. (:( BARRY: > ... Mombi used to rule the Gilikins until she was ousted by Tattypoo ... Or she was ousted by Locasta, if you buy my theory... >Oh, if you want non-FF favorite books, I put in a vote for Laumer's _The >Frogman of Oz_. Robin didn't ask for non-FF favorites, but it is a valid category, IMHO. My vote ( excluding my own work :) :) :) ) is for _Wicked Witch of Oz_. BTW, I just want to make sure that everyone understands that although I welcome people posting their votes publically in the Digest, Robin did specifically ask for votes to be sent privately to her as well... > ... while the Fool here means that Ozma and Dan will live happily >ever after... *NOW* I believe in fortune-telling! :) :) :) DIGEST FAQ: I just wanted to let everyone know that I E-Mailed Eric the FAQ so he can post it on his site. I also added two new sections -- One telling how to obtain back issues of the Digest, and one crediting Gili for designing the Digest masthead! :) -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 4, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 12:29:45 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Bear asks: "WILL THE REAL OZROAR PLEASE STAND UP?" Okay, this is a little involved. The first mention we had of royalty before Pastoria was in _Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz_, where Ozma mentioned her grandfather. He had no name, until Fred M. Meyer suggested "Ozroar". This name was adopted by Robert Pattrick and, I beleive, has achieved a general consensus of most Oz fans. It has been assumed that Ozroar was the king that Lurline met when she enchanted Oz, and this was clearly implied in _Lurline and the White Ravens of Oz_. However, new evidence from the FF indicates that the enchantment occured centuries ago, and it is unlikely that one person ruled Oz for all this time, so the HACC people came up with a theory: Lurline met Ozroar, the king of Morrow, and decided to enchant the entire land and make him the king. Over several generations, the kingdom of "Oz" grew into the whole area contained by the desert. Some of these kings were named "Ozroar", so Pastorias father and the original king of Oz both had the same name. So, the first Ozroar (the one that Lurline met when she enchanted Oz) had a wife named Ozia. The "last" Ozroar (the father of Pastoria) had a wife named Ozara. Also, Pastorias wife is named Ozette. Please note that all this, including names, is the current HACC theory. Barry and Bill: I believe that Bill was referring to her status after she was ousted by Locasta (according to HACC theory). After this, she was nothing more than a simple farm woman who apparantly did not rule any territory. John Kennedy: I believe that the status of Woot's prior knowledge is 50-50. Either 1) he knew about the Tin Woodman and used that as an excuse to get in or 2) he was from a rural area and just has not heard anything. Either alternative is plausible and there is no compelling evidence one way or the other, IMHO. On the Isle of Yew: This book has no hint of any other countries and no other books have any hint of this book. It is totally isolated, yet it appears on the map. Maybe professor Wogglebug knows something that we don't? Rich: "Cookywitch", IMO, is just another title for a magic-worker. My guess is that she specializes in food magic. On Ozma: For the most part, Baum refers to Ozma as being about 15, while we at the HACC have put Dorothy's physiological age at 11 (when she moved to Oz permanently). her chronological age, at the time of _Emerald City_, was 13. HACC theory says that her prior visits to Oz had slowed her aging down by a total of 2 years. Dave and John: The tricky point here is that even if person A defeats person B in some specific contest, that does not necessarily mean that person A is stronger. In a related incident, Ozma never actually defeated Coo-Ee-Oh. The Su-Dic did. Or, to be more precise, the magic potion that his wife Rora invented did the trick. As for the issue of stealing magic from the Adepts, I seem to remember that Coo-Ee-Oh got her magic from the Adepts but expanded it and imrpoved it to the point where they could no longer recognize it. I like the idea of a "machine language" of magic, while the fields of magic are separate, high-level languages, with their own rules and paramters. I believe that we should start by exploring what "kinds" of magic there are. I do not mean titles, I mean specific applications. Here are a few: Information Transformations Combat Machine/Engineering Agricultural Creation Mind Magic (hypnosis, memory, etc.) Fairy Magic (inherent magic that covers many other areas) MOPPeT on mortal magic workers: I believe that a mortal (like the Wizard) would "start" at 0 or 1, but could work his way up the ladder with enough study and practice. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 09:05:11 -0500 From: David A Gerstein Subject: Return to Oz "Coronation" sequence I recall a television special about Oz about 1985 (probably cooincided with "Return to Oz", as I recall it included a lengthy discussion of the film) which included some of the musical score to the 1902 "Wizard" on the soundtrack as it talked about the play. The question is, was that an old Victrola recording of the score, or just a modern-day recreation of it? The mention of "Return to Oz" brings me to the Allan Eyles (sp?) book of '85, which I got at about the same time as I saw that special. Most curious is how many auxiliary Oz characters (Scraps among the major players, and minor ones going all the way to Tommy Kwikstep) are illustrated in "Return to Oz" versions of themselves as they were prepared for some kind of "coronation sequence" -- a sequence which, I guess, didn't make the final cut of the film. Where were the characters to have appeared, and why were they cut? (Did Disney use some characters from books they didn't have the license to use, and find out too late to easily alter the sequence?) Favorite Baum: Patchwork Girl (slew of particularly enjoyable characters), Marvelous Land (ditto), Tin Woodman (immensely intriguing "how did it really happen" type of plot that fascinated me as a kid) Favorite RPT: Royal Book (imaginative Silver Kingdom, although perhaps the Scarecrow being someone's reincarnation's a bit far-fetched it was handled as well as could be done), Kabumpo, Gnome King (more of Scraps, handled particularly well). Least-favorite FF: Rinkitink (it just ain't an Oz book!), Scalawagons (story basically has two disparate plots), Cowardly Lion (just overall not that good). David Gerstein <96dag@williams.edu> "What did the Woggle-Bug say?" ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 11:40:18 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Gematria, Massachusetts, et. al Gili: {Hebrew digression: Feel free to skip > > Mike Shaggy Man - actually, mem-vav-mem-bet-aleph would be "Momba" not > "Mombi". Well, not necessarily. The last vowel sound could conceivably be any sound, even with a final aleph. for example, "o" in "lo", "ay" in "maleh", or even "ee" in hiphil forms of verbs ending in aleph (OK, those, and "he" and with a yud-aleph, but since we're talking about a proper name here, all bets are off. Anyway, cut me some slack. I had to fudge a _little_ bit... end Hebrew digression} > I think Shakespeare was 47 > when he supposedly translated the King James Bible, and there for there > is some sort of reference to Shakespeare in psalm 47... don't take my > word for this. I'll check it when I get home. You're thinking 46 here. Psalm 46 (King James Version) has the word "Shake" as the 46th word from the beginning, and "spear", as the 46th from the end (discounting "Selah"). Rich: > > I envy Gili's knowlege. I don't even have that much of my own state, > Massachusetts. Yes, I know it's the birthplace of several Presidents from > John Adams right through to George Bush (Has Kansas *ever* given birth to a > President, or are all its hopes for one riding on Bob Dole?) No, not birth, but Eisenhower is counted as a "native son" since he moved from Denison, Tex. to Abilene, KS before his first birthday. >, that its > capital is Boston (well, I'd better know that, since I've worked there for > over a decade), that its state song is "Massachusetts" by Arlo Guthrie...but > I don't know the state bird, and I don't even know if it *has* a state > insect, though it does have a state horse (the Morgan) and a state fish (the > cod), which Kansas may not... For shame, Richard! I've been in Massachusetts only a 1/4th of the time you have, and you, a lawyer, licensed to practice in front of the bar in Massachusetts, should have at least read section one of the General laws of the commonwealth, where this stuff is detailed. Now, it's been a while since I've been there, but even _I_ remember that the commonwealth's official fossil is dinosaur tracks, muffin is corn, cetacean is humpback whale, non-alcoholic drink is cranberry juice. --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 10:04:00 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Oz Music To Michael Burns and other who responded to the question regarding available recordings of the WOZ stage play music, thanks ever so much. Now another question/quest. For time to time I get questions regarding a source for the scores for the music. This really falls into two categories: the songs from the mgm movie (which would still be under copyright - *Turner* I presume), and the songs from Baum's stage plays. For the former, can anyone name a source for the scores? For the latter, I gather from Robin O's note that perhaps the only place the scores can be found is the Library of Congress. Other than that, does anyone know if there are other libraries that house copies of the following documents (which I presume have the scores)? 1. The Wizard of Oz. New York and Chicago: M. Witmark and Sons, 1902. Music by Paul Tietjens and Nathaniel D. Mann. 2. The Wogglebug. New York and Chicago: M. Witmark and Sons, 1905. Music by Frederic Chapin. 3. The Tik-Tok Man of Oz . New York and Detroit: Jerome H. Remick & Co., 1913. Music by Louis F. Gottschalk. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 17:29:05 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest To somebody (probably Barbara something...): Someone was asking me for back issues of the Ozzy digest. Who was it and which ones do you still need? Currently I have: December 95 296K January 96 484K February 96 911K March 96 1142K (WOW!) --Tyler ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 17:52:52 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-03-96 > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > THE POWDER WARS (and Bill Wright): > Now I'm getting confused. If I remember correctly, Dr. Pipt gave MOmbi > the Powder of life and Mombi gave Dr. Pipt the Powder of Pperpetual Youth. > Now, the powder that Pipt gave Mombi was good, while the powder that > Mombi gave Pipt was nothing. (Doing my best Ed McMahon impression): YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR! > From: David Parker > Subject: Baum/Populism essay > > Many thanks to Barbara Belgrave, Rich Morrissey, Bill Wright, Richard > Bauman, and of course Gili Bar-Hillel for their recent kind words in the > Digest for my essay on "The Rise and Fall of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as > a 'Parable on Populism.'" I liked it, too, David. If I ever get around to my proof-that-Oz-isn't-a-tract part of my Web page, can I include your article? > From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-96 > > Strangely enough, my brother and I were talking on the phone last > night about CCG's. His opinions on them that they have a very low chance > of success. Since this would be for fun and not profit, who cares if it succeeds? > From: Robin Olderman > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-02-96 > > FRED:Fred made it through the surgery. HOORAY! > CARD GAME: Why not? BTW, Dick Martin had one out years ago. It was cute. Yeah, but a CCG is a horse of a different color. The cards actually represent different characters, talismans, events, etc., and each one does something different in the game. Maybe I can show you the ST:TNG game at Winkies? (Yeah, if Laura will let me take a pair of decks!) > From: rri0189@ibm.net > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-30-96 (addendum) > > [sigh!] I hate to be picky, but, the Baum Bugle is not a newsletter, > as the FAQ says; it's a magazine. MY FAQ says it's a magazine! (Oops, sorry, Dave, I'll put these shells and bazookas away, we don' want the FAQ wars to break out again...) > From: RMorris306@aol.com > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digests, 3/31-4/2 > > Well, the IWOCC map shows Yew in the Nonestic Ocean, along with Pingaree, > Roly-Rogues Island, and other lands whose inhabitants *do* visit Oz. I don't > see why it couldn't be, since people seem to age there, meaning none of the > characters in it (except perhaps the erstwhile Prince Marvel and the Red > Rogue of Dawna) would be alive at the time of the Oz adventures. I don't consider "Yew" to be part of the same continent as Oz because (a) there is no evidence, either in "Yew" or any of the Oz books, that there IS any sort of connection, and (b) it makes it very clear at the end of "Yew" that there is no more magic there, and unlike Oz (as explained by the Good Witch of the North -- WHATEVER HER NAME MAY BE -- in "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz"), extended by implication to the rest of the Continent of Imagination, Yew is now a civilized land. (Did that make any sense???) So, *IMHO*, Yew is not part of the same world, despite its placement on the Club's map. (This, I think, was speculation on part of the cartographers.) Your opinion may vary, of course! ["Oz Squad" talk cut] > I'm a comics fan, but so far I've avoided that comic like the plague. Is > it any good at all? Actually, it's gotten better in the past few issues, once they got all the real blood and guts out of their system and started actually telling a story. IMHO, of course, and remember, I actually LIKE the Neill books. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > PIRATES IN OZ: > Mike B. wrote: > > ... a flying pirate ship? > > OH NO! Don't tell me a flying pirate ship has been done already???!!! YUP! It's in both "Pirates" and "Captain Salt," although it uses different means to fly in each book (but both magic, I might add.) > (There's one in _Locasta_!!!) So just add a line with someone saying, "Gee, this seems familiar..." > DIGEST FAQ: > I just wanted to let everyone know that I E-Mailed Eric the FAQ so he can > post it on his site. You did? I don't have it yet... --Eric "Electronic postage due, perhaps?" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 19:33:19 +0000 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Passover in Oz They gathered every year at about this time, all those who had come to Oz from the outside world. Their native Oz friends were all invited, of course, but they sat and watched at first, only joining in after the solemn ceremony had been completed. It began with Uncle Henry raising his glass of Ozade. Uncle Henry: A toast to the land of Oz! They all drank. Uncle Henry picked up some bittergrass and handed it around. All present dipped their bittergrass lavishly in the small dish of sugar paste, then swallowed it quickly. Then Uncle Henry picked up a plate of Aunt Em's best cornbread. Uncle Henry: This is the bread we ate in Kansas. Whatever little we had in Kansas we shared, and we share this bread, too. Then all eyes were turned towards Button-Bright. Button-Bright: Why is tonight different from every other night? Every other night we can eat any kind of bread we want to, not just cornbread. Every other night we can eat any kind of salad we want to, not just bittergrass. Every other night we eat our salad without dipping it in anything, but tonight we dip it in sugar paste twice. Every other night we sit on regular chairs, but tonight we sit on little hard benches. Everyone smiles with relief that Button-Bright has gotten through his part with no mistakes. Dorothy: In America, we were often hungry, with nothing to eat except some corn that we'd grown ourselves, if the year was good. But here in the land of Oz we live in plenty. Shaggy Man: In America, we often felt the bitterness of poverty and hatred. But here in Oz we live in a land of love and friendship, where all have enough. Uncle Henry raises his glass of Ozade again. Uncle Henry: A toast to Ozma and Glinda! Everyone drinks to Ozma and Glinda's health. Then the bittergrass is passed again and everyone dips theirs in the sugar paste. The Wizard: We dip our bittergrass twice in the sweet paste because we are twice blessed. We were allowed to discover the land of Oz, and we were allowed to stay here. Aunt Em: We sit on these hard benches, because in America, our lives were hard and short, but here in Oz we live in a land that transcends age and death. Aunt Em takes the plate of cornbread and hands a piece to everyone. They all eat. Aunt Em: Well, now, who'd like some roast meat-plant? The rest of the meal is eaten joyously, with laughter, jokes and singing echoing up and down the table. When the feast finally ends, much later, everyone stands up and recites the traditional concluding phrase: "Next year, ALSO in the Emerald City!" Gut yontiff, and some holiday humor from -- Eleanor Kennedy ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 21:17:57 +0000 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-03-96 > I'm a comics fan, but so far I've avoided [Oz Squad] like the plague. Is >it any good at all? You may not _like_ it, but it's well written, and the creators know their way around Oz. It's certainly heretical, but not without its moments. If it came to a question of whether to snatch a collection of "Oz Squad", "Oz", or the Shanower books from a burning building, though, I'd definitely take Shanower. // John W Kennedy -- Hypatia Software -- "The OS/2 Hobbit" ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 21:45:03 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@compuserve.com> Subject: Today's Growls David Gerstein - I can remember when Bucky Bug married June Bug and the Great Bug War. In fact I still have the comic books. :) Dave - I don't know if this is kosher. You, of course willdecide. People on the Digest are looking for Oz books. I have found some for sale and will list them. They are located at a book store in Los Altos called "The Book Nest." I went in to check out his Oz books again and found someone had just bought eight. Sigh. Sorry I didn't get in sooner, he had four left, they are: Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz - 16 color plates, book jacket (piece missing) - $100 Wizard of Oz - 8 color plates - $100 The Road To Oz - w jacket - $50 The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz (autographed by Madden) - $40 The Book Nest is at 366 Second St. Los Altos, CA 94022 415-948-4724 I did not spend the time to determine the edition, etc. with my Bibliographia Oziana. However, when I return on the 15th, if you want me to check further and give an estimate of condition, I would be happy to. Otherwise, the owner is Ed Schmitz, a really nice person, and you can contact him for more details. Hmmmm, when I get back I am going to have eleven Digests to go through. Now I now how David Hulan must feel. Regards, Bear (:<) ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 22:00:24 -0600 (CST) From: jvandern@neosoft.com (Jim Vander Noot) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-03-96 Hi, Dave, You might mention to the group that the Winkie & South Winkie & Quadling Convention registration forms are now out on the IWOC web site (http://www.neosoft.com/~iwoc) Jim ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 23:53:41 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc Dave Hardenbrook writes: > But [Coo-ee-oh] managed to hold Ozma and Dorothy prisoner! Not really. Ozma *chose* to go with Lady Aurex. (Just because you *can* beat somebody up doesn't mean that doing so is the best strategy.) Later Ozma was trapped in the sunken island, but that was only because she didn't know how to operate the machinery. That reminds me of the countless times someone would say to me: "You know a lot about computers, how do I do such and such with this application". Of course, I have never used the application before, so I have no idea how to do anything with it. This was the problem that Ozma faced. She knew lots of magic, but she still had no idea how to use Coo-ee-oh's machinery. The manuals were undecipherable and there was no on-line help. I believe that Ozma's overriding Coo-ee-oh's spell is a much better demonstration of their relative power. > Which enchantments did [Reera] make and who broke them? (Didn't *she* break > Coo-ee-oh's enchantment of the Adepts, a major feat?) The goldfish tells Ervic that Reera's enchantments are easy to break. There was nothing difficult about breaking Coo-ee-oh's enchantments because at the time she probably had only the most basic ability with regards to transformation. I doubt that the Adepts ever engaged in transformations, so Coo-ee-oh had to figure it out from something else. As far as we know, these were the first transformations she ever did. > MOPPeT is that just as you can never reach the speed of light, no one > can ever become a "Perfect 10" = "All-Powerful", in spite of the inflated > claims of some "All-Powerful" genies. SANTA CLAUS mentions a "Supreme Master" that apparently created the fairy universe, as well as the immortals. That seems to be pretty close to "All-Powerful", at least as far as the fairy universe is concerned. Note that when Santa Claus was dying of old age, the only way that the immortals seemed to have to prevent that was to give him the Mantle of Immortality (which the Supreme Master had created). When Lurline stopped all aging in Oz, she seemed to be wielding power that in SANTA CLAUS only the Supreme Master could command. > OH NO! Don't tell me a flying pirate ship has been done already???!!! Ok, I won't mention what happens in Chapter 16 of PIRATES. :-) > Auxannah, Augnetah, and Audirfah are my names for the Adepts What's wrong with Audah, Aurah, and Aujah? Oh, wait! Let me guess. There are actually two different sets of three Adepts each ... :-) -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Thursday 04-Apr-96 00:25:34 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things _BAUM BUGLE_: Eric wrote: >MY FAQ says it's a magazine! (Oops, sorry, Dave, I'll put these shells >and bazookas away, we don' want the FAQ wars to break out again...) I agree now that you can't call it a newsletter, yet somehow, I can't quite bring myself to call it a magazine either, so after some reflection, I've decided to compromise, and my finalized FAQ version 1.0 calls it a "Fanzine". :) THE ADEPTS: I wrote: >>Auxannah, Augnetah, and Audirfah are my names for the Adepts And John W. replied: >What's wrong with Audah, Aurah, and Aujah? Me: You want to field this one, girls? Audirfah: Gladly. They're too similar. Augnetah: And our new names *AREN'T* similar??? Audirfah: But our old names differed by only *one* letter! Auxannah: Right on! And after Dave gave us each a groovy, distinct personality, we wanted more distinct names as well! Augnetah: And so we had to go down to Oz character renaming headquarters and had to fill in all those forms, and sit for hours on end in those lousy waiting rooms with the broken hot chocolate machines! Audirfah: Don't be so cross, honey! Now everyone can tell us apart! Auxannah: We even have these awesome distinct faces! Augnetah: Yeah, that John Neill always made us look alike! GRRRR. Audirfah: I suppose that now that Dave has spilled the beans about us, as it were, we're going to be regulars here? Auxannah: Wow! Far out! Augnetah: Oh, terrific. Me being embarassed in front of Dave's friends at every turn with Audirfah's nature lectures and endless altruism coupled with Auxannah's annoyingly vivacious dancing and pirouetting and use of that inane slang! Auxannah: Hey, what's good enough for Percy the Personality Kid is good enough for Auxannah the Adept at Sorcery! Augnetah: But because we ARE Adepts at Sorcery, we should show some dignity! Auxannah: I looked up "dignity" in the dictionary once...What a curious concept!!! Audirfah: Have you met Scraps yet, dear? You two would really hit it off! -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 5, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 15:53:24 +0200 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-04-96 As I sit and write this, my intestines are clogged with Matzah. I spent most of yesterday morning helping my mother cook and set the table for 17, and most of yesterday night washing dishes. So I sympathise with (Mike's?) version of Jellia Jamb. Passover gift, latest addition to my collection: a first edition of "Hidden Valley of Oz" mailed in from Pittsburgh... I'm finally back in Jerusalem, and can check all the references, like I promised. Mike is right: what I wrote about Shakespeare and the King James Bible is correct about the number 46, not 47. However, here's what "The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers" (edited by David Wells) has to say about 42 and 47: "42 - The magic constant of the smallest magic cube, composed with the numbers 1 to 27. ... the 5th Catalan number [followed by explanation about Catalan numbers]... 47 - 47+2=49 , 47*2=94." The story about the number 46 and Shakespeare is listed both in the "dictionary" referred to above, and in the first chapter of "The Magic Numbers of Dr. Matrix" by Martin Gardner. Martin Gardner *always* alludes to Oz somewhere in his books, this book is no exception. For Barbara Belgrave - The issue of "Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine" which had a cover story about Oz is the December, 1994 issue. The story is "Up the Rainbow" by Susan Casper. The cover shows Dorothy's granddaughter, Gale, sitting on the yellow brick road with her cat and smiling up at the Scarecrow. Anyone interested - the psychobiography of Baum I was referring to was indeed written by Alan C. Elms, who also wrote an article called "Oz in Science Fiction Film" for the winter 1983 issue of "The Baum Bugle".(By the way, Dave, the Baum Bugle is a JOURNAL, that's part of its title! I personally think that both "fanzine" and "newsletter" are misleading, and even a trifle insulting. "Beyond the Rainbow Collector's Exchange" is a fanzine. "The Oz Observer" is a newsletter. "The Baum Bugle" is more academic than either of them.) I couldn't tell from my photocopy what the title of the book is - possibly "Into the Fantastic", thought that may just be the title of one section of the book. The chapter itself is called: "The Mother of Oz - L. Frank Baum." I'm relieved that Fred Meyer pulled through his operation - but I'm still very worried for him. Lets all wish him the best of health. Thank you Dave, for crediting me for designing the masthead! Robin - It's tough for me to list my 3 favourite... In my opinion, "The Wizard of Oz" is thesuper-best-favourite-of-all-times, and it's "no fair" even comparing it to the others. My three favourites of the others are: 1. Ozma of Oz 2. The Patchwork Girl of Oz 3. Glinda of Oz followed closely by "the Magic of Oz", "Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz".... you get th picture. I like all the Baum books. Bye! |\ _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Gili Bar-Hillel, |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' avigailb@zoot.tau.ac.il '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat (c) by Felix Lee ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 12:08:37 -0500 (EST) From: David Parker Subject: reprinting essay on Web page Eric: My essay (on Baum and Populism) was first published by the Georgia Association of Historians, and the Association holds the copyright. But I just got off the phone with the editor, who kindly gave permission: you can include the essay on your Web page provided you give the proper citation to the Journal of the GAH. Wow, I'm excited! This will be a first for me! ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 15:31:34 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc Tyler Jones writes: > On the Isle of Yew: > This book has no hint of any other countries and no other books have any > hint of this book. YEW *does* have a tie-in with the Oz books. At one point the fairy mentions that a mortal had once become an immortal, which clearly refers to events in SANTA CLAUS. At the time she seemed to be discussing the rules of mortals and immortals for the fairy universe that she (Yew) was part of. Santa Claus lives near the Forest of Burzee, which is south of Oz. (from Oz maps, ROAD, MIMICS) So the Island of Yew is indeed part of the Oz universe. The comment about Yew becoming civilized seems to mean the rule of law, and a ban on unauthorized magic -- just like in Oz. The immortal fairies who lived on the island are still there, and so it is still a fairyland. Auxannah writes: > We even have these awesome distinct faces! Do the three of you share the thirty heads, or do you have ten each? :-) -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 17:31:44 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest David Gerstein: I was interested in your comment about _Rinkitink in Oz_ being one of your least favorite of the FF because "It just ain't an Oz book!". Did you not like the story itself or do you feel that it does not belong in the "official" list of mainline Oz books since the story was not meant to be an Oz book in the first place and only involves Oz at the tail end? For the record, _Captain Salt in Oz_ has even less Ozzy ties than _Rinkitink_! Eric Gjovaag: We may not care about profit (for the Oz game), but I hope that we care that it succeeds, the point being to bring knowledge of Oz to as many people as possible. On The Isle of Yew: In my heart, I agree with you that this book is not connected to Oz in any way, but since it is on the official IWOC map, many people probably believe that the island is in the Nonestic anyway. On the Good Witch of the North: (and other directions) Farmer called her Helwedo. He also called the Good Witch of the East Wulthag. Unknown in the FF, in Shanowers _The Blue Witch of Oz_ she was referred to as Abatha. John Kennedy: Your choice of material to save from a burning building reminds me of an aside in one of Asimovs robot tales. An engineer, in a burning building, jumped out with nothing but a pair of shorts and "The Handbook of Robotics", supposedly an EXTREMELY expensive and valuable item. In a pinch, he would have skipped the shorts. John and Dave, on magic: This is my whole point. Ozma may have more power overall than Coo-Ee-Oh, but she is outclassed in some specific applications, such as engineering magic. IMHO, Ozma could have destroyed Coo-Ee-Oh, but would then have been trapped underwater forever. Unless they remembered that the Magic Belt could have transported them out in an instant. Unless the magical ambiance of Coo-Ee-Oh's appliances prevented this. Unless... Blah blah blah. John: If the Adepts had never really practiced transformations, how could they easily break Reera's? Hmmmmm, you posed a tough one there. According to _The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus_, it was very clear that the gift of immortality was a very rare gift. In fact, there was only one cloak of immortality, to be given to the mortal that the immortals deemed worthy. How then, could Lurline enchant Oz in this way? This goes beyond simply doing something she was not allowed to do. It seems that NOBODY except the Supreme Master could have this power. We'll have to think about this one for a while I believe that the names that Dave has provided for the Adepts are their full, formal names, and the ones we read in _Glinda_ are just nicknames. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 17:31:52 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-04-96 > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > On the Isle of Yew: > This book has no hint of any other countries and no other books have any > hint of this book. It is totally isolated, yet it appears on the map. > Maybe professor Wogglebug knows something that we don't? Professor Wogglebug never put Yew on any of his maps. I'm not sure who's responsible for its inclusion on the current maps from the Oz Club. > From: David A Gerstein > Subject: Return to Oz "Coronation" sequence > > I recall a television special about Oz about 1985 (probably > cooincided with "Return to Oz", as I recall it included a lengthy > discussion of the film) which included some of the musical score to > the 1902 "Wizard" on the soundtrack as it talked about the play. The > question is, was that an old Victrola recording of the score, or just > a modern-day recreation of it? You sure? I'd bet that it was just generic period music, I don't recall it ever being specifically identified as being music from the play. (I do remember this special, it was the same one that showed pictures from "The Tik-Tok Man of Oz" while discussing "The Woggle-Bug," and TOTALLY failed to mention any authors continuing the Oz series after Baum's death.) > The mention of "Return to Oz" brings me to the Allan Eyles > (sp?) book of '85, which I got at about the same time as I saw that > special. Most curious is how many auxiliary Oz characters (Scraps > among the major players, and minor ones going all the way to Tommy > Kwikstep) are illustrated in "Return to Oz" versions of themselves as > they were prepared for some kind of "coronation sequence" -- a > sequence which, I guess, didn't make the final cut of the film. Where > were the characters to have appeared, and why were they cut? (Did > Disney use some characters from books they didn't have the license to > use, and find out too late to easily alter the sequence?) Disney has owned the film rights to the Oz books for a number of years now, and one reason for them making "Return to Oz" was so that they could get SOMETHING out of them before they all entered public domain! And most of the characters DO appear in the film, in the final sequence in the Emerald City -- just don't blink! They go by so fast, or on the periphery, that they're easy to miss. (I'm sure many have also been cut out when the sides were cropped to fit a widescreen film into television ratios.) > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > _BAUM BUGLE_: > Eric wrote: > >MY FAQ says it's a magazine! (Oops, sorry, Dave, I'll put these shells > >and bazookas away, we don' want the FAQ wars to break out again...) > > I agree now that you can't call it a newsletter, yet somehow, I can't > quite bring myself to call it a magazine either, so after > some reflection, I've decided to compromise, and my finalized > FAQ version 1.0 calls it a "Fanzine". :) Why isn't it a magazine??? It certainly isn't a fanzine!!! "Fanzine" brings up all kinds of connotations that certainly don't apply to the "Bugle." Perhaps it should be called a journal, if magazine seems wrong to you. (It does say "A Journal of Oz" on the cover.) I've got a little bit more information on Jewel, the singer who played Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz in Concert." She is NOT a country-and- western singer, since I heard one of her songs on the local alternative music station. It was nice, sort of a latter-day Rickie Lee Jones. Anyway, the only other info I got from the DJ is that she's from Alaska. Gee, I'm intrigued enough, if I had lots of money to spare maybe I'd look for one of her CD's. --Eric "Laura's computer is down AGAIN!" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 21:49:15 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-03-96 OZ CHESS SET: There's one in the works already. I don't know if I'm allowed to name the manufacturer, so I guess I won't, but it's a reputable outfit and they've done some other Oz things. The pieces will have to be recognized by more than just us Ozmaniacs, so Kabumpo, etc. will be out of the question. Keep your fingers crossed for its success. I talked with the designer of the project, drew some sketches for him (HA! That's a joke; I'm no artist) and jotted down suggestions. I think his outfit will come through with a good product. PLAYING CARDS: I'd like them, too. I'd like a quality deck, though, one I could actually use. The ones that came out a few years ago (in the tins) were neat looking, but were too flimsy for real use. I play bridge every week, and would love to bid (and make) seven emeralds. I wonder what the other suits would be. FRED: He's out of intensive care. He can wiggle his toes. This is very good news, but we don't know yet if he'll be able to walk. Keep up the good thoughts. ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 22:09:14 -0600 (CST) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-04-96 PASSOVER IN OZ: Clever! Thank you. I enjoyed that. REMINDER: I've gotten a number of responses to the poll. If you want to cast your votes for the top 3 Baum, top 3 Thompson, and top 3 FF overall, e-mail me at robino@tenet.edu If you post it here in the DIGEST it just takes up someone's disc space, and I may miss it. Thanks! ============================================================================= Date: Thursday 04-Apr-96 23:48:32 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things _BAUM BUGLE_: Eric wrote: >Perhaps it should be called a journal ... Yes, "journal" sounds better than anything else. You have my permission to change the word in my FAQ. :) >Eric "Laura's computer is down AGAIN!" Gjovaag Her computer is DOWN??? When then let's CHEER IT UP!!! :) :) :) CHESS SET: Robin O. wrote: >There's one in the works already ... The pieces will have to be >recognized by more than just us Ozmaniacs, so Kabumpo, etc. >will be out of the question. Then I propose one for us Ozzy-philes so that we *CAN* have Ozma, etc.! Maybe I can do it by taking by making reduced-size photocopies of my collection of home-made Oz paper dolls (Have I ever mentioned them before?) and then glue them to pieces of wood so that they'll stand upright on the chessboard... OZ POLL: Robin O. wrote: >If you post it here in the DIGEST it just takes up someone's disc space, >and I may miss it. As I said before, as the Digest editor, I have no objection to public proclamation of Favorite Oz books, but *DO* E-mail them to Robin too, to make sure *she* gets them! :) -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 6, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 04:28:01 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-96 > From: jnw@vnet.net > Subject: misc > > Tyler Jones writes: > > On the Isle of Yew: > > This book has no hint of any other countries and no other books have any > > hint of this book. > > YEW *does* have a tie-in with the Oz books. At one point the fairy > mentions that a mortal had once become an immortal, which clearly > refers to events in SANTA CLAUS. Too ephemeral to tie "Yew" in with the Oz books, IMHO. Remember, Santa Claus has been around a lot longer than anything Baum has ever written, and has been seen in our world as well as the one containing Oz. I just think this link is too tenuous to be proof Yew is in the same world as Oz. > The comment about Yew becoming civilized seems to mean the rule of law, > and a ban on unauthorized magic -- just like in Oz. The immortal fairies > who lived on the island are still there, and so it is still a fairyland. It seems to me that this is NOT what Baum had in mind, he meant that Yew had become like America (which also has fairies in it, but that doesn't make it a fairyland -- see "American Fairy Tales"). > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > Eric Gjovaag: > We may not care about profit (for the Oz game), but I hope that we care > that it succeeds, the point being to bring knowledge of Oz to as many > people as possible. There are better ways of getting knowledge of Oz out there than by producing an Oz CCG. If (and that's a BIG if) I ever get around to making this game, it will be for my own pleasure. If I can make a few sets for friends as well and give them pleasure, that's fine, too. But I have no delusions whatsoever of making millions of cards and selling them in shops all over the world and making tons of money. I've seen my royalty checks from "Queen Ann," so I know you can't make money from Oz anymore... > On The Isle of Yew: > In my heart, I agree with you that this book is not connected to Oz in any > way, but since it is on the official IWOC map, many people probably > believe that the island is in the Nonestic anyway. Have you ever read some of the letters and notes regarding the placement of islands in the Nonestic? They had to cram so much in and make compromises to where things went that it is highly suspect that any of it is terribly accurate. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > _BAUM BUGLE_: > Eric wrote: > >Perhaps it should be called a journal ... > > Yes, "journal" sounds better than anything else. You have my permission > to change the word in my FAQ. :) Er, I guess this is as good a place as any to mention this: Folks, if you have suggestions or ideas or corrections for my FAQ, could you please e-mail them to me separately from the Digest? I shunt all my mail about the FAQ into a folder where I can deal with it when I get around to the additions/corrections, but once I've read and replied to the Digest I delete it. > >Eric "Laura's computer is down AGAIN!" Gjovaag > > Her computer is DOWN??? When then let's CHEER IT UP!!! :) :) :) Actually, by the time most of you read this, we hope to have it back up again. Small thing, the repair guy knows what to do and it will take just a few minutes, the problem is getting the time to get the computer to him. I just got an e-mail from Chris Dulabone. I've told him about this place. Dave, you should be hearing from him soon. --Eric Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 17:28:54 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest John White: Good point about the Santa Claus reference in _Isle of Yew_. As for Yew being civilized, it can be argued that such places as Noland, Ix, Regos and Coregos were "civilized" in the sense that they had cities, a strong central authority, etc. I always had a problem with King Gos in _Rinkitink_. he told his war captain that he did not believe in magic, yet he lived in Fairyland! My only answer is that his island was in a magical "cold spot", and thus had a very low level of magical energy. Dave and Robin (the Oz chess set): True, the commercial one will probably have to be based on the MGM movie, so that people will know what they're seeing, but we could still probably do one on a limited scale at a slightly higher cost for book-heads. By the way, this underscores that we still have a lot of work to do in the area of educating people about the full spectrum that is Oz. This leads to another announcement. My Web Page will *NOT* be included in the list of sites that kids on WOW! will be able to access. No reason was given, but I am assuming that the large number of "other links" that I have gave them fits. Maybe I will plug for the official IWOC page. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 21:52:16 -0500 (EST) From: swarkala@cris.com (Sharon Warkala) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-04-96 Bill W: I don't know if this is what you are looking for but I have the sheet music to the 1902 Wizard of Oz production published by M. Witmark & Sons. It has a photo of Montgomery and Stone on the cover and the songs from the play inside a few of which Baum wrote the lyrics for. I don't know how well this will copy but I could try if you are interested. If you want e-mail me privately with an address to send the copy to. Hope this helps. Chris Warkala ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 10:43:10 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: transformations Tyler Jones writes: > If the Adepts had never really practiced transformations, how could they > easily break Reera's? Because Reera's transformations are easily broken. Note that Reera was able to break Coo-ee-oh's transformations, which the adepts couldn't do themselves (or instruct Ervic to do). This could be explained if these enchantments were easier to break than to make. The Adepts had just enough knowledge to break Reera's transformations, and Reera had enough skill to break Coo-ee-oh's transformations. I believe that the Adepts never practiced transformations because of the comment by Glinda that no good sorceress would ever do such a thing. (from LAND) -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 11:58:46 -0500 From: David A Gerstein Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-96 ERIC: I have watched RETURN TO OZ's final sequence many times, and I really DON'T see Scraps or Tommy Kwikstep no matter how hard I try -- let alone isolated in what appear to be individual solo moments, as shown in the Eyles book. (It looks like Scraps is standing and reciting something, for example, although Tommy is just waving and standing there in what could be a posed publicity shot.) I don't think Disney owned all the Oz books when it made RETURN TO OZ -- in fact, I think they may have only owned the first eight or so. Meanwhile, Disney doesn't own them any more. I think Hanna-Barbera owns the rights... didn't they announce a series called "Oz Kids," with baby Scarecrow and Tin Woodman and Bastinda living in a nursery, or some such? It's been a long time since I've heard of the project. RINKITINK is my least favorite Oz book largely because, as I stated, it may be a good book, but it's a very bad OZ book. (A very good man, but a very bad Wizard!) MEANWHILE: From a few recent discussions, am I correct that THE WIZARD OF OZ 1902 play no longer exists complete?! If it was so popular, how have no scripts actually made it to the present day? Meanwhile, does the script for THE WOGGLE-BUG exist, and is it very obvious from reading it (if it survives) why it failed? I seem to recall reading in an old BAUM BUGLE that it had been revived at an Ozmapolitan Convention, so I guess it must survive, then -- or was it re-created in part? David Gerstein <96dag@williams.edu> ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 22:16:33 -0500 From: DAlbright1@aol.com Subject: Digests Michael, Bill and other Ozzy party planners, reports on kids parties make welcome contributions to The Oz Gazette! (and so easy to send on-line...) Barbara, The Oz Park is charging full speed ahead. I just contacted Lee Jenkins tonight about having Christine Baum (great-great-granddaughter) about attending Ozmopolitan to "walk" attendees throught the park by projecting scanned images of the attractions. Should be a fun presentation. Dan Mapes has been added to the staff to develop Oz cyberspace opportunities for Oz Resorts and Entertainment (the corporation's name). If you've heard of him, 'nough said. If not, he's a good choice. I photographed Bob Baum in front of a wonderful bronze sculpture that has been commisssioned to be produced life-sized on the park grounds. So when will it open? My bet 1999. IWOC purchased Eric Shanower's books from the original publishers. The supply we have is the same; we did not reprint them. In which book did Dorothy get her last name? Enesco makes a double-deck of playing cards in a decorated tin. MGM images are used, and I picked up a second set using different graphics -- but again a double deck in a tine -- at the Emerald City Gift Shop at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas earlier this week. Standard cards, or course, not a game. Oz chess setsd do exist. The Saratoga Mint Ltd., made a pewter one in 1989. See page 85 of the Collector's Treasury. And I'm thinking the late MGM Munchkin Fern Formica might have madeone in ceramic. The coronation sequence in Return to Oz is too short, but it's there. The use of later characters was due in part to the comany's hope the RTO would be a success and more sequels would follow. More the pity. Born and raised in Topeka, Kansas, MY memorable third grade report on a famous state's son was about US Vice President Charles Curtis -- the only Native American to hold that title. Jane Albright ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 20:30:37 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: To all listeners on this Ozzy Digest. It would be most useful to those of us who are hosting Ozzy websites to know how many of you have browsers, what their capabilities are, and your plans to upgrade to the latest version of web browsers. The reason is that there are many new features now available for us to use in crafting the pages on the websites. If we can use these new features we will be able to make the websites more useful and fun. But there isn't much use in doing that if most people don't have (and/or don't plan to have) the latest browsers. To collect this info I have added a survey form to my website. It would be most appreciated if those of you with browsers would pay a visit and fill in the form. It will only take a minute, just a few questions. (Please note that there is nothing on the form that collects any personal info, not even your name.) I will be posting the results of the feedback I receive on a weekly basis for the next 4 to 6 weeks, so everyone will get a picture of what the visitors to Ozzy websites have in the way of browsers. The url to go to is http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/bsurvey.htm also, you can get them from my home page url as well. For those of you without browsers, please send me an email and I will send you an email version of the survey if you would like to participate. thanks, Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Friday 05-Apr-96 23:38:52 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Hello! Hi folks! Not much comment from your Digest editor today, except to welcome our new members this week, including Chris Dulabone. Hi Chris! :) -- Dave "My shortest message ever!" Hardenbrook ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 7, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE! :) :) :) -- Dave ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 06:03:25 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-06-96 Gee, we're getting good at thos brevity thing now! This was one of the shortest Digests I've read in a long while! > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > John White: > Good point about the Santa Claus reference in _Isle of Yew_. As for Yew > being civilized, it can be argued that such places as Noland, Ix, Regos > and Coregos were "civilized" in the sense that they had cities, a strong > central authority, etc. Emerald City. Ozma. Does that make Oz civilized? Not according to the Good Witch of the North! Her definition seems to be that if magic is still widely acknowledged and believed in, a land is uncivilized. THAT was the reasoning I was using. > I always had a problem with King Gos in _Rinkitink_. he told his war > captain that he did not believe in magic, yet he lived in Fairyland! There are many people in OUR world who believe that the world is flat, that the sun travels around the Earth, that there is a hanging man in the Tin Woodman's forest in the movie, that Shirley Temple was the first choice to play Dorothy, etc., etc., despite all evidence to the contrary. A lot like Gos in that aspect, no? > My only answer is that his island was in a magical "cold spot", and thus > had a very low level of magical energy. That could also be, most of the outer Nonestic islands in the Baum books don't seem to be all that magical. It could also be that, living in a fairyland, he had a higher level of what magic is to believe in in the first place! I mean, he knows about the Nomes, doesn't he? > From: David A Gerstein > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-05-96 > > I have watched RETURN TO OZ's final sequence many times, and I > really DON'T see Scraps or Tommy Kwikstep no matter how hard I try -- > let alone isolated in what appear to be individual solo moments, as > shown in the Eyles book. The solo shots in Eyles' book would NOT have been scenes grabbed from the movie, but specially-photographed solo shots used for publicity, research, archiving, etc. And to be honest, I haven't seen half the characters who are supposed to be in that scene myself (including Scraps and Tommy), despite all the times I've looked myself. There's just so much going on going by so fast that I'm sure it's easy to miss something. > I don't think Disney owned all the Oz books when it made > RETURN TO OZ -- in fact, I think they may have only owned the first > eight or so. No, it's been well documented that Disney owned the FILM rights to all thirteen of Baum's post-"Wizard" Oz books. There was an aticle in "The Baum Bugle" on Disney's attempts to make "The Rainbow Road to Oz" back in 1980 or '81, and it's clearly stated there. But of course now all those books are in public domain, and anybody can make an Oz movie out of them, which is why Disney rushed to put out "Return to Oz" before anybody else could. (Yeah, right, like there was a huge stampede to put out Oz movies as the rights to individual titles expired...) > Meanwhile, Disney doesn't own them any more. I think > Hanna-Barbera owns the rights... Hanna-Barbera bought the TELEVISION rights to the entire FF still under copyright at the time, yes. But of course as with the film rights, the TV rights have expired as the books have entered the public domain. It looks doubtful now that HB will do anything with their rights now, but it is still possible that sometime early next century we could see a cartoon series from them based on the Thompson books, for example... > didn't they announce a series called > "Oz Kids," with baby Scarecrow and Tin Woodman and Bastinda living in > a nursery, or some such? It's been a long time since I've heard of > the project. "The Little Wizard Stories of Oz" (I think that's the title) is being produced by Hyperion, using characters and stories from the Baum books now in the public domain. I saw some of these at last year's Winkie Convention, it looks good! And the news is that eight videocassettes will be out in August. > MEANWHILE: > From a few recent discussions, am I correct that THE WIZARD OF > OZ 1902 play no longer exists complete?! If it was so popular, how > have no scripts actually made it to the present day? The problem is, there were so MANY different versions -- songs and dance numbers were added and dropped at will, jokes changed to stay topical, I think entire characters were added and dropped -- that it would probably be nearly impossible to put together the one definitive version of that play for publication or performance. At least, nobody's tried it yet... > Meanwhile, does > the script for THE WOGGLE-BUG exist, and is it very obvious from > reading it (if it survives) why it failed? To answer your questions in the order asked, yes, and no. It's not that obvious why it failed. If anything, it's a tighter, more controlled script than "Wizard" that holds together better (from what I've heard of "Wizard"). But coming so close after "Wizard" debuted and being so similar, despite the absence of the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman, it failed to impress the critics, and thus the audiences stayed away. > I seem to recall reading > in an old BAUM BUGLE that it had been revived at an Ozmapolitan > Convention, so I guess it must survive, then -- or was it re-created > in part? I saw at Winkies a few years ago as well. I think that was an adaptation of the existing script. > From: DAlbright1@aol.com > Subject: Digests > > In which book did Dorothy get her last name? She actually got it in the 1902 play, but it debuted in the series in "Ozma of Oz." --Eric Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 07:58:11 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Jane: >Dan Mapes has been added to the staff to develop Oz cyberspace opportunities for Oz >Resorts and Entertainment (the corporation's name). Last year I ran across the address of an Oz Resorts and Entertainment Inc in Los Angeles, with the names of Robert B. Kury and Gus Fasone as the heads of it. Is this the same company? Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 10:51:28 -0500 From: RMorris306@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-06-96 Hi everyone! This has been a very busy few days for me (apparently for a lot of people; the Digests are shorter), so I've got to make this brief. Welcome to Chris D. and David G., the latter of whom I've already talked to in the Disney Comics Digest. It's fascinating when interests coincide, but not too surprising. There are a lot of parallels between L. Frank Baum and Walt Disney, now that I think if it! Each was a mustached Midwesterner who ultimately relocated to Southern California, and each created characters beloved the world over both by children and the Young in Heart of all ages. Each was a master in his field, but also loved scientific advances small businesses, especially advances in movie technology. And each achieved his earliest success in collaboration with a very talented artist with whom he later quarrelled (W.W. Denslow and Ub Iwerks): both artists were thought by many at the time to be the true geniuses of the collaboration, but neither proved to have the genius in all areas of his erstwhile partners. Of course, the main difference is that Walt Disney had a better business sense (or maybe he, unlike Baum, was lucky enough to have a brother who did), so he did much better outside his original chosen field than Baum, whose ventures led him to one-time bankruptcy. Even Baum's outside successes ("The Show Window," the Wizard of Oz play) had less enduring value than Disney's outside projects like Disneyland. That, no doubt, is why the Walt Disney Company is still a powerhouse that bought ABC, but there's no L. Frank Baum Company today... Eric wrote: <> I'm a relative newcomer to the Ozzy Digest, so I haven't. I noticed even the cartographers admitted fudging a few of Baum's descriptions when they didn't affect the story (he'd said Pingaree was near the Isle of Phreex, but they never interacted in any book I know of, so they moved it for other reasons). Of course, Yew isn't on the same continent as Oz... it's not on any continent, being an island. Actually, I'd guess Yew in the early 20th century was a lot like Pingaree, or even more like Regos and Coregos...a place where magic was sufficiently rare that some people (like King Gos) didn't even belive in it. Baum devoted the entire first chapter of that book to explaining why he'd set it over a century in the past. David G. wrote: <> Nobody owns the rights any more! Even with the extensions of copyright law, copyrights expire after 75 years, so the last of Baum's books has fallen into public domain as of last January. That's why so many people are doing Oz projects these days. (Ironically, that's one area where a retroactive reading of copyright law, rejected by Congress, would have hurt the copyright...since the post-1978 law drops a work into public domain 50 years after the author's death, so all Baum's books would have gone out of copyright back in 1969. On the other hand, Thompson's books would have been protected until 2025, rather than, as will soon happen, falling gradually into public domain just like Baum's.) Jane wrote: <> OZMA OF OZ, though it had been used in the play (where she described herself as "one of the Kansas Gales") before that. Before I go, my favorite Oz books: BAUM: 1. Lost Princess 2. Rinkitink (sorry, David!) 3. Ozma THOMPSON: 1. Wishing Horse 2. Jack Pumpkinhead 3. Lost King A final note: on rereading a lot of the books since discovering the Digest, I've wondered why Thompson always seems a lot quicker to send her heroes (very few heroines, unlike Baum's...though maybe she figured she couldn't improve on Trot, Betsy or especially Dorothy, so usually used them instead) back home a lot faster than Baum. I mean, when I was a kid, if I'd had a chance to visit the Land of Oz, I'd want to stay there for as long as I possibly could (for that matter, I still would, though usually the only adults who get to visit Oz are senior citizens). But Peter always wanted to get back for baseball practice, and even though he promised Belfaygor to pay him an extended visit next time he was in Oz, he didn't keep that promise in PIRATES. Tsk, tsk... Rich Morrissey ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 12:26:22 -0500 From: DAlbright1@aol.com Subject: Digest post The Wonderful World of Oz theme park may reopen opportunities to "make money on Oz," described as near impossible in a recent Oz digest. And the Baum family was recently encouraged to beginning thinking in terms of developing products that could bear the endorsement of an Oz Trust logo. No telling what the future will bring.... I understood that Disney bought the rights to the Baum books in 1956. Aside: Another Oz/Disney comic of interest is the Gold Key Comic Book "The Wizard of Bahs" from 1966. The Oz parody features Daisy Duck as Dorothy. Is the proposed Hanna Barbera production of "Oz babies" actualy the Hyperion series about the Oz Kids, or another? I show that HB purchased animation rights to 34 Oz books in 1987, but don't know that they ever did anything with them. Does anyone know if the Mother Goose stories Jim Henson did off of Baum's Mother Goose in Prose can be purchased on tape? Can anyone recommend someone to me with lots of knowledge/resources about "The Wiz" stage and film or "Return to Oz"? I need to add information about them to the Oz Timeline, but my first choice sources (Dave Maxine and Tricia Trozzi, respectively) haven't come through yet, and I'm feeling pressed for time. Let me know. Thanks, Jane ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 13:57:12 -0500 (EST) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy DIgest _The Enchanted Isle of Yew_: Is it, or isn't it, in Oz? From the evidence amassed to date, I just can't offer an opinion either way. However, for the sake of continuity, IMHO, we should just assume that it IS in Oz, in case anybody ever wants to write a story about people from Yew going to Oz. IMO, the people mentioned in the story would have long since died of old age, but the Isle itself may still be there. On the Oz CCG: This would be just one more way of getting the word out. Little things add up and every effort we can make should be explored. John White: Touche. The Adepts were not much on transformations, and Reera herself could only perform very weak, temporary ones. This underscores the fact that not all magic-workers with the same title have equal powers. Mrs. Yoop's enchantments took quite a bit of effort on the part of Ozma to break in _Tin Woodman_. David Gerstein: Okay, I believe I "get it", that you just did not like that fact that this book had virtually no connection to Oz itself, except for the part that was artificially tacked on at the end. Have you ever read _Captain Salt in Oz_? Dave Chris: Not much more to say, but Chris Dulabones presence on the Digest is long overdue. Now, all I have to do is send Chris the 3 megs of previous digests! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :-) --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 11:47:04 -0800 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Don't remember who asked recently when did Dorothy's last name Gale first appear. I did a search of all of Baum's books since 1899 for Dorothy's last name, and the following are the only occurrences of _Gale_. Ozma of Oz: appears in the title notes, Chapter 1 (twice), Chapter 2 (twice), Chapter 6 (3 times), Chapter 7 (once) Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz: Chapter 1 (once) Road to Oz: appears in the title notes Emerald City of Oz: Chapter 2 (once), Chapter 3 (once) Patchwork Girl of Oz: Chapter 14 (once) That's it. And the name Gale never appears in any other context other than Dorothy's last name. So the answer is: Gale first appeared in 1907 in the third book of the Oz series. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 20:39:56 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: MOPPeTs.... No particular order here: I don't think Lurline completely stopped death and aging in Oz. At most maybe cut down on the different ways living creatures could die. And aging was made optional. A little different than stopping it entirely. There is some prince in one of the RPT books who spent several years as an infant until he tired of it and then decided to age himself to seventeen or thereabouts. MOPPet is that her spell was mainly to act as a way to preserve the particular "specialness" of the land surrounded by the deserts and wasn't intended to freeze it and keep it from changing, as that would have interfered too much with the natural order. Which is not to say that others for whatever reasons couldn't have messed with the spell, resulting in Neill's "stop-aging age of ten" and other temporary temporal anomalies. Messing with pre-existing magical charms seems to be something of a hobby in Oz. Witness the changing powers of the Magic Belt. Aaron's magical "hotspots" rather nicely explain the lack of magic in some of the Borderlands and the Nonestic Islands. Remember also the different reports about the Deserts of Oz. Getting back to Lurline, I can't see the various Masters of the World, let alone the Supreme Master, allowing her to grant immortality to such a large population base even if she had the power on her own to do so. In other news: issue ten of Oz Squad is out. In the story entitled "Pastoria" we get something of a resolution of Smith & Tinker's Time Train storyline and get to see the climactic battle of the Witches' Rebellion against King Pastoria. Nice mix of "heresy" and "canon" with a shocker of an ending that will not endear this comic to Dave, Aaron, Un-Bear, and a lot of others. But that's okay. ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 22:50:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Assorted Things Howdy! For the past several days I've been too busy helping my mother with Passover preparations and after that religious restictions have kept me away from the computer. I just managed to read my E-mail for the first time in half a week. Expect me to send out a longer post in the morning, but for the moment I'd like to say: 1) The Woozy's name on this digest has been reported to be Gwomokolotolint according to Laumer, and it has been written so in the latest version of The Woozy of Oz. However, I'm about halfway through The Wooden Soldiers of Oz (Laumer's Translation of Urfin Jus and His Wooden Soldiers) and one of the characters is an owl named Gwommokolahtokint. This leads me to suspect that an error was made somewhere, so someone who has whatever Laumer book has the Woozy's name, please double check it for me. If it turns out that the Woozy really isn't named (as I now suspect, I'll just have to come up with with a name so horrible that Garudiprostrella is more than justified in threating to transform her husband Hiergargo the Magician into an African clawed frog if he dares give their youngest (magically created) child (the Queasy) a name anywhere near that bad. (Note: Fortunately, Hiergargo did decide to name the Queasy Sue. And all this stuff about Hiergargo, Garudiprostrella, and Sue is MOPPeT which will show up sooner or later in Lurline's Machine, probably in a book named something like The Queasy in Oz.) 2) A class of magic to be added to the list which was not mentioned: transportation, which is subdivided into instantaneous, via artificial passage (such as Hiergargo's magic holes), and noninstantaneous (such as using the Magic Umbrella). COme to think of it, control of animate and inanimate objects should be in such a list as well. 3) An Oz chess set is a cool idea, but I would have "good" characters on one side and "bad" characters on the other. For the "bad" side I would reccommend Ruggedo (king), Mombi (queen), Bastinda and Gingemma (bishops), Guph and Blinkie (knights), Gos and Cor (rooks), and for pawns= I'd reccomend an assortment of Growleywogs, Whimsies, Phanfasms, and Scoodlers. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 20:01:48 -0800 From: ozbot@ix.netcom.com (Daniel C. Wall) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest Happy Easter everybody! FILM RIGHTS-- Discussing Disney's RtoOz, it seemed that the execs were worried that their rights to film would be lost. I guess I'm confused (and NOT a Hollywood bigwig) but why the issue if most of the Oz stuff is Public Domain? <<>> BTW, I love the film, RETURN. Mostly it had to do with the fact that it was the first film I ever saw on my own. You know, actually going to the theater on my bike and paying by myself, with no parental assistance. I got to curl up in my own seat, and gaze up at the clay-mation gnomes. It was engaging and scary enough to allow me really feel more grown-up, and fanciful enough to allow me to look at Oz beyond John R. Neil. I always want Tiktok in bronze, just like the movie. <<>> I've been thinkin', wasn't there a saturday morning cartoon series (CBS?) that featured MGM-like Oz characters two or three years ago? Does anybody remember and/or have videos? It seemed to me that the cartoon world included more of the book world than the film, actually. But then again, at the time I was more interested in sleeping in than anything else. One more thing, I found the BoW editions of WIZARD, LAND, etc. at SuperCrown (Bargain hunter's note-- buy them here!) I can't believe I've been content with the Dover publications! What do the rabbits of Bunnybury think of all the chocolate rabbits that will be bitten into today? Until Ruggedo goes Easter-egg hunting, Danny ============================================================================= Date: Sunday 07-Apr-96 00:35:38 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things ERIC: I never though about this before...Seems like a good story line: Oz has some "Flat-Earthers" who don't believe in magic or fairies! OZZY CHESS SET: Aaron wrote: >3) An Oz chess set is a cool idea, but I would have "good" characters on >one side and "bad" characters on the other. I know it's common in chess sets of characters to put the good guys on one side (usually white) and the bad guys on the other (usually black). I personally am opposed to this scheme becuase it immediatly biases players, spectators, etc. against the "bad" side, IMHO. I prefer my layout which represents a friendly match between (roughly) Emerald City citizens vs. Folks from Ozian countryside and elsewhere. -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 8, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 08:16:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-96 > From: DAlbright1@aol.com > Subject: Digest post > > Does anyone know if the Mother Goose stories Jim Henson did off of Baum's > Mother Goose in Prose can be purchased on tape? They WERE at one point, I know that, but whether or not they can all be found now, that's another story. (I just wish some non-premium cable channel will show them.) > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy DIgest > > On the Oz CCG: > This would be just one more way of getting the word out. Little things > add up and every effort we can make should be explored. But as has been pointed out here before, the CCG market is getting glutted right now, and unless something is a VERY hot property probably won't get noticed at all. I'm just daydreaming, is all... > From: Michael F Burns > Subject: MOPPeTs.... > > In other news: issue ten of Oz Squad is out. There's also a note in there saying that this will be the last issue for a while, and that when it returns, it will be a new series, starting with #1. Also, they are going to try to get the original #1-#4 published in a trade paperback. > From: ozbot@ix.netcom.com (Daniel C. Wall) > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest > > FILM RIGHTS-- > Discussing Disney's RtoOz, it seemed that the execs were worried > that their rights to film would be lost. I guess I'm confused (and NOT > a Hollywood bigwig) but why the issue if most of the Oz stuff is Public > Domain? Well, it WASN'T all PD in 1985, was it? I think Disney just wanted to be first with a major Oz project, before the rights ALL ran out and everybody gave it a shot. Yeah, like THAT really happened... > I've been thinkin', wasn't there a saturday morning cartoon series > (CBS?) that featured MGM-like Oz characters two or three years ago? ABC, based on the movie, with full cooperation from Turner, produced by DIC, ran during the 1990-91 season, thirteen episodes. > Does anybody remember and/or have videos? It seemed to me that the > cartoon world included more of the book world than the film, actually. Some episodes have been released on video, but I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find any of them now. But it was DEFINITELY based on the movie, and actually almost nothing from the books (although there were some ideas that were close). > What do the rabbits of Bunnybury think of all the chocolate rabbits > that will be bitten into today? Well, at least the Easter Bunny and his crew (as visited in "Merry Go Round in Oz") can rest for a few days now before starting it all up again in preparation for next year. I just got a bunch of "Talking to Tik-Tok" questions from Jane, and folks, some of these I'm going to need help with! So I'll be forwarding something to Dave soon (maybe today). --Eric "Man, kids these days..." Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 11:57:03 -0400 From: RMorris306@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 4-7-96 Hi again! Eric wrote: <<[Many people erroneously believe] that there is a hanging man in the Tin Woodman's forest in the movie, that Shirley Temple was the first choice to play Dorothy, etc., etc., despite all evidence to the contrary.>> Well, a BAUM BUGLE article some years ago said the Sawhorse was there, but I never heard anything about a hanging man. I'm quite sure Temple was at least considered for Dorothy at one point, but I don't think she was the first choice. <> That's something somebody should do, then! At least put together ONE version of the play from whatever time, which would be at least as authentic as any other. For similar I don't think there's a single definitive version of OH, CALCUTTA!, but that doesn't mean a script can't be obtained (assuming anyone wants to)... Michael B. wrote: <> That wasn't an anomaly--simply a custom in that particular family (which seemed a bit unusually rigid to me). Number Nine seemed to age a year or so after he went off on his own. Danny wrote: <> Though I'd guess from the evidence that you're younger than I am, I have my own nostalgic memories of seeing that movie. I got together with a group of New York City comics fans, and bought tickets to see it at Radio City Music Hall, where it was preceded by a Disney stage show. The show itself had a bit of interesting history, since the Rockettes had been a bit peeved at being displaced from their traditional position as *the* live entertainment at Radio City. If memory served, they'd threatened to go on strike before a settlement was reached, so they not only got to perform at Walt Disney World, but they also were incorporated into the show in New York. You haven't lived until you've seen Mickey Mouse on stage with the Rockettes! (The show featured mostly the characters from Disney's earlier animated features...excepting Peter Pan, interspersed via movie scenes, no doubt because he was the one Disney character who *originated* in a stage play and couldn't be used in that medium. But it had an Ozzy conclusion nonetheless, with Mickey facing a Wicked Witch...either from SNOW WHITE or SLEEPING BEAUTY, I forget which...and melting her by reenacting his spell from FANTASIA!) For the movie itself, I was sitting next to DC writer/editor E. Nelson Bridwell (a trivia expert and Oz fan, now sadly deceased, who later wrote that company's OZ-WONDERLAND WAR series). He mentioned Tik-Tok, even more in the Neill illos than in the movie, looking exactly like Jerry Colonna (a comedian who, sad to say, was before my time), and laughed his head off at the Gump's line, "I should have quit while I was a head." <> He looked like copper (as Baum said) to me, but if I recall right, bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. (Visions of an OZ SQUAD-like melting of Tik-Tok and the Tin Woodman together here...) But didn't Baum actually have a Bronze Man somewhere else, perhaps in Mo? <> Perhaps you're thinking of TALES OF THE WIZARD OF OZ, a cartoon series going back to the '60's or late '50's. It took the characters from Baum's first book (perhaps the only one in public domain at the time), and gave them names: Socrates Strawman, Rusty Tinman, and (a name clearly inspired by the lyrics of Bert Lahr's song) Dandy Lion. Although undercutting some of Baum's classic dichotomy (Socrates and Dandy really *did* come off as stupid and cowardly, though Rusty had a bit more complexity), and turning the Munchkins into a race of babble-talking vegetable people like the Mangaboos, it was actually better than one might think, populating Oz with places like a land of living tomatoes and Topsy Turvy Land (where people walked upside down) that wouldn't have been out of place in a Baum book. (True, it also put things like cars and elections in Oz, but even *that* was no worse than Neill.) Unfortunately, the only video I know if the series was its vastly inferior attempt at a feature, RETURN TO OZ, which cribbed its plot direct from the MGM movie with little or no changes. Dave H. wrote: <> Not necessarily: some of us have a sneaking fondness for the "bad" guys. Remember what Peter Glassman had to say about his concern with the kids who read GLASS CAT emulating, not the heroes, but the Bad Lads? (And in Oz, even the "bad" guys really aren't all that bad.) Happy (belated) Easter! Rich Morrissey ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 13:27:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Eric: What is civilized? I guess Locasta and I have different ideas as to what that means. Locasta obviously means civilization as more of an attitude than technological advance. On King Gos: Perhaps, like people in some series, he believed in magical things, but did not believe that normal humans could actually cast spells. Aaron: The Woozy's name is my fault. Upon further review of _Aunt Em and Uncle Henry in Oz_, I found that the Woozy and the Sawhorse (who definitely IS named Lignum) were talking TO Gwommokolatokint. My fault, and I applogize. I do not believe that Laumer gave the Woozy a name after all, so have at it! On the Oz Chess set: At first, I also wanted a "good vs. evil" matchup, but Dave has a point about that creating a hostile atmosphere that is un-Ozzy. A mixture of EC vs non-EC would create a competitive spirit, but would not be harsh. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 17:02:18 -0400 From: David A Gerstein Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-96 DANNY: "I've been thinkin', wasn't there a saturday morning cartoon series (CBS?) that featured MGM-like Oz characters two or three years ago?" It was called "The Wizard of Oz". Yes, I (choke!) remember. "It seemed to me that the cartoon world included more of the book world than the film..." Be glad you slept through most of the episodes then, as you reported having done! In the episodes I saw, Bastinda was the villain every time, usually putting the Wizard in danger ("Off to Save the Wizard" was the usual cry). And how did Bastinda survive meltdown? Her Winged Monkeys, known for their great intelligence, somehow figured out how to bring her back. I remember reading an interview with some of the people behind the show... they stated that since most people didn't know anything about Oz beyond the MGM film, why try to give them anything but what they're familiar with? The show was, I think, just a series of Dorothy-Bastinda conflicts taking place, somehow, immediately after WIZARD's plot. I remember my disappointment... David Gerstein <96dag@williams.edu> "What did the Woggle-Bug say?" ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 17:38:09 -0400 (EDT) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Stupid MGM-Like Oz Cartoons Yes, Danny, there was such a cartoon series a few years ago, with the appearance of the characters changed just enough so that MGM wouldn't sue. I did not watch very much of it, but from the title sequence I gather they had Bastinda being recreated from a straw effigy by the Winged Monkeys and the Wizard and Dorothy going back to Oz prematurely. Any resemblance to the books was coincidental, and like most cartoon series, it did not hold my interest. Instead of a chess set of goodies versus baddies, how about, say, Ozites versus Moites. The King and Queen could be, well, you know, Thinkabit and the Wise Donkey could be the bishops, Jollikin and Truella could be the knights, Pattycake and Prince could be the rooks, and for pawns you could use a grab bag of any other minor characters that appear (the yellow hen, the fox, the one wise man, etc.) Michael, after Aaron's bit of misinformation (that Mombi was Ozma's mother), I doubt anything Oz Squad could put out would be a shocker. Come to think of it, Tyler, I was thinking of having someone from Yew show up in the _Lurline's Machine_ series, namely the Red Rogue. (Like any of the other good characters would be alive when the story occurs, save, of course, the fairy formerly known as Prince Marvel. "And he joined the Army and became a captain..." ) Has anyone in a non-FF book spilled the beans yet about what sex Chick the Cherub is? (Not that I would do such a thing; that would be un-Baumian!) One of scenes Aaron and I generated in which he/she appears (as an androgynous adult in pajamas, of course) depends on this ambiguity to work, and I would be very put out if someone decided things one way or the other and undermined the scene. (Dave: But it's not in the FF, so it doesn't carry as much weight.) Oh, to a friend of mine who just joined the Digest, HI EMILY! ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 17:50:37 -0700 From: ozbot@ix.netcom.com (Daniel C. Wall) Subject: re: Ozzy Digest Oz Collectable Card Game (CCG) going. I have been talking it over with some of my friends (not Oz-philes, though, *sigh*) who are into CCG's. Most of the difficultly is in trying to get it produced, (the layout and publishing) although the designing and playing-testing would be fun! Distribution would be hard, too, although setting up booths at game conventions and stuff would be possible. Aside from all of that, though, I became concerned about the practicality of designing an Oz game this way. What I mean is, 99.9% of the CCG's are based on combat or at least competion between two or more players-- whoever is left standing is the winner. Is this really the way we want Oz to be portrayed? For example, unless you have one person play villans and the other heroes, you are going to have Dorothy and Ozma competing/fighting each other! And the villans shouldn't win, right? We came up with a few alternative ideas, though. 1-- Making some sort of overall objective to the game, like the OZIAN GAMES or puzzle cards that must be overcome as challenges. Then Dorothy or Ozma or even Billina could compete in game like Ozball or solve riddles such as finding buried treasure. 2-- There is a card game called ONCE UPON A TIME, which is more of a storytelling game as the players make up a fairy tale through the use of ideas and images that the cards bring up. Maybe an Ozzy version of this is needed. This way is probably better for kids of all ages. Overall, though, for all practical purposes, we would have to produce this on a limited basis, like word-of-mouth, and through IWOC and Oz conventions. Again, all of this has been just a taste of what my friends and I have talked about. So. . . Anybody interested? If there still is, maybe I could work something out. If nothing else, it'll get my friends involved in Oz! Until my own cat acts more friendly than Eureka, Danny ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 21:57:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-96 FAVES POLL: You're running out of time to vote for your favorite Oz books. If interested, e-mail me and tell me your top three Baum faves, top 3 Thompsons, and top three in the overall FF. I'll compile results and post 'em later this week. You do NOT have to have read all of the FF to vote, but if you haven't done so, please indicate how many you HAVE read when you e-mail your ballot. Thanks! ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 23:34:43 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc Eric Gjovaag writes: > Emerald City. Ozma. Does that make Oz civilized? Not according to the > Good Witch of the North! Let's see, Dorothy told Baum that Locasta told her that she (Locasta) believed that there were no magic workers in civilized countries. This same Locasta also thinks that Dorothy is a sorceress and that the Wizard is more powerful than all the other magic workers in Oz combined. I don't consider her beliefs about civilization to represent Baum's view. I note that in the same paragraph that Baum says that "Civilization had won the people" of Yew, he refers to Yew as the "Enchanted Island". His definition of "Civilization" seems to be that the people "no longer robbed or fought or indulged in magical arts". But these are clearly general statements. There are undoubtedly still a few thieves and magic workers around, just not very many, and the island itself is still "Enchanted". Tyler Jones writes: > Have you ever read _Captain Salt in Oz_? This is one of my least favorite Oz books of the FF. It's not about Oz at all, it has a very weak plot, it portrays Ozma as an expansionist dictator, it portrays Oz as so overcrowded that many of the places visited are better places to live, it implies that settlers from Oz are going to pour into these places and displace the native populations, and Captain Salt likes to abduct young children for his specimen collection. Michael F Burns writes: > Getting back to Lurline, I can't see the various Masters of the World, > let alone the Supreme Master, allowing her to grant immortality to such > a large population base even if she had the power on her own to do so. Why not? The Supreme Master created the Oz Universe as a fairyland and filled it with powers of both good and evil. The goal was clearly to make an interesting place where interesting events occur. Oz itself is a particularly interesting place where particularly interesting events occur, so the Supreme Master would be pleased to have such a place created. The Supreme Master might even have specifically asked Lurline to enchant Oz, and then gave her the power to do so. Incidentally, the Oz people do not have true immortality, as they can still be destroyed. But what they do have is still more than the immortals were able to bestow upon Santa Claus without using the Mantle. ozbot@ix.netcom.com (Daniel C. Wall) writes: > What do the rabbits of Bunnybury think of all the chocolate rabbits > that will be bitten into today? Oh, they don't mind. After all, one of their Easter customs is to eat carrots that are carved into the shape of humans. :-) -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 22:19:33 -0700 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Several folks on this Ozzy Digest have already responded to the browser survey (at url http://www.halcyon.piglet/bsurvey.htm). Thanks so much. Your responses brought to my attention that I did not have the latest version of the survey posted. There are two other important questions that were left off the version of the survey you filled in: one question dealing with the resolution of your display screen and the other addressing your capability to play audio files. Both of these are important to deciding how much to add into web pages. So if those of you who have already responded to the survey could take the opportunity to submit it again, it would be a great help. Sorry for the goof up. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sunday 07-Apr-96 22:34:30 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things TYLER: >What is civilized? I guess Locasta and I have different ideas as to what >that means. Locasta obviously means civilization as more of an attitude than >technological advance. MOOPeT is that the Ozites look down on such appurtenances of "civilization" as war, pollution, congestion, discrimination, selfishness, etc. etc. >On the Oz Chess set: ... >A mixture of EC vs non-EC would create a competitive spirit, but would >not be harsh. I agree. Any chess game in which the Ozites take part would be a friendly competeion more like the full-scale chess game in _Through the Looking Glass_. Barry also suggested Ozites vs. Mo-ites. Ozites vs. Everywhere-else-in- the-Baum-universe-ites (i.e. an alliance of Mo, Ev, Ix, etc.) is also a possibility...There are actually many ways one could do it. (I like EC Ozites vs. non-EC Ozites because it squeezes in as many Oz characters as possible.) And a Goodies vs. Baddies chess set isn't to my liking because as Danny said in a CCG context, "the villans shouldn't win". WIZARD OF OZ CARTOON: I've never seen this, except in the video store where it is clear from the blurb on the tape covers that it is always the _Wizard_ characters only and Bastinda (otherwise known as the Wicked Witch of the West) is always the antagonist. BARRY: >(Dave: But it's not in the FF, so it doesn't carry as much weight.) I am a definite proponent of the HACC, so you'll never hear ME make the above statement... :) NEWS FLASH: I've been talking to Chris Dulabone of Buckethead Enterprises, and though he wants to iron out some problems with me, he is enthusiastic about publishing _Locasta and the Three Adepts of Oz_!!! So Locasta may still at the moment be a MOPPeT, but it is soon to be promoted (assuming you accept HACC theory)! -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 9, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 14:34:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Barry: As far as I know, nobody has EVER put a definite label on Chick's gender. In fact, few if any other books mention Chick at all. Personally, I have always thought Chick was a girl, since all of Baums strong child characters are girls, but you never can tell. John White: Well, some people have theorized that Ozma charged Captain Salt with claiming lands in Ozma's name only to keep him out of trouble (he tried to be a pirate once, after all!) and had no real intention of moving in and taking over these other kingdoms. ***** SPOILER AND CRUCIAL PLOT INFO FOR CAPTAIN SALT IN OZ ***** I may have said this before, but I feel so strongly about it, that I must vent again. The one thing I really did not like about _Captain Salt_ was the final disposition of Ozamaland. Here we have a country that for hundreds of years has maintained a strong rulership and has been hidden away, secure in their isolation. In fact, nobody is even sure of where they are. "Olive O. Sudden", (non-Ozzy joke), they are informed that their independence is over and they are now under the control of somebody they have never heard of before who is thousands of miles away. "HURRAY" they all shout. They are overjoyed that their self-rule is at an end. This is very disappointing, although I still love the story. Dave: Thanks for your support of the HACC! :-) The HACC (and it's existing theories about Ozzy history) are fluid, with people and events bringing new knowledge of the tapestry of Oz. The jury is still out (my own personal jury, anwyay) on the officialness of non-FF books. However, I believe in only two possibilites. Either: 1. All books are equal, in and out of the FF as long as they are accurate to and build on those that have gone before. 2. The FF is the baseline of Ozzy history and all others are counted as accurate if they agree with this core. In other words, there are at most TWO levels of officialness and maybe only one. Other people divide Oz books into many levels: 1. The Baum 14 2. The rest of the FF 3. Non-FF by FF authors 4. Non-FF by non-FF authors published by the Oz club 5. Other non-FF --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 00:55:39 +0300 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-08-96 Hi people! Would you believe, I haven't written for a while because I had nothing to say? I just enjoy reading everyone else's comments. About Oz cartoons - they used to show a cartoon on Israeli TV, which I have never managed to learn much about. (I even tried calling the TV station once, to ask some details and find out whether I could purchase episodes on video, with frustrating results). I have managed to glean that it was originally produced in Japan. The episodes went on for ever and ever, and were not particularly interesting. The more or less followed the plots of the first three books, except they were adapted so that Dorothy was always the heroine. Ozma is the Wizard's daughter (!), and one of Dorothy's tasks, asides from killing the Wicked Witch, was to babysit Ozma (a nightmarish brat of a tomboy) and teach her more ladylike behaviour.Dorothy had long, auburn hair, which she always wore loose. The Tinwoodman was rather fat and rounded. Does this cartoon series ring a bell with anyone? |\ _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Gili Bar-Hillel, |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' avigailb@zoot.tau.ac.il '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat (c) by Felix Lee ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 21:57:11 +0000 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-08-96 1) "Gale"'s first appearance in a BOOK was "Ozma", but it is to be found in the 1904 "Ozmapolitan", issued in conjunction with "Land". // John W Kennedy -- Hypatia Software -- "The OS/2 Hobbit" ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 21:20:12 -0500 (EST) From: TMP_HARKINS@DIRAC.PHYSICS.JMU.EDU Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-08-96 Hi Dave (and other Ozzy friends)! Some stuff from recent digests I -had- to comment on... RE: an "Oz" fantasy role playing game. Doug Atkinson (whose e-mail address has since changed and left no forwarding address) has developed what I think is a wonderful write up of the Baum books (including some material from the non-Oz but magical Baum books) into what has been presented to me as an opportunity to do "Oz" as a fantasy role playing game for the GURPS system. In it's unedited form it is about half a megabyte or so of great Ozzy stuff, including an adventure that Doug came up with just for the book. I am doing some reality checking on this book (which in GURPS-ese means I'm seeing if it works in the GURPS system) and I've also done some preliminary work on seeing if there's any interest at Steve Jackson Games (the owner of GURPS) in such an attempt. I think it would be a wonderful opportunity to get younger people interested in both FRPG's and Oz - thus (as far as -I'm- concerned :^) killing two birds with one stone. Doug Atkinson, if you're out there reading this, PLEASE contact me ASAP! In other words - yes - it's possible. RE: an "Oz" Collectible Card Game. I'm dead set against the CCG format, but putting a card game together should be easy. I like the idea of using "Once Upon A Time" as an example, since it is not a CCG and contains -everything- you need to play. Yes, Magic: The Addiction (as I have come to call it :^) is popular, but in some circles it has come to represent the game that can be won by the person with the most money to spend on cards. This isn't the atmosphere -I- want for an "Oz" card game. RE: "Wizard of Oz" the Turner cartoon series. I got them all on tape in original run. Anyone who wants to trade tapes is welcome to contact me (he says as he prepares for the avalanche :^). I thought some of the episodes were very Ozzy, and some not. I was not happy with the fact that the Winged Monkeys bring the WWoW back, but some of the things in some of the episodes remind me of things in the few RPT books that I own. I was particularly fond of the "Fort Nutcracker" episode. YMMV. My tapes are on EP, but done on a really good four-head machine, and duped on a four-head machine, so they're first generation copies. Anyone who would like to discuss them with me is welcome to write. RE: the "canon". I need a list of the FF in order by the date of publication. In other words, I would like to know how the remaining "Oz" books might have been released by Del-Rey had Judy Lynn Del-Ray lived. Also, I'm tempted to agree with others and ask why the "official" canon stops with the 40th book. There should be a method by which we can add books to the "official" canon. RE: "Return to Oz". I rather liked it - it -looked- like I expected Oz to look like. Yes, it's too dark for young kids, but my 10-year-old loves it. In fact the only thing I didn't like about it was the fact that Disney chose to continue the "Oz is a dream" line-of-thought. If it hadn't been for that, it might have been better for me. Dave, this is rather long, so feel free to cut it into shorter sections if you like. Let me know if this arrives. Bruce ("Mr. B.") Gray "Official" FDC "Captain Nemo" (yes, I -do- have other interests than Oz :^) tmp_harkins@dirac.physics.jmu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Monday 08-Apr-96 23:53:43 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things WELCOME NEW MEMBERS!: Thanks to the continued efforts of Nate Barlow, we have a another influx of new members, and our membership has finally broken 100 and then some! Welcome to all our newcomers, including Ozzy Illustrator Melody Grandy! Note: Some of Nate's forwarded subscription requests go back about two months, so if I have inadvetently subscribed you when you're already subscribed (and you start receiving TWO copies of every Digest), or resubscribed someone who has unsubscribed, please let me know. BRUCE G. (OZZY GAMES): Thanks for the info! I hope Doug Atkinson is here and listening... :) The Famous Forty is listed in its entirety with publication dates both in my FAQ and Eric's. -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 10, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 06:35:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-08-96 > From: Eric Gjovaag > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-07-96 > > > From: DAlbright1@aol.com > > Subject: Digest post > > > > Does anyone know if the Mother Goose stories Jim Henson did off of Baum's > > Mother Goose in Prose can be purchased on tape? > > They WERE at one point, I know that, but whether or not they can all be > found now, that's another story. (I just wish some non-premium cable > channel will show them.) Of course as soon as I send this Laura and I finally watch the "Muppets Sing Along" tape for "Muppets' Treasure Island," and lo, one of the previews is for two tapes of "Jim Henson's Mother Goose Tales." Don't know what's on each one, however, or which were originally written by Baum, but they're probably out there somewhere. > From: RMorris306@aol.com > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 4-7-96 > > Hi again! > > Eric wrote: > > <<[Many people erroneously believe] that there is a hanging man in the Tin > Woodman's forest in the movie, that Shirley Temple was the first choice to > play Dorothy, etc., etc., despite all evidence to the contrary.>> > > Well, a BAUM BUGLE article some years ago said the Sawhorse was there, > but I never heard anything about a hanging man. It's never been brought up in the "Bugle", but if I had a dollar for every time I saw this story on the 'Net and had to try and explain it away, I'd be going to all three conventions this year... > I'm quite sure Temple was at > least considered for Dorothy at one point, but I don't think she was the > first choice. Which was EXACTLY my point in raising that now-common-but-incorrect belief in the first place... (BTW, even though Shirley Temple was considered at one point, and Mervyn LeRoy and Arthur Freed even went to Fox to see her at work, the trade papers at the time never mentioned her.) > < that featured MGM-like Oz characters two or three years ago? Does anybody > remember and/or have videos? It seemed to me that the cartoon world included > more of the book world than the film, actually. But then again, at the time > I was more interested in sleeping in than anything else.>> > > Perhaps you're thinking of TALES OF THE WIZARD OF OZ, a cartoon series > going back to the '60's or late '50's. No, I have both episodes of "Tales" and the 1990-91 cartoon series. They're quite different. > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: Stupid MGM-Like Oz Cartoons > > Yes, Danny, there was such a cartoon series a few years ago, with the > appearance of the characters changed just enough so that MGM wouldn't sue. Not true! The cartoon was made under the auspices of Ted Turner, who now owns the movie. Besides, the inclusion of the music and ruby slippers would make it possible for MGM to sue (if they still owned the rights), and the characters were quite obviously meant to be charicatures of the movie cast. This is especially apparent with the Tin Man, Lion, and Wicked Witch, IMHO. (But since when did the Wizard sport a big bushy mustache?) > I > did not watch very much of it, but from the title sequence I gather they had > Bastinda... Can we PLEASE stop using this name as shorthand for the Wicked Witch of the West? This is a Volkovism, and has nothing to do with Baum's Oz. (Anyone who brings up March Laumer, I'll counter with two arguments, (1) He stole it from Volkov, and (2) his books, good as they are, are not part of the general Oz continuity, as he changes too much to suit his own purposes.) This is ESPECIALLY jarring in relationship with the MGM movie (and fifty years after-the-fact cartoon series), as that is QUITE clearly not the same Wicked Witch of the West as in the book. > Has anyone in a non-FF book spilled the beans yet about what sex Chick the > Cherub is? Nope. I don't even think Chick's shown up in any Oz book, outside of "The Road to Oz." Look, everyone, just forget I ever brought up the idea of an Oz CCG, okay? Everybody seems to think it's going to be produced in mass quantities, and that's NOT what I had in mind at all, so let's just drop it. > From: jnw@vnet.net > Subject: misc > > Eric Gjovaag writes: > > Emerald City. Ozma. Does that make Oz civilized? Not according to the > > Good Witch of the North! > > Let's see, Dorothy told Baum that Locasta told her that she (Locasta) > believed that there were no magic workers in civilized countries. > This same Locasta also thinks that Dorothy is a sorceress and that the > Wizard is more powerful than all the other magic workers in Oz combined. > I don't consider her beliefs about civilization to represent Baum's view. Okay, fine! Everybody else here is so OBVIOUSLY right that I MUST be wrong, and Oz IS a civilized country, so Yew MUST be a part of the same place, despite no evidence of that outside of a latter-day map re-working some tenuous geography. My opinions are so obviously out of the mainstream -- I think there's only one Good Witch of the North, for instance, her name was Tattypoo, and Locasta is a name Baum created for a non-canonical stage show, to name but one -- but everybody is so sure it's right that it MUST BE, and don't you realize that, Eric? Fine! I will now no longer give ANY of my opinions on this Digest! If you must disagree with me, fine, I don't care, and never have. I just try to point out some other possibilities, but everybody's mind seems to be so closed to any possibility but their MOPPeTs that it doesn't matter, does it? --Eric "Yeah, yeah, just letting off some steam..." Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 06:48:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-96 Gee, they're even shorter when *I'M* not in it... > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > The jury is still out (my own personal jury, anwyay) on the officialness of > non-FF books. However, I believe in only two possibilites. Either: > > 1. All books are equal, in and out of the FF as long as they are accurate to > and build on those that have gone before. Even though the vast majority of non-FF books were not published by Reilly and Lee under the auspices of the Baum Trust, printed in such small quantities as to be nearly impossible for casual readers to find (most being vanity publications available only via mail order doesn't help), and there's no coordination between authors? Sorry, I don't buy it. Oh, sorry, that's my opinion, I must be wrong. > 2. The FF is the baseline of Ozzy history and all others are counted as > accurate if they agree with this core. How about mine? 3. The FF is the one set of books we should all agree on as being true Oz history, and so as not to confuse anyone any mention of others should be avoided. Oh, sorry, my opinion again. Must be wrong. > From: Gili Bar-Hillel > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-08-96 > > About Oz cartoons - they used to show a cartoon on Israeli TV, which I > have never managed to learn much about. (I even tried calling the TV > station once, to ask some details and find out whether I could purchase > episodes on video, with frustrating results). [rest of description snipped] Sounds like it MIGHT be the Cinar series produced in Canada in the mid-80's, but I doubt it. > From: TMP_HARKINS@DIRAC.PHYSICS.JMU.EDU > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-08-96 > > Also, I'm tempted to agree with > others and ask why the "official" canon stops with the 40th > book. There should be a method by which we can add books to > the "official" canon. Well, there isn't. Get over it, or resurrect Reilly and Lee and make a deal with the Baum family. --Eric "I'm sorry you've all had to deal with my oh-so-incorrect opinions in this rag" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 10:50:01 -0400 From: RMorris306@aol.com Subject: Re: Recent Ozzy Digests Hi again! A few more to catch up on... Barry writes: <> You might not even need the pajamas! If you don't mind too much the Neill/Shanower tradition of interspersing more modern looks into Oz and the neighboring lands, Chick could have an outfit much like one often sees today: hair long but not too long, and shirt and pants baggy enough to conceal any sex differences. Even the voice (though that wouldn't be a factor in a book) might fall into that ambiguous range between alto and tenor that many people of both sexes (myself included!) seem to end up in. Come to think of it, that outfit wouldn't be all that different from pajamas anyway! Tyler writes: <> Possibly just as well. A few Oz characters, especially animals, just seem to work better without names. The Cowardly Lion never had one, at least not in the FF. Thompson did have a try at it in her very last (and, IMHO, worst) non-FF book, THE ENCHANTED ISLAND OF OZ: (Humpty Bumpty the Camel is singing.) "Happy Birthday, dear Cowy/Happy Birthday to you!" "COWY? Oh, I like that!" beamed the Cowardly Lion. "Now I have a real name like everyone else!" Well, *I* don't. (Not that I'm about to argue with a Lion, even an ostensibly Cowardly one.) Thompson did seem unfortunately partial to names ending in "y," like Reddy, Herby, Benny, and so on. Sometimes they worked (Speedy, Pinny Penny, Happy Toko, High Boy), but over the course of a lot of books it's just a bit repetitive... <> Opinions always seem to vary! David Hulan was equally convinced s/he was a boy, because s/he had so much of a sense of mischief. True, Chick was played on stage by an actress, but so were most of Baum's children who made it to the stage, even the boys (not just Tip and Prince Marvel, who were transformed females, but Ojo and Button-Bright as well). Inga in RINKITINK is certainly a strong boy character, as is Kiki Aru in MAGIC (you didn't say they had to be *good* characters), but with their androgynous names and long hair, one suspects Baum would have had them played on stage by women as well... Michael Turniansky writes: <> Maybe so, but your brother always used to claim it was his (then) Congressman, Tip O'Neill. (Off the subject? Well, at least the *name* is an Ozzy one...) On the subject of Ozma and Dorothy, I never saw them as any more than two close friends. I certainly wouldn't equate their relationship (as someone did a couple of weeks or so ago) to a boy's crush on a (female) schoolteacher, since in the latter situation it's at least theoretically possible he *might* grow up and marry her. I'm sure a lot of boys had such thoughts, though only a few managed to carry them out. Newt Gingrich did, even if the ultimate results were apparently less than satisfactory. (Hey, if I'm going to mention politicians here, I can at least be bipartisan when it comes to Speakers of the House!) In fact, it's interesting that most of the powerful magic users in the Oz universe seem to be single and unattached. Glinda, the Wizard, the Red Jinn, Ozma (pre-Dan), Mombi, Blinkie, Locasta, the Adepts, Coo-ee-oh, Queen Zixi, Reera... all single and apparently celibate. Possibly Oz magic works like the "laran" on Marion Zimmer Bradley's planet Darkover--using the same channels as the normal sex drive and largely superseding it. True, there are some married magic users, but most of them are either minor figures (Gayelette, Dr. Pipt, Rora the Flathead, Bini Aru) or separated from their spouses (Mrs. Yoop and, during her tenure as a witch, Tattypoo). I wonder, with all the marriages Laumer came up with between the various monarchs of the Ozian continent (Fluff to Prince Bobo, Evardo to Ozma...or was it to his cousin Langwidere?) he matched Zixi up with anybody. Or did he figure that, after almost 700 years of spinsterhood (or widowhood? Who knows how many husbands she might have outlived in that time?) she wasn't likely to marry anyone? (That figure was as of some years before 1905: she must be pushing 800 by now..) Maybe MOPPeT about sorcerous celibacy *is* right! Rich Morrissey ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 08:22:41 -0400 (EDT) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: The Slow Blade Penetrates the Shield I recently finished reading _The Master Key_, and one of the Demon's gifts struck me as being very much like something out of Frank Herbert's _Dune_ series. It was the one which deflected fast moving objects (bullets, rapidly swung knives, etc.), which sounds a heck of a lot like the "shields" they royal families were using in _Dune_, particularly the personal ones for which they developed a form of hand-to-hand combat where opponents had to move their weapons in slowly enough in order to get through the shields. For those who didn't think much of my pointing out of Herbert's use of the name Ix, are you sure he wasn't a Baum fan. Nalrodi: I'm sure if he was, we would have written a book called "Straw Emperor of Dune." ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 11:13:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mark K. DeJohn" <103330.323@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-96 Hello Digest and welcome to the new members! Games: Discovery Toys (which I represent) has a game called "Never Ending Stories". I think it would be great to adapt it to an Oz game. The basic idea of the game is each player gets 8 cardboard tiles with a scene person or emotion on it. Then you go around and everyone adds to the story based on their tile. The results can be really funny. My 6 yr old loves it. Gili: Where in Pittsburgh did you get "Hidden Valley"? I would certainly like to check it out. Barb DeJohn 103330.323@compuserve.com ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 08:56:46 -0700 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Bruce asked: > I need a list of the FF in order by the date of publication. You will find all the FF listed with publication date at my website, in the Library section. Go to URL http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/books.htm Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 13:45:50 -0400 (EDT) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-08-96 Once reason I think that the digest have been shorter than usual the past few days is simply that many folks have been away from their computers due to the Passover and Easter holidays or (for the younger among us) Spring Break. The last Eric Shanower graphic novels, Blue Witch and Forgotten Forest arrived in time for the seder. I liked both (although the more violent nature of the plot line of FF made it less suitable for my three-year-old.). I liked BW more, especially the characterization of the Glass Cat, and the Sawhorse's riotous comment (upon being left behind by Scarecrow and Dorothy), "I'll just observe the growth of the grass." I didn't particularly like FOREST's observation (through Dorothy and Zurline (BTW, who exactly is she? I assume she is related to Lurline?)) that there are things more important than the law (although, not being in Oz, it's not clear that Dorothy would have been bound by its laws (sorry, want to be vague to avoid spoilers)). Maybe that's just the observant Jew in me talking. My brother Al (who was visiting for the holiday) notes that Shanower seems to have a Scarecrow fixation as he and Dorothy are major characters in all five graphic novels. BTW, Rich, Al wonders why you did not mention that he was amongst the group of comic fans who saw Return to Oz together, since you've mentioned him in the past... Eleanor Kennedy, thank you for that wonderful Ozzy seder. Very funny, but Prof. Wogglebug points out that "The Munchkin tradition has the participants stand at one point, and spin around, to commemorate the twister that brought Princess Dorothy to Oz, while in the Winkie Country, each participant has a fresh hen's egg on their plate, to celebrate the defeat of the Nome King." Also, thanks to those who commented on the CCG. What I may not have made clear in my statements is that unless the game is self-contained, "enjoyment" of it as a game requires two people to buy it. Hence, it would need to have broad appeal. It would also need to have it if you hoped to have it made by a commercial company. I too favor a more traditional game-type (or GURPS module). --Mike "Shaggy Man*" Turniansky, in his longest posting yet. *Al points out that this makes him, of course, The Shaggy Man's _brother_. ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:18:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest To the newbies: Welcome, all! As Dave noted, we are now over the 100 mark. Let's keep going! Anybody who wants previous issues of the digest, let me know, as I archive them on a monthly basis. Also, you may want to check out my Web Page, as it has some Ozzy info, the HACC, and links to other Ozzy Pages: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tyler_jones The Piglet Press (maintained by Bill Wright) and Eric Gjovaag's page have a wealth of excellent material. You can reach these pages from my page. Melody Grandy: Oh, I am so glad you are on the digest! I am sure that you have heard this a million times before, but I loved THE DISENCHANTED PRINCESS OF OZ. You can read a review of your book on my Web Site! :-) Bruce Gray: Isn't one of the main points of GURPS that it can adapt itself to ANYTHING? And, conversely, anything can adapt to GURPS. I have the utmost confidence in you ability to do the legwork. :-) You sent me some GURPS material for Oz characters a while ago and I still have it somewhere. My only critical objection was the fact that Dorothy was only a 75-point character. I would argue that this may have been true early in the series, but by "today", she is nearly a century old and has a wealth of experience. Her ST, DX and HT would remain relatively low, as she is still physically a child, but her IQ would be around 14, IMHO. Of course, this assumes that the game is set in modern times. The average campaign may want to start early in the Baum era, where people, etc. are all in PD. As Dave said, you can find the FF (with dates of publication) in Dave's and Eric's FAQ. Also, I believe it may be somewhere in Piglet Press. If you're a hardy soul, you can look in my HACC and extract the HACC slowly, surely and painfully. Bruce Gray again: This is the classic arguement. Which Oz books are "official" and which are just tag-ons? You seem to believe that the FF, simply by virtue of its being the FF, is not the "canon" all by itself. The theory by which the HACC is based on is this: When L. Frank Baum wrote _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ in 1899, that book was assumed to be official and accurate Ozzy history. As each subsequent book was written, it was "verified" against the earlier books and also found to be accurate Ozzy history. Once a book was deemed Historically Accurate, that book became part of the canon and later books were then also verified against this one. Eventually, we have reached a total of over 200 books, all HA and part of the canon. This is the HACC and the essence is that ANY Oz book is just as "official" as any other, regardless of origin, as long as it is textually accurate to the other ones. This is what Chris and I believe. Other people believe that the FF is the only "canon" or set of "official" Oz books. The reasoning for this is that the FF are (or were) widely distributed and are the best known and most widely read of the Oz books. The other ones are printed in very small press runs and are generally not available on a widespread basis. Very few people know of or read these books and they go out of print very fast. This is the reason for my textual summary project. In this way, even if a book is out of print, people can get the gist of it by reading my summary. This project is going slowly, but I am working on it. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:54:26 -0400 From: OzBucket@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-96 To Gili- I think I have a bad copy of those cartoons on tape. Are we talking about the CINAR series with Lois lane -er, Margot Kidder's narration? I found the animation deplorable, and the storylines awfully deviant from the books. Much attention was placed on Ozma's coronation, and Dorothy seemed a far more important personality. The Nome King was reduced to a David the Gnome-type, and the long-eared hearer looked like Yoda. I also remember a weird thing that had a wind-up-key growing out of its scalp that I assume was Tik-Tok. All in all, not very Ozzy. But I also admit that my earliest awareness of Oz came via a really odd cartoon by Rankin/Bass that was based on someone's acid trip, so it may still introduce a few poeople to Oz who will look for better info. To the general public: I agree that a game based on Oz is a great idea! I have a really nifty board game that was self-published by a Munchkin Conner named Edelstein. I would recommend this excellent game to anyone! Also, I am not a follower of Magic:The Addiction, but I do love Once Upon a Time. I had also planned an Oz Chess set a number of years ago, but was too hung up on writing new Oz books to get to it. Now it seems I'm too late, so I wish you the best of luck with it. Boz for Oz! -Chris & Rinny ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:53:16 +0300 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-96 How come the digests are so short all of the sudden? Bear? Eric? Are you ill? Too many chocolate Easter bunnies? :-) (I wouldn't even have know it was Easter if it weren't for this digest...) Sigh. Even I have nothing much to write. Welcome to all new subscribers, glad to have you aboard! :-) Gili ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 21:42:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Barbara Belgrave Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-96 Hi everone. Hope you all had a nice Easter. Just remember....you're no bunny till some bunny loves you. Ok Ok I know it was sick. Just be glad you didn't have to hear me sing it like my coworkers did. Now on with business. I am disappointed on how the digest shrunk so badly in the past few days but I'm sure it's spring break for many. I thought I better not complain unless I was willing to do some writting too. So here's my little bit. I attended "Oz on Ice" a while back and they had some cards there with the company that put it ons phone number. (bad grammer?) Well anyway, I called the company to see if I could order any of the things they had on sale at the show and YEAH! I can. So if you attended the show and wanted to purchase anymore of the items they had on sale there you can call 1-800-755-6448 ext 3012 and place an order. Does anyone know if you can order things from the MGM? If anyone has a phone number or e-mail address for them I'd love to have it. On the chess set. I'm interested. What about the movie characters vs. the book characters? I think the card game sounds good too. I think the idea of a CCG would sell too. Maybe not as big as some others but Oz is really coming alive again I think. Especially with the park opening. Gili.... Did anyone offer the tapes you wanted? If not let me know privately. Robin..... Thanks for keeping us up to date on Fred Meyer. Bill... The Oz resorts and Entertainment Inc is in Los Angeles. I have some infor from them I acn dig out if you need some info about it. How did you do a search for the Gale name? Do you have a search engine to do text? Danny..... What is Supercrown? Rich..... Do you know where we can find copies of the TALES OF THE WAZARD OF OZ cartoon series? Well I gotta fly, Barbara Belgrave ============================================================================= Date: Tuesday 09-Apr-96 23:50:36 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things ERIC: >... I just try to point out some other possibilities, but everybody's >mind seems to be so closed to any possibility but their MOPPeTs that it >doesn't matter, does it? I won't speak for others on the Digest, but I have to say that I *RESENT* being called closed-minded. You're convinced that all Oz books are either in the FF or are total blasphemy by virtue of not being an FF-book. Fine. And by all means proclaim your conviction on this and other points any time you desire...But don't accuse the rest of us of closed-mindedness, and *PLEASE* don't try to tell people what they can or cannot say. If someone is unclear on who Locasta or Bastinda is, all they have to do is ask. (I may even put something in the FAQ about it.) But I'm not going to ask people to censor themselves. >3. The FF is the one set of books we should all agree on as being true Oz >history, and so as not to confuse anyone any mention of others should be >avoided. Alright, I hereby decree that any mention of _Queen Ann in Oz_ on the Digest is strictly prohibited. :) :) :) RICH M.: > In fact, it's interesting that most of the powerful magic users in the >Oz universe seem to be single and unattached. Glinda, the Wizard ... Actually, I often wonder about what Glinda and the Wiz might do together after the day's magic lesson is ended... :) >... Locasta ... I imagine Locasta ( Oops! I said the 'L'-word! Sorry Eric! :) ) was married at some point, since the Adepts are her granddaugthers (in my story at least). > ... the Adepts ... I think the Adepts (and maybe other magic-workers as well) are not really celebate, but are just holding out for the right guys (after all, being immortal, they have forever to look!). In _Locasta_, they show signs of liking Dan, but of course in _Fairy Princess_ he falls for...< WARNING: THE NEXT WORD IN THIS SENTENCE MAY SHOCK SOME OZZY VIEWERS (ESPECIALLY DIGEST NEW-COMERS). READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED! :) >...Ozma(!), so I may write yet another book, in which Auxannah, Augnetah, and Audirfah (Aurah, Audah and Aujah have gone out for more classy and mutually distinct nicknames. :) ) find beaus. -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 11, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:25:17 -0400 (EDT) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: The Outrageous Marriages of Oz Rich, the marriages you mentioned, as far as I know, were not Laumer's. That of Fluff and Bobo comes from our (Aaron and myself) _The Woozy of Oz_, now in its fourth draft. Ozma and Evardo's comes from the _Enchanter_ series, by God-knows-who. The Evardo-Langwidere marriage is one of Aaron's ridiculous ideas which is being worked into one of the sequels to _Woozy_, some of the events surrounding which will appear (material deleted as it gives away really cool plot points). The only Laumer marriages I know of are those between Glinda and Button-Bright (grown-up, of course; even if he were over 17, it would seem wrong if they got married when he was physiologically prepubescent) and between Dorothy and Tommy Qwikstep. Calm down, Tyler! Yeesh! Percy: Hey, kiddo, what about cheese? ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 06:37:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-10-96 > From: RMorris306@aol.com > Subject: Re: Recent Ozzy Digests > > Opinions always seem to vary! Everyone, keep this in mind when I reply to Dave's reply to my admittedly-over-the-top-rant... > From: "Mark K. DeJohn" <103330.323@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-96 > > Gili: Where in Pittsburgh did you get "Hidden Valley"? I would certainly li ke > to check it out. We all know that the International Wizard of Oz Club sells a very good reprint, don't we? (No, wait a minute, I'm assuming, which I try NEVER to do, especially with so many new people here, let me try again...) The International Wizard of Oz Club sells a nice reprint edition, with an afterword by Rachel Cosgrove Payes. > From: Gili Bar-Hillel > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-96 > > How come the digests are so short all of the sudden? Bear? Eric? Are you > ill? Too many chocolate Easter bunnies? :-) (I wouldn't even have know it > was Easter if it weren't for this digest...) Nah, I missed replying for a day, ran out of time. My two replies in today's Digest should make up for that, although now I don't know if anybody WANTS to read my stuff, considering Dave's reaction... > From: Barbara Belgrave > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-96 > > What is Supercrown? A division of the Crown Books chain of discount booksellers. Super Crown books are a lot larger and have a larger selection. (Or so I've been told.) > Do you know where we can find copies of the TALES OF THE WAZARD OF OZ > cartoon series? I have poor-to-fair copies of 126 of the 130 episodes, taped off a Vancouver TV station when I lived in Bellingham. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > ERIC: > >... I just try to point out some other possibilities, but everybody's > >mind seems to be so closed to any possibility but their MOPPeTs that it > >doesn't matter, does it? > > I won't speak for others on the Digest, but I have to say that I *RESENT* > being called closed-minded. And I resent people continuing to argue a point with me after I've stated my opinion. I really don't care, to be honest, my opinions are mine and everyone else's are everyone else's. I'm willing to live and let live, yet people keep wanting to argue with me about whether or not Yew is part of Oz. Fine. THAT one I will shut up about. But can you see how this rankles me? I want to state my opinion, expressing an alternative idea, then be done with it. I'm NOT out to change anybody's mind! And I might add, I resent your taking my diatribe personally. Yeah, I was a little off-base, I admit that, but it's an attitude I'm railing against, not the people expressing them. (Yes, I can separate the two.) > You're convinced that all Oz books are either > in the FF or are total blasphemy by virtue of not being an FF-book. No, there you are QUITE wrong. I read, and for the most part enjoy, any Oz book I can get my hands on. But for consistency's sake, and so as not to confuse newcomers, people who aren't aware of the non-FF books, etc., I try to limit my arguments to the FF. > Fine. And by all means proclaim your conviction on this > and other points any time you desire...But don't accuse the rest of us of > closed-mindedness, and *PLEASE* don't try to tell people what they can or > cannot say. I'm suggesting, and pointing out (I hope) that some of the shorthand terminology raised here is not shared or known by everybody. Besides, I know a lot of people aren't going to listen to me anyway ... > If someone is unclear on who Locasta or Bastinda is, all they > have to do is ask. (I may even put something in the FAQ about it.) But > I'm not going to ask people to censor themselves. How many subscribers does the Digest have now? What percentage of them actually post on a regular basis? Not everybody is going to ask. I'm just trying to make things clear for everybody, the newbies as well as the veterans. > >3. The FF is the one set of books we should all agree on as being true Oz > >history, and so as not to confuse anyone any mention of others should be > >avoided. > > Alright, I hereby decree that any mention of _Queen Ann in Oz_ on the Digest > is strictly prohibited. :) :) :) Fine, it's not canon, anyway . > I imagine Locasta ( Oops! I said the 'L'-word! Sorry Eric! :) ) (Eric imitating Buzz Lightyear): You're -- mocking me, aren't you? --Eric " My opinions are my own, and may not be yours" Gjovaag # Come visit my "Wizard of Oz" web site! http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/ # ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:15:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mark K. DeJohn" <103330.323@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-10-96 Hi Digest! One of the things I like best about the digest is the bantering between varying opinions. I do agree with Eric (go figure) however that personal opinions and theories should be stated as such to avoid confusion. I had never heard mention of Bastinda as the wicked witch of the west before reading the digest and I wondered where it came from. I knew it wasn't from the FF. I wasn't too upset when Bear disagreed with me over the Glegg issue. I only cried for a short time. Pregnant women are so emotional! :-) :-) Barb DeJohn 103330.323@compuserve.com ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:08:58 -0400 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: 4-10 Ozzy Digest Eric said, >Can we PLEASE stop using this name (Bastinda).... As I noted some time ago, the Bros. Adelman seem to give the Volkov/Laumer writings more weight than Baum and the other FF authors! But, PLEASE don't stop expressing your opinions, (and that goes for everyone contributing to the Digest) or this "rag" will shrivel up and die. (:-( Barb DeJohn: Members can still get an IWOC edition of "Hidden Valley" for $16. hardcover or $8. paperback. Mike Turniansky: Is Shanower's "Blue Witch" new? I got his other graphic novels from the IWOC, but haven't seen it offered anywhere. Gili: What happened to your "Cat (c) by Felix Lee"?? Robin O: Any further word on Fred? Dick Randolph (DIXNAM@aol.com) "... Oz ... where the young stay young and the old grow young forever - These books are for readers of all ages." Ray Bradbury ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:19:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Batinda, Locasta and other weird names: Just who are these people? For the benefit of the newbies, I'll give a not-so-brief discussion as to who these people are (or who I think they are, at any rate): "Bastinda" is the name that Russian author gave for the Wicked Witch of the West. He also named the Wicked Witch of the East (the one under Dorothy's house) the name "Gingemma". Oz author March Laumer stole these names (and others) and used them in his books. Volkov's and Laumer's books are very different from the standard Ozzy fare, so most people discount them. However, my belief is that since these names already exist, and now most people know about them, why not use them? One name is as good as another, and since the Famous Forty did not provide names for these two, we may as well. Other Laumerian names: Ramina: Queen of the Field Mice (also stolen from Volkov) Obediah: Father of Cheeriobed Lignum: The Sawhorse Frederick Fraukx: The Frogman Winkiezia: Capital City of the Winkies (stolen from Farmer) Now that I think of it, I really shouldn't say Laumer "stole" them. He simply used them they way several people on this digest do. ***** SOME PLOT INFO FOR DAVE'S BOOKS AND _THE GIANT HORSE OF OZ_ ***** "Locasta" is the name that Dave Hardenbrook has given to the "real" Good Witch of the North in his forthcoming book that I do not know the title of. According to the story, there was an original Good Witch of the North named Locasta, and she was the one who met Dorothy in _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_. Soon thereafter (probably between the first two FF books), Mombi caught Locasta by surprise and banished her. She then kidnapped Queen Orin and transformed her into Locastas double and "installed" her as the ruler of the Giliking country. Years later, after Tattypoo/Orin has been un-enchanted, it is realized that she is not the "real" Good Witch of the North and the hunt begins for Locasta. I won't say more, since I don't want to spoil it for anybody! The only question is "Why didn't the people realize that their ruler had changed her name?" has an easy answer. Rulers have several names, including names from family, areas ruled, nicknames, formal names, religious names, etc. "Tattypoo" may have been one of these. Also, most common people do not refer to the ruler by name, but by title, so most people would not notice any change. Eric Gjovaag: Trust me. Even YOU are not wrong all the time :-). Obviously, not everybody on this digest is going to agree with everybody else all the time. That is the whole point. If we all thought the same way, there would be no need to HAVE the digest. The fact is that we are going to disagree and have different opinions and ideas about Oz and the purpose of this digest is to explore them, present them, and maybe even reach a consensus as to what the "truth" is. Calling people "closed" just because they have MOPPeTs different from yours is not conducive to the goal of a free exchange of ideas and information. By the way, "MOPPeT" stands for "My Own Personal Pet Theory" and was invented by (ironically enough)... Eric Gjovaag! :-) For the record, I believe that most people on this digest, despite the fact that they have differing opinions, are open to new ideas and other MOPPeTs that are different from their own. I myself have "fine-tuned" and "re-thought" my positions and ideas based on discussion with others on this digest. In fact, Eric himself has had a lot of input on the physical presentation of the HACC. End of sermon. Eric Gjovaag: here we go again :-) If non-FF books are so unimportant that they should not even be mentioned, then why bother to write them in the first place? I really enjoyed _Queen Ann in Oz_ (I keep forgetting your collaborators name, though) and I am glad that you wrote it. Other non-FF books are as good, better, or worse. I have always believed that one of the strengths of Oz is that the story never ends. We began with the FF and the story goes on forever, as long as people write stories. Of course, some older people on this digest may remember when FF books were being actively written, but that's at least a generation before my time :-) As far as what is "real" Oz history, I believe that the FF forms the core of history, as in these books, the layout of Oz was fully created. As for others, they can add to the tapestry of Oz as long as they are accurate to the FF and, to a lesser extent (IMHO) non-FF books that have come before. I recognize that it is EXTREMELY hard to get non-FF books, but with the internet, we now have the opportunity to exchange information about these all over the world, if my I can just get those textual summaries going! Therefore, people will be able to know what these other books are about, even if they are no longer available. Out of respect for Buckethead Enterprises of Oz being a non-profit organization, I will not publish textual summaries of books that are still available. The idea is to get people to read the books and the money is used only to publish even MORE Oz books, and besides, his books aren't all that expensive, anyway. Rich: Women playing boy characters on the stage is fairly common, (Mary Martin as Peter Pan, etc.), so I could well imagine Baum casting women to play his other boy characters. As for Queen Zixi, Laumer mentioned Ix, but I do not think that he gave her a husband. Barry: Herbert may have been a Baum/Oz fan, but I believe Ix was the ninth planet of the system and there were hints that Ix was named after an ancient number (the Roman nine, of course), but you never can tell. I suppose if Ix had been the 47th planet of the system, that would have removed all doubt! :-) Michael T: HACC theory (which means the collective opinion of myself and Chris D, as affected by input from others) has it that Lurline, Zurline and Lulea are all the same person. Mythological characters from all over the world have many names, after all, and Lurline is as likely as the next person to do the same thing. Dave: I can't BELIEVE you wrote that about Glinda and the Wizard! :-) Of course, it's probably lonely that far south in the Quadling country :-) On the short digests: Don't worry. As long as I am around, the digest will ALWAYS be of at least respectable length. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:19:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-10-96 WADDLE BOOK: I should have put this in a coupla weeks ago, but maybe it's not too late.... For those of us in cities with Half-Price Books, they've been selling remaindered copies of the Applewood reprint of the WADDLE BOOK for about $6.00--an absurdly low price. If you don't live in Texas or Berkeley,CA, or someplace with one of these stores, go to a place that carries remainders. You should have a good chance there. Book remainder stores are frequently found in discount shopping malls. A remainder is a book that the publisher doesn't want to tout anymore and *does* want to dump...cheap! I'm sorry I didn't think to notify y'all earlier. --Robin ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:13:42 +0000 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: flyers and other stuff Well, the Munchkin Convention flyer is at the printer's *as we speak*. All sing "Alleluia" And, by an amazing coincidence of incredible lateness, so is the Winter '95 Bugle. So, the flyer will be going out with the Bugle, and you should look for both to be hitting your mailboxes in 4-6 weeks (but don't quote me on that). I'll also be looking into putting it up on the Net. Rich Morrisey wrote: >[I]t was >actually better than one might think, populating Oz with places like a land >of living tomatoes and Topsy Turvy Land (where people walked upside down) >that wouldn't have been out of place in a Baum book. [etc.] As a matter of fact, it *is* in a Baum book. In "The Magical Monarch of Mo", Duchess Bredenbutta accidentally made a visit to Turvyland, where rabbits fly, people walk on their hands, and waterfalls fall up. Michael Turniansky: Many thanks for the additional information on Ozian "Passover" customs! :-) Someone asked what "High Incident" was, and we never responded. (Sorry, we were a little busy. Did I mention that the flyer is at the printer?) "High Incident" is a new show on ABC-TV, Monday nights, about police officers in a suburban California town. The conversation about Oz took place between two partners riding in a squad car. The show was created by Steven Spielberg, Eric Bogosian and, uh, two other guys. If you can even *imagine* a cop show created by Spielberg and Bogosian, well, that's what it's like. They've already changed their theme music (a bad sign, IMHO) and critical reaction has been tepid at best. I wouldn't expect it to last past May. This has been another installment of "Popular Culture in America". We now return you to your regularly-scheduled "Ozzy Digest". -- Eleanor Kennedy ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 04:17:46 +0300 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-10-96 Eric - please do keep posting your ideas and opinions on the digest. I for one enjoy reading the different things people here have written, even things that I vehemently disagree with. I also don't especially like the frequent usage of names like Bastidna and Locasta, when "The Wicked Witch of the West" and "The Good Witch of the North" (WWoW and GWoN?) are often more accurate, less controversial, and more widely known. However, I've expressed this opinion at least once, and I don't feel I need to repeat it till everyone complies with my preference. What I'm *DEFINITELY* not going to do is take offence when others refer to characters by their own pet names, or stick to and defend their MoPPets, however silly they may seem to me. On most occasions, I don't believe offence is intended, or anything personal at all for that matter. Different people just have different views of Oz, which can be frustrating when we love our own image of Oz so dearly that we hate to see others tampering with it - but is also a good thing, because it makes for variety in the stories and theories being written about Oz. I'd also like to point out that there have been plenty of very positive responses to your CCG idea, and to other of your ideas. There are more than 100 subscribers to this digest. Not all of them think you are wrong all of the time. So please, for those of us who enjoy reading your input, whether we agree with it or not, keep writing. And for anyone who has ever taken offence at messages posted on this digest - lighten up! Nothing here is a matter of life and death. The worst thing I can imagine happening a through this digest, is that a number of people will be disinformed about a certain aspect of Oz, or come to believe that certain opinions are more widely held than they actually are. So what? If we try hard enough, some day we will actually all get to Oz, and find outthe real answers to the questions we've been arguing about. And then some of us will be able to say: "I told you so!" :-) Barb DeJohn - if I had actually walked into a shop in Pittsburgh and seen a number of Oz books for sale, I probably would have taken down all the details and posted them here for anyone interested in purchasing the book. But it was a friend of my mother's who bought the book, not even someone I'm directly in touch with, and it will be a little akward for me to start asking my mother where exactly her friend purchased the book. All I know is that the friend came across some Oz books in a store a couple of months ago, remembered that I like Oz books, and wrote to my mother asking if she would like him to buy any of them as a gift for me. Enough time has elapsed that by now, most of the other Oz books may have already been sold to others. As far as I know, there is no particular bookshop in Pittsburgh that can usually be expected to stock antique Oz books. If there is, Nate Barlow will know about it, and write to correct me - won't you, Nate? Eric and Chris (Welcome, Chris! :-) ) - No, I don't think the cartoon I'm referring to is the CINAR one. As I've already written, the one thing I know about the series, is that it is Japanese. Also, the particular version I'm referring to was dubbed into *Hebrew*, definitely *not* by Margot Kidder :-) ! I didn't get to see their version of Tiktok. One episode of this cartoon I remember with relative clarity, is the episode where Dorothy and co. visit the China country. Except, the don't scale just any old china wall to go in: it is quite clearly the wall of a large china bowl that they cllimb in order to get there. And what's more, there are plenty of other gargantuan china bowls in the vicinity, which Dorothy and co. leave unexplored. Did anything like this happen in the CINAR series? Please don't fight, Ozzy friends of mine. This digest gives me so much, you are all important to me! :-) |\ _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Gili Bar-Hillel, |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' avigailb@zoot.tau.ac.il '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat (c) by Felix Lee ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:52:59 -0200 From: amyjones@mindspring.com (Amy Jones) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-10-96 Hello everybody. Just thought y'all would like to know that I was in the Emerald City today. Really. I was at the Masters golf extravaganza in Augusta, GA. The grass was green. The people wore green. The stands were green, as were the signs, golf carts, and the trash cans. The food wrappers from the concession stand were green. The sprayed the dirt where the grass was worn away with a green mixture. I even saw a green man, but I think he probably had too much to drink. The only things not green were the dogwoods, the azaelas, and, oh yes, my sunburned nose. Enjoying my "hard earned" spring break, Amy Jones ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:04:37 +0000 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-10-96 1) Hey guys, let's play nice. I know things haven't gotten even remotely near a real Internet flamewar, but let's not even start, OK? (I'm a rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 survivor .) 2) Don't judge Eric S's preferences by the choices in his G. Novels. I know he was under orders to include Dorothy "because everyone knows who she is", and there may have been others such. // John W Kennedy -- Hypatia Software -- "The OS/2 Hobbit" ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:33:37 -0700 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Barbara asked: > How did you do a search for the Gale name? > Do you have a search engine to do text? I'm working up to that. I have all the books on my computer. I simply did a "find" on each book for the word "Gale". I have given some thought to doing a full text indexing of the books, but the cost to put this on the internet would be prohibitive for me. Also, I suspect that so few people care it wouldn't be worth the effort anyway. I posed this question to the Ozzy Digest last month and absolutely no one responded with any statement of interest. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Thursday 11-Apr-96 00:15:38 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things ERIC: >And I resent people continuing to argue a point with me after I've stated >my opinion. I really don't care, to be honest, my opinions are mine and >everyone else's are everyone else's. I'm willing to live and let live, >yet people keep wanting to argue with me about whether or not Yew is part >of Oz. Fine. THAT one I will shut up about. But can you see how this >rankles me? I want to state my opinion, expressing an alternative idea, >then be done with it. I'm NOT out to change anybody's mind! Then I'll humbly admit that you're a better man than I, Gunga Din. :) As a writer, I regard my creations (even when they're currently only a humble MOPPeT) as my "children", and so I want to defend them tooth and nail! I DO want to persuade people to agree with my MOPPeT. I plead guilty to that. >And I might add, I resent your taking my diatribe personally. Okay, I'm sorry. My "over-sensitivity" acting up again... :) >I read, and for the most part enjoy, any >Oz book I can get my hands on. But for consistency's sake, and so as not >to confuse newcomers, people who aren't aware of the non-FF books, etc., I >try to limit my arguments to the FF. Okay, I misunderstood you...It sounded like you didn't want any discussion of non-FF AT ALL on the Digest (Hence my joke about _Queen Ann_). >I'm suggesting, and pointing out (I hope) that some of the shorthand >terminology raised here is not shared or known by everybody... >How many subscribers does the Digest have now? What percentage of them >actually post on a regular basis? Not everybody is going to ask. Point taken. Expect major additions to my FAQ to help alleviate this. >>Alright, I hereby decree that any mention of _Queen Ann in Oz_ on the Digest >>is strictly prohibited. :) :) :) >Fine, it's not canon, anyway . On this ":) and " note, let's all admit we were wrong and "all get along"! -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 12, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:45:07 +0300 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-11-96 Big smile. Peace has returned to the land of Ozzy Digests. Amy, next time you go to the Emerald City (whine) take me with you.... And the cat came back. :-) |\ _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Gili Bar-Hillel, |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' avigailb@zoot.tau.ac.il '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat (c) by Felix Lee ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:47:45 -0400 (EDT) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Upset People in Oz Mombi: Boys! boys! Stop fighting you two! Eric: He started it! Dave: Did not! Mombi: I don't care WHO started it! Just stop it or I'll turn you into a marble statue! Dave: Which one of us? Mombi: Both! Dave and Eric: Mombi: Now you and the rest of the digest participants learn to play nice or I'll get involved, okay? Dave and Eric: Yes, ma'am. Dick, Aaron and I certainly do not give more weight to Volkov and Laumer than the FF. The adoption of names like Bastinda and Gingemma was because using the more traditional alternative is considerably more cumbersome in personal conversations, like thus: Fabio: Ah, my darling, you have returned to me! Where have you been, Wicked Witch of the West? WWW: I was killed by a miserable little brat named Dorothy. Sucks, doesn't it Fabio? Fabio: Oh, certainly, Wicked Witch of the West. But what matters is that you have returned. May I recite a love poem to you, my darling Wicked Witch of the West? WWW: Please! Fabio: Roses are red, Violets are blue, I love the Wicked Witch of the West, The Winkies should too. WWW: Okay, so maybe that wasn't the best/sanest example, but whatever she is called in public life (her supporters probably call her The Good Witch of the West), in certain situations she probably has a personal name for that use. It is unlikely, after all, her parents named her "The Wicked Witch of the West." We have been trying to be consistent with as many works as possible, which includes Laumer, Laumer happened to have decent names, so we adopted them. Beyond that, the only other Laumerisms we've used are Dorothy being educated and Glinda's marriage to Button-Bright, largely because other Laumerisms would be fairly tangential or irrelevant to the story and the ones that would be really neat to use (like Till Orangespiegel) are still under copyright. On the other hand, a whole bunch of things from Baum we've used or are thinking of using include-- Kabumpo: Move on in the discussion! As I was about to say, I don't see a problem with using "Gingemma" and "Bastinda" in discussions in place of "The Wicked Witch of the East" and "The Wicked Witch of the West," since we know in particular which individual they refer to, and as long as we keep in mind that we're using the personal name as a shorthand for the more cumbersome FF name, there should be no problem. On the other hand, using "Locasta" for "The Good Witch of the North" IS a problem since this identification is tied up with a pet theory which not everyone agrees upon. There are still plenty of people who think "The Good Witch of the North" is the public title of Tattypoo, and the FF can be interpreted as supporting this. One could even argue that "Locasta" is the witch's real name which Baum picked up on but "Tattypoo" was a nickname which Thompson decided to give precedence to (blame the dragon). So in this particular case, I would go with The Good Witch of the North. In reading _The Hungry Tiger of Oz_, the Hungry Tiger makes a referrence to a roast-beef tree. Apparently there are some plants which grow meat... ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:03:29 -0400 From: DAlbright1@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-09-96 In response to an earlier question, Robert Kory is the CEO of Oz Resorts and Entertainment and the company is headquartered in LA. Gus Fasone, who is a Kansas City man who thought the theme park up in the first place is not directly involved in the project at this point. Anybody object to my including in the spring Oz Gazette some of the Oz vanity tags and bumper stickers that appeared in the Digest not long ago? Eleanor Kennedy has agreed to let me run Passover in Oz, her short fiction posted here a couple weeks ago. So the creative juices of Digest subscribers soon will be enjoyed by a wider audience. Jane ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:00:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-11-96 FWIW: Many people refer to the Wicked Witch of the West as WWW. It's an easy-to-recognize acronym. I know of no common acronym for the Good Witch of the North. I just call her Tattypoo...dumb name, but people know who I mean, usually. I'm like Eric and Gili; I don't really like the Bastinda/Locasta stuff; however, it's no big deal unless you're a newbie, in which case not even context clues help much sometimes. Another super-common Oz acronym is YBR for yellow brick road. We have fewer than 20 responses to the Oz faves poll. Anyone else want to vote for your top 3 Baums and Thompsons? Chris? Bear? Peter? Pete? Jane? Hello out there.... ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:53:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest GENERAL STATEMENT OF STUFF: Maybe all of us overreacted a little bit. If we did, it is only because of our great love for the Marvelous Land of Oz, which is the reason that we are all here in the first place. Barry: I'm a little confused. What part of my ramblings needs to "calm down?" :-) Eric: Sermons and gripes aside, I believe that we all can "get along". I believe it is important to remember that objective criticisms and arguements between MOPPeTS are not personal attacks. We can disagree and still respect each other as people, even we are trying to convince the other that we are right (or even if we are NOT trying to change minds). :-) That seems to be the major dividing point between us. When I have a belief, MOPPeT, or whatever, I try and present it and argue its case. If I do a good job, I bring others into agreement with me. If not, I alter it based on what other people have argued. While other people's beliefs should be respected, IMHO one of the central purposes of digests like this is to exchange info and ideas and, hopefully, discover what the "objective truth" is, which I believe exists out there somewhere, even for such places as Oz. Diagreements between conflicting ideas (and, possibly, the triumph of one over the other) can be a good thing, if it is conducted in a respectful manner and people are courteous to each other. In this case, sometimes one person will be "right" and the other person will be "wrong". There is nothing bad about this, as it is simply a part of the learning process. I am grateful for others (including you, Eric! :-)) who have shown me the weaknesses in my own arguements and led me to a better way of looking at things. The ideas of arguement, discussion and debate only makes us stronger. Of course, people will still not agree on EVERYTHING and this is good, since we are not perfect and if we all agreed on everything, we would cease to learn anything new. End of sermon. Day II :-) Eric again: If we limit our discussions only to the FF, how will we raise the awareness level of them? Perhaps we should tag our arguements as using non-FF material, so others will know what's going on. Your point about people not asking even if they don't know is a good one. Thus, I recommend that you are Dave (or both) put some info about non-FF names in your FAQ. Which reminds me. The Wiz Kids of Oz (and some BEOO people) have taken to calling the Wicked Witch of the West "Allidap", which is "Padilla" spelled backwards. Serafin Padilla is the elementary school teacher whose class, "The Wiz Kids of Oz", used to crank out an Oz book a year. Barbara DeJohn: From my post yesterday, most people on the digest should know who Bastinda is now! (Or who I think she is, anyway!) Dick Randolph (and the Adelmans): While I (almost) worship Laumers books, it does indeed seem that Aaron and Barry are using them to the exlcusion of everyone else, even the FF! Gili: If we eve get to Oz and we find that my MOPPeTs are true, I would be so surprised that I would be speechless! Which would preclude me from saying "I told you so". John Kennedy: I've heard of the Babylon 5 flame war, and I really really really hope that does not happen here :-) I believe that we can rise above that, though, and keep our arguements on a scholarly basis. Bill Wright: A full text indexing service would be quite a bit of effort and it would probably not be used that much. IMHO, don't waste your energies. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:30:14 -0400 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digests for the past three weeks Fascinating. I just spent the last six or seven hours reading them. I could have said lots at the time, but at this late date (and with phosphor-eyes) I think I'll pass... But I'm back, for the next couple of weeks anyhow (then we close on our new house if all goes well, and I'll lose another few days to moving again...), so tomorrow I'll try to respond to today's. I guess I'm too late to respond to Robin's poll, though since she hasn't published the results yet maybe not, and I'll E-mail her just in case, but my favorites: Baum: 1. Lost Princess 2. Ozma 3. Rinkitink Thompson: 1. Wishing Horse 2. Speedy 3. Silver Princess Overall: 1. Wishing Horse 2. Lost Princess 3. Merry Go Round David "Now coming to you from the Windy City" Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:50:10 -0500 (EST) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: Fairy Queens Tyler Jones writes: > HACC theory (which means the collective opinion of myself and Chris D, > as affected by input from others) has it that Lurline, Zurline and Lulea > are all the same person. Lulea is the queen of a band of fairies that often visits the forest of Burzee at night to dance or otherwise amuse themselves. Their duties are to guard the welfare of a few chosen mortals. There are a number of such fairy bands, each with their own queen. In IX Lulea decides to create something, and she discusses with her band various artifacts that other bands of fairies have made. All fairies of this type must obey the laws of Ak, the Master Woodsman. Zurline is the queen of the wood nymphs of the forest of Burzee. Their duties are to tend the trees of the forest. There are many forests that have nymphs, each with their own queen. All of these nymphs are under the command of the Master Woodsman, who spends much of his time visiting the various forests where his nymphs live. Lurline is queen of a particularly powerful band of fairies. Their official duties are unknown, but they seem to have a lot of free time on their hands. Unlike Lulea and Zurline, Lurline is not bound by the laws of Ak, the Master Woodsman. Indeed, she is far more powerful than he is. Lurline is the one who enchanted Oz. There are many other types of fairies, and many of these types will have more than one band, with each band having its own queen. (Another example is Queen Aquareine, who is queen of a band of sea fairies.) -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:52:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-11-96 Well well well! It seems I struck a nerve -- but not the one I was expecting! Okay, who's as surprised as I am that I got two private e-mails SUPPORTING my little tirade of the other day? Seems there are more of me than I thought... Okay, time for a little more clarification, I think. I do NOT want any type of censoring! I do NOT want to exclude any talk of Oz outside of the FF. (For Pete's sake, I WROTE one of those books!) I do NOT want to suppress anyone's ideas. What I DO want is for the frequent posters here -- let's face it, there is a very small number of us who regularly post to this Digest -- to realize that not everyone agrees with their thoughts/ideas/theories/MOPPeTs, and to post with this in mind. Not everyone agrees that there were two Good Witches of the North, for example, or that Yew MUST be in the same world as Oz, to use two recent and recurring examples. Nor does everyone agree that if Oz is in the title of a book, it must bear the same weight in discussing things, answering questions, etc. as the FF. We all have different theories as to what constitutes "canonical" Oz, and we all have different justifications for our theories. What I find ironic is that the people here, who claim that they want to make Oz well known to as many people as possible, are the same people who drove Peter Glassman away with their sanctimonious notes about his editing of "The Patchwork Girl of Oz". I nearly left then as well, it was getting ridiculous. Peter or I would say one thing, and we'd then get jumped on, no matter what we said or how we said it. And it keeps happening now. If I try to point out a couter-argument, often the reaction seems to me to be, "But you are WRONG, can't you see that?" It's getting very frustrating! Folks, Oz is supposed to be fun! Yet too many people are taking themselves, their ideas, and Oz too seriously, alienating many fans! Am I being thin skinned? Maybe. Okay, probably. But the notes I got this morning tell me that there are other Oz fans here besides myself who are getting frustrated with the assumptions, and the callous treatment of theories as facts. Despite what we want or how it may seem, we are an EXTREMELY small percentage of the numbers of Oz fans out there in the real world (in this case I mean outside of cyberspace, not beyond the Nonestic Ocean), so if we can't use a little common sense and take each other's feelings into account, how can we be expected to do the same when meeting other Oz fans -- and potential fans -- face to face? I was seriously thinking about leaving the Digest for a while after Dave's lashing yesterday, at least temporarily, but the notes I've gotten today tell me that what I am saying is appreciated. So I'm here for a while longer, at least. But I will warn everybody right now, I'm still going to speak my mind. I'll just try to do it in a less acidic tone, is all. Okay, on to the Digest. What have we here to respond to? Dick Randolph asked: > Is Shanower's "Blue Witch" new? I got his other > graphic novels from the IWOC, but haven't seen it offered anywhere. "The Blue Witch of Oz" was the only one of Eric's GN's to be originally published by Dark Horse, not First. (First went out of business while "Blue Witch" was in preparation. As a side note, the fact that the Club only has the first four seems to confirm that IWOC bought out the remainder of First's stocks, which is why they can sell them so inexpensively.) It is available through Books of Wonder, and most book stores and comic shops can probably order it for you as well. > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > Batinda, Locasta and other weird names: > Just who are these people? For the benefit of the newbies, I'll give a > not-so-brief discussion as to who these people are (or who I think they > are, at any rate): > > "Bastinda" is the name that Russian author gave for the Wicked Witch of > the West. He also named the Wicked Witch of the East (the one under > Dorothy's house) the name "Gingemma". Oz author March Laumer stole these > names (and others) and used them in his books. What makes Volkov and Laumer so hot that they get to name the Wicked Witch of the West? Shall I use Allidap (the Wiz Kids of Oz), Elphaba (Gregory Maguire), or whatever name Philip Jose Farmer came up with (which I don't happen to have right at my fingertips)? Besides, I don't agree that the Volkov or Laumer books are part of the real Oz (whatever that means -- guess we all pick and choose what we like and call them official, no?), so Bastinda has no significance for me as a name for the Wicked Witch of the West. > Volkov's and Laumer's books are very different from the standard Ozzy > fare, so most people discount them. However, my belief is that since > these names already exist, and now most people know about them, why not > use them? One name is as good as another, and since the Famous Forty did > not provide names for these two, we may as well. What's wrong with The Wicked Witch of the West (WW of the W or some equally pithy abbreviaton for short)? > Eric Gjovaag: > Trust me. Even YOU are not wrong all the time :-). Obviously, not everybody > on this digest is going to agree with everybody else all the time. That is > the whole point. If we all thought the same way, there would be no need > to HAVE the digest. The fact is that we are going to disagree and have > different opinions and ideas about Oz and the purpose of this digest > is to explore them, present them, and maybe even reach a consensus as to > what the "truth" is. A small number of people may be able to agree on a concensus, perhaps, but there are too many of us here to do so, IMHO. Sometimes this "consensus reaching" takes the form of "Here's what a couple of us think, so we're going to use this as an established fact, leaving the rest of you wondering what happened and who put us in charge." Or so it seems to me. Besides, we gotta remember, OZ DOESN'T REALLY EXIST! How can we find the truth, especially with so many more books coming out now? And why should those of us who just want to read and enjoy the books be subjected to one person's "truth"? What if I interpret things differently? > Calling people "closed" just because they have > MOPPeTs different from yours is not conducive to the goal of a free > exchange of ideas and information. I do not object to a difference of opinion. I DO object to the strong-arm tactics used at times to PRESENT those opinions, and the way these opinions are sometimes presented as facts in imprecise writing. > Eric Gjovaag: here we go again :-) > If non-FF books are so unimportant that they should not even be mentioned, > then why bother to write them in the first place? You are putting words into my mouth and ideas into my head that aren't there! They are not unimportant at all. They are quite important, otherwise we'll NEVER know what else is going on in Oz! But it is a VERY difficult process to procure and read all of those books outside of the FF! I'm lucky, I have a HUGE percentage of them in my collection, but that's because it's important to me and I've been collecting them for a long time. But other fans believe that Oz should ONLY comprise the FF, or the Baum books, or whatever else they want to. That's fine, that's their right. Most Oz fans (both in and outside of this Digest) don't even KNOW about the vast majority of the non-FF books. So to be as accommodating as possible, I try to limit my discussions of Oz to the FF, and any other books that come up are incidental. BUT NOT UNIMPORTANT! And my co-author's name is Karyl Carlson, and she gets top billing. > Michael T: > HACC theory (which means the collective opinion of myself and Chris D, > as affected by input from others) has it that Lurline, Zurline and Lulea > are all the same person. I VERY much doubt this. Lurline and Lulea I can believe, but Zurline??? In "The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus" it is quite clearly stated that she is the Queen of the Wood Nymphs, and has no connection whatsoever to the Fairies, of whom Lurline/Lulea is the Queen. > From: rri0189@ibm.net > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-10-96 > > 1) Hey guys, let's play nice. I know things haven't gotten even remotely > near a real Internet flamewar, but let's not even start, OK? (I'm a > rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 survivor .) Oh, dear. Now that WAS unpleasant, wasn't it? (I was a lurker there myself, until JMS finally left, and I'm surprised he stayed as long as he did, to be honest.) (And if I could spell the man's last name, I'd go through the whole sordid tale...) > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > ERIC: > >I'm NOT out to change anybody's mind! > > Then I'll humbly admit that you're a better man than I, Gunga Din. :) As a > writer, I regard my creations (even when they're currently only a humble > MOPPeT) as my "children", and so I want to defend them tooth and nail! > I DO want to persuade people to agree with my MOPPeT. I plead guilty to that. So, the truth is out, everybody! Remember this! This man does not believe your own opinion is valid! (Only half a :), I shudder to add.) > >I read, and for the most part enjoy, any > >Oz book I can get my hands on. But for consistency's sake, and so as not > >to confuse newcomers, people who aren't aware of the non-FF books, etc., I > >try to limit my arguments to the FF. > > Okay, I misunderstood you...It sounded like you didn't want any discussion of > non-FF AT ALL on the Digest (Hence my joke about _Queen Ann_). Discussion and comment is fine. Hey, we've got to get word out about all those books, after all! But elevating them to the same level as the FF, THAT'S where I have a problem. --Eric "I hope this has at least cleared things up some" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:46:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Barbara Belgrave Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-11-96 Greetings all!!! TGIF!!!! Eric..... Got your Oogaboo info in the snailmail and I know of 3 of us that are coming for sure. Others are wishy washy. Loved the part about the large Portland group. How about Bob Sheperd? Is he coming? Hey Bob, how about it? Eric again..... I'd like a copy of the Tales of the Wizard of Oz cartoons you have. I also want copies of your books. Autographed of course!!!! We can exchange at the rendevous but let me know what you'd like in exchange. Like green stuff...E-mail me private ok? Thanks! Dick Randolf..... Where was the Bradbury quote from? Bill Wright..... What about putting one book on a month to give us the opportunity to download them seperately? Then change the book for the next month? Gili..... "We love our image of Oz so dearly that we hate to see others tampering with it" Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!! Isn't it amazing how a land in our dreams can have such a hold of our hearts? Only those of us born of Oz can understand it. Eric and Dave..... And this to shall pass..... See you all tomorrow, gotta fly, Barbara Z * / \ * OzO :zOz: OzO O_O_IIIIIII_O_O ___ ___ I I I I I I (___)------------------------------------------(___) O_O_O_O_O_O_O_O_O | | Barbara J Belgrave | | \_______________/ | | bbelgrav@esd112.wednet.edu | | I ___ I | | | | I I | | ~If my computer only had a brain, | | I / i \ I |___| a heart, some courage~ |___| I I: i :I I (___)------------------------------------------(___) I___I:_i_:I___I ============================================================================= Date: Thursday 11-Apr-96 21:28:57 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things ERIC: >So, the truth is out, everybody! Remember this! This man does not >believe your own opinion is valid! (Only half a :), I shudder to add.) Untrue folks!!! I *DO* believe your own opinions are valid!!! I would love it if I could pursuade you to accept my ideas, but I respect your ideas when they *don't* agree with mine! (I would have let this go, Eric, had you given it a full ':)'.) :) FAIRY QUEENS: Tyler noted that current HACC theory says Lurline and Zurline are the same, but a couple of people today stated their opinion that they are different, and I have to agree...In _Fairy Princess of Oz_, they will BOTH appear, and they will be at odds with each other! ROBIN'S POLL: For the newcomers have may have missed the initial announcement, Robin O. is conducting a poll of people's favorite Oz books. She wants to know your top three favorite Baum books, top three favorite Thompson books, and top three favorite FF books overall. You may post you favs to the Digest, but *PLEASE* send a copy privately to Robin at robino@tenet.edu as she may miss seeing it in the Digest. Also send her a note telling which of the FF you have read. She is ending the poll in a few days so act now! :) -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 13, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:46:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-12-96 > From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN > Subject: Upset People in Oz > > Mombi: Boys! boys! Stop fighting you two! I throw a bucket of water on Mombi. End of her. [WWW's little tryst with Fabio deleted] > As I was about to say, I don't see a problem with using "Gingemma" and > "Bastinda" in discussions in place of "The Wicked Witch of the East" and "The > Wicked Witch of the West," since we know in particular which individual they > refer to... You are assuming here. Just because many of us DO know what you mean doesn't mean EVERYBODY knows. And what's wrong with WWW and GWN? They're even shorter than the Volkov names, and need a lot less explanation. > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > That seems to be the major dividing point between us. When I have a > belief, MOPPeT, or whatever, I try and present it and argue its case. Into the ground at times... (Remember the infamous "Oz off!" incident?) > If > I do a good job, I bring others into agreement with me. If not, I alter > it based on what other people have argued. Why do you feel the need to bring others into agreement? Why do you feel the need to alter your view if others don't agree? This is an extremely disturbing viewpoint, IMHO. You should be allowed to form your own opinions, let others form theirs, and leave it at that. > While other people's beliefs should be respected, IMHO one of the central > purposes of digests like this is to exchange info and ideas and, hopefully, > discover what the "objective truth" is, which I believe exists out there > somewhere, even for such places as Oz. And I strongly disagree with the idea that there CAN be an "objective truth." > Diagreements between conflicting ideas (and, possibly, the triumph of one > over the other) can be a good thing, if it is conducted in a respectful > manner and people are courteous to each other. In this case, sometimes > one person will be "right" and the other person will be "wrong". There > is nothing bad about this, as it is simply a part of the learning process. Or BOTH could be right, depending on their viewpoints and what basis they use to deduce the "truth." > I am grateful for others (including you, Eric! :-)) who have shown me the > weaknesses in my own arguements and led me to a better way of looking at > things. So "truth" is flexible, is that what you're saying? > The ideas of arguement, discussion and debate only makes us stronger. Not if it becomes confrontational, or people are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Then we are all lessened. Look what happened with Peter Glassman. > Of course, people will still not agree on EVERYTHING and this is good, since > we are not perfect and if we all agreed on everything, we would cease to > learn anything new. Yes, I quite agree . > Eric again: > If we limit our discussions only to the FF, how will we raise the awareness > level of them? Perhaps we should tag our arguements as using non-FF > material, so others will know what's going on. YES! THIS is what I've been meaning to say all along! We can't assume that anybody knows what we mean, even if we ARE referencing the FF. Not everybody's read the entire FF. (Example: Look at Dave's distress over finding out there was already a flying pirate ship in the Oz books.) So how can we even assume that everybody know's what we're talking about in regards to the non-FF books? Oz fans come in all shapes, sizes, colors -- and LEVELS OF EXPERTISE! > Barbara DeJohn: > From my post yesterday, most people on the digest should know who Bastinda > is now! (Or who I think she is, anyway!) And what happens when more newbies come on board, and start scratching their heads about this name they've never heard of? > David "Now coming to you from the Windy City" Hulan HE'S BACK! HOORAY! > From: Barbara Belgrave > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-11-96 > > Greetings all!!! TGIF!!!! > > Eric..... > > Got your Oogaboo info in the snailmail and I know of 3 of us that are > coming for sure. Others are wishy washy. Loved the part about the large > Portland group. How about Bob Sheperd? Is he coming? Hey Bob, how > about it? > > Eric again..... > > I'd like a copy of the Tales of the Wizard of Oz cartoons you have. I was afraid this would happen when I posted that. Folks, I'm sorry to say that I am NOT a video duplicating service, and it's tough for me to make copies for people. I'll see what I can do, Barbara, but I make no promises or guarantees. > I also > want copies of your books. Autographed of course!!!! We can exchange at > the rendevous but let me know what you'd like in exchange. Like green > stuff...E-mail me private ok? Thanks! I only have one book out, "Queen Ann in Oz", and it's only available from Books of Wonder. I don't have dozens of copies lying around myself. If you get a copy and bring it to a Rendezvous, Karyl and I will gladly sign it, but we are not in the business of actually selling it. That's the publisher's job. --Eric "Am I coming across as as big a grump as I think I am?" Gjovaag # Come visit my "Wizard of Oz" web site! http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/ # ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:04:13 -0400 From: DAlbright1@aol.com Subject: Chittenango Hi group, Haven't had time to read Digests for a few days, but wanted to mention that I got an application from Barbara Evans in Chittenango for dealers interested in selling Oz things (books, merchandise) there. If anyone is interested, e-mail me and I'll inputthe info for you. Jane ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:16:34 -0400 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest 4-12-96 Barry: If I may use your phrase, "calm down"!! Just a bit of friendly needling. :-) But it has seemed to me that you and Aaron (especially) make more use and mention of Laumer/Volkov works than any other Oz source, particularly in regard to the Oz book you're co-writing. Kabumpo: Harumpf!! (stomps, twice) Tyler: ( re: Barry, Aaron & Laumer) Thanks for the confirmation! (See guys, I'm not the only one! :-)) Eric: Thanks for the info on "The Blue Witch of Oz". I'll phone Peter G's BoW and order it. Also, as I said yesterday, please don't stop expressing your opinions, and for OZ SAKES!!, don't leave the Digest. The differences of opinion between you, Dave, Tyler, Bear and others is what makes the Digest a "fun read" every day! Everyone of the contributors I consider an "Oz friend" . And you all have helped this "seasoned citizen" revive a long dormant interest and education in Oz. I don't feel anyone's posting is intended to be mean spirited. I certainly hope Barry and Aaron do not consider mine to be so. But perhaps we all should be more liberal in the use of :-)'s and 's . (:-)) Barbara Belgrave: The Bradbury quote appears on the back cover of the several Del Rey Oz paperbacks I have. Dick Randolph (not, Randolf) (DIXNAM@aol.com) ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:34:52 -0400 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 4/12/96 *Sigh*, things seem to be getting a bit on the rancorous side. I hope they settle down soon. My take is that it seems to be mostly an outgrowth of some of the "inclusionists" talking about HACC theory as if it were consensus (to pick nits, that's how the word is spelled, not "concensus") when it's not, and the "purists" reacting to it more strongly than seems justified. What's probably needed is some kind of code that alerts those who aren't really interested in HACC theory when that's what's going on, and tolerance on the part of others for occasional omissions of the code as long as there's evidence of a sincere effort to use it most of the time. There appears to be no real likelihood at this time of convincing an inclusionist to revert to purism, or a purist to become an inclusionist. And it's not as if either position is Evil, or that either one loves Oz any the less. Personally, I rather like "Bastinda" and "Gingemma" rather than the multi-word titles that are all one can justify from the FF; they're easier to type. They're even easier to type than WWoW. And as compared with other names they've been given, they have temporal priority; Volkov first used them around 1939, as I recall. But I don't have any strong feeling about it, and if they offend others I don't mind avoiding them when referring to the Wicked Witches except in the context of discussing books (written or in progress) where those names are used. John White: What's your justification for saying that Lulea's band of fairies must obey the laws of Ak? And that Lurline is more powerful than Ak? (The latter may be that Ak clearly could not make Santa Claus immortal on his own authority, but Lurline could make everyone in Oz immortal. But the former?) In any case, I agree that Lurline and Zurline must be different; in SANTA CLAUS there are fairies and wood nymphs, and they're not the same type of immortal, any more than gnomes or ryls or knooks are. Eric Gjovaag: I don't remember anyone saying that Yew MUST be in the same world as Oz; I had more the impression that you said it COULDN'T be, and the others were arguing that it MIGHT be. But maybe in reading a 3-week progression of argument it got mixed in my mind, and it was the other way round. It seems to me to be unclear; there's no conclusive evidence that Yew is in the Oz world, but Yew is very Ozzy in nature (like Quok, and other such states shown on the south coast of Imagination/Baumgea [do you, by the way, object to "Baumgea"?] that aren't directly connected to Oz in the FF) and so it would not be surprising for it to be in the Nonestic. Speaking of Peter Glassman reminds me that one of his rare recent appearances here was with respect to the elimination of smoking by the Bad Lads in GLASS CAT. I don't want him, or anyone else here, to think that I had any objection to that change when it was made. I originally wrote GLASS CAT for my own amusement, and when I incorporated the Big Rock Candy Mountain in it, with its cigarette trees, it seemed logical to have the Bad Lads take advantage of them to smoke, as bad boys would certainly do. But it wasn't a major plot point, so eliminating it didn't bother me at all. The comment Rich Morrissey picked up on in Apanage wasn't a complaint; most of those people had seen the first draft and I was mentioning what had been changed from that to the published version. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:36:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest On theories and stuff: Your point has hit home. I (and others) have probably been a little arrogant, sitting on high and dictating our pet theories as fact, and I will try to make it clear when my stuff is only theory. I will not stop arguing and presenting them, though. I hope to generate debate, discussion, and (hopefully) and overall agreement on many things Ozzy. Maybe not 100%, but as close as we can get. Consensus may not be possible, but I will try nonetheless. Also, it will not necessarily be my theories that win out. A lot of stuff that I once believed in has fallen by the wayside as better arguements have come in, such as Pastoria building the YBRs or the 1000 year reign for the "one and only" Ozroar. These rather lame ideas were shot down, respectively, by _How the Wizard Came to Oz_ and the great March Laumer himself! Eric, I can guess who sent *ONE* of the private e-mailings in support of you, but I won't say who it is :-) Who died and left me in charge? To be honest, nobody. My theories and opinions (by which I use the term HACC theory) are not the only ones and they are by no means at all "official". By using ideas from as many people and books as possible, I hope that HACC theory provides the "best answers", but that does not mean that other opinions are useless, which is why I am constantly revising what I believe in the light of new evidence and interpretations. I believe that two people can disagree, argue about which one is right, and still respect each other and their opinions. Eric and the Adelmans: I agree with Barry that the use of "The Wicked Witch of the West", even in an abbreviated form, is not a real name and we need something personal to call her. I myself use Bastinda because, of the books that have given her a name, Laumers are IMHO, the most textually accurate, except for the Wiz Kids, and my opinion is that it's too much of a coincidence that her name is so close to an Alberquerque school teacher. :-) This is despite the fact that the name was originally used by Volkov, whose books were, IMHO, not accurate Ozzy history. Others may use any of the other names, or none at all, but I believe that people will know who I'm talking about, and if they don't, they can check Dave's FAQ. As for "Locasta", that is different because this person was not mentioned in the FF. It was assumed that the Witch that Dorothy met in _Wizard_ was Tattypoo, thesame person in _Giant Horse_. Despite the existence of Locasta being a theory developed by Dave, I believe that nearly all of us know who he means and that it is his MOPPeT. End of sermon, day 3 :-) I would go on the lecture circuit, except I'm shy around large crowds :-( For those of you who are interested, Farmer named the Good Witch of the North Helwedo and the Good Witch of the East Wulthag. I don't remember him naming either of the Wicked Witches, since they were long dead, but the new Wicked Witch of the North is named Erakna, who uses Mombi as a servant. John White, Eric and (maybe) others: Well said on the many fairies. I was taking the easy way out with my attitude "There is but one band of fairies and Lurline is their leader". It seems fare more likely that there are many bands of fairies, each with different powers, manifestations and responsibilities (or even no responsibilities). Current HACC theory (which is ever-changing) has now been revised to say that IMO, there are several bands of fairies, of which Lurline is the leader of one. There may or may not be a connection between the bands, and people such as Ak the Master Woodsman may or may not have authority over some of them. HACC theory, as always, may change or be modified at any time. By the way, I have yet to receive any Buckethead reviews. As it stands now, mine are the only ones. Much as I love my own writing (cough cough), it would really help if I could get a variety of opinions. If you go to http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tyler_jones and go to the Oz section, you will see a link called reviews. There are some guidelines to writing reviews of BEOO books and then all of my "brilliant" essays. Okay, honestly, my reviews are not very good. What I am looking for is a blurb that says "I did or did not like this and here's why". My review of _The Disenchanted Princess of Oz_, for example, praises the book, but I do not mention WHY I liked it. I am sure that many of you can do a better than I did. Please help! --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 21:31:02 -0400 (EDT) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN writes: > Fabio: Is Fabio any relation to Fabia, Glinda's younger sister? (from the non-FF CORY) > Beyond that, the only other Laumerisms we've used are Dorothy being educated > and Glinda's marriage to Button-Bright, Glinda marrying Button-Bright? Sounds like Laumer was trying to think of the most nonsensical marriage imaginable. (Don't you think so, Button-Bright?) Button-Bright: Don't Know Eric Gjovaag writes: > What makes Volkov and Laumer so hot that they get to name the Wicked Witch > of the West? 1. Bastinda is a good name for her. 2. Volkov's stuff is in the public domain. 3. A consensus seems to be forming among those willing to have her named. > I don't agree that the Volkov or Laumer books are part of the real Oz They aren't, but there are some things from these books that can be ported to the real Oz. > Besides, we gotta remember, OZ DOESN'T REALLY EXIST! Our own universe doesn't really exist, either. It is nothing but a simulation being run on a computer by a higher life-form. :-) -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Friday 12-Apr-96 23:25:01 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Let's Make Ozzy-ness, not war! :) :) :) I'm really becoming worried about the "war" that has errupted on the Digest, especially as it has already driven one person to unsubscribe. So I think the time has come for us all (including me) to admit that we went off the deep end, concede that we sometimes take things too personally and become a *little* too agressive in our responses (as I have been), and let's reaffirm our mutual love for each other and for Oz, in spite of our differing opinions, and let's all be friends again. :) Here is some productive action that I think we can take. Eric has raised the legitimate concern that many people don't know what we're talking about when we present our MOPPeT's or even that they *ARE* MOPPeT's. So what I think we should do is each of us post to the Digest an outline of our own MOPPeT's, so that everyone will know what the theories vs. "facts" on the Digest are. And after everyone has posted a explanation of their MOPPeT's, I will incorporate them into my FAQ, so people can freely read about them in future. And tomorrow I'll write out and post *MY* MOPPeT's as well! -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 14, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 07:00:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-13-96 > From: DIXNAM@aol.com > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest 4-12-96 > > I don't feel anyone's posting is intended to be mean spirited. I > certainly hope Barry and Aaron do not consider mine to be so. But perhaps > we all should be more liberal in the use of :-)'s and 's . (:-)) That would CERTAINLY help . > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Ozzy Digest 4/12/96 > > *Sigh*, things seem to be getting a bit on the rancorous side. I hope they > settle down soon. Seems to be settling down already. > Eric Gjovaag: > I don't remember anyone saying that Yew MUST be in the same world as Oz; I > had more the impression that you said it COULDN'T be, and the others were > arguing that it MIGHT be. I don't mean that it COULDN'T be, just that I think it's very unlikely, based on the evidence in "Yew" and the FF. But that's because my interpretation of what the Good Witch of the North was saying about civilization and Oz seems to be at odds with others. So, IMHO, Yew isn't in Oz (although the reference to Baum's Santa Claus does weaken my position a bit), and if others disagree, well, they have their reasons, and that's that. > [do you, by the way, object to "Baumgea"?] Yes, because it's contradicted in the FF (Continent of Imagination -- I'm not wild about that name, but it IS there), and to my knowledge Baumgea has never been mentioned in ANY book, in or out of the FF. Thus, it's one person needlessly spreading a MOPPeT around that could become VERY confusing. (And to diverge from the subject a bit, what about Robert Pattrick's proposed name for the continent, Ozeria? Were I to pay attention to any fan-derived name it would be this, because Pattrick came up with it first and he has a much more eminent place in Oz fandom than just about anyone on this list.) > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > On theories and stuff: > Your point has hit home. I (and others) have probably been a little > arrogant, sitting on high and dictating our pet theories as fact, and I will > try to make it clear when my stuff is only theory. I will not stop arguing > and presenting them, though. I would certainly hope not! > I hope to generate debate, discussion, > and (hopefully) and overall agreement on many things Ozzy. Maybe not 100%, > but as close as we can get. I might add that another oddball opinion I have is that it doesn't matter! If one non-FF book contradicts another, I don't feel a need to come up with a theory to reconcile the two. I am perfectly capable of holding two conflicting ideas in my head, and still enjoy both books. In fact, IMHO some of the weakest Oz books are those that set out to explain some inconsistency, often minor. > Eric and the Adelmans: > I agree with Barry that the use of "The Wicked Witch of the West", even > in an abbreviated form, is not a real name and we need something personal > to call her. I myself use Bastinda because, of the books that have given > her a name, Laumers are IMHO, the most textually accurate, except for > the Wiz Kids, and my opinion is that it's too much of a coincidence that > her name is so close to an Alberquerque school teacher. :-) This is > despite the fact that the name was originally used by Volkov, whose books > were, IMHO, not accurate Ozzy history. But Laumer references Volkov's books, events, and characters! Urfin Jus is a major character in "Aunt Em and Uncle Henry in Oz," for instance. > Others may use any of the other names, or none at all, but I believe that > people will know who I'm talking about, and if they don't, they can check > Dave's FAQ. IF they know about Dave's FAQ! (Dave, a suggestion: Once the revised version is finished, send it to all of us as a separate document from the Digest so those of us who want to skip it, read it later, or save it can easily do so. Then send it to new subscribers after that, and if you ever make big revisions again, send us all copies again.) > As for "Locasta", that is different because this person was not mentioned > in the FF. It was assumed that the Witch that Dorothy met in _Wizard_ was > Tattypoo, thesame person in _Giant Horse_. Despite the existence of > Locasta being a theory developed by Dave, I believe that nearly all of us > know who he means and that it is his MOPPeT. You assume, here. Do you assume too much ? > John White, Eric and (maybe) others: > Current HACC theory (which is ever-changing) has now been revised to say > that IMO, there are several bands of fairies, of which Lurline is the leader > of one. There may or may not be a connection between the bands, and people > such as Ak the Master Woodsman may or may not have authority over some of > them. HACC theory, as always, may change or be modified at any time. I'm not sure if I'm interpreting things correctly here, and I probably need to go back and check some of the references in "Santa Claus" and "Zixi," but I still maintain that the band of fairies in "Zixi" (and, by indirect evidence, "Santa Claus") is the same band headed by Lurline that enchanted Oz. But this is a gut feeling, based on a belief that there should only be one band of fairies living in the Forest of Burzee. > From: jnw@vnet.net > Subject: misc > > Eric Gjovaag writes: > > What makes Volkov and Laumer so hot that they get to name the Wicked Witch > > of the West? > > 1. Bastinda is a good name for her. Agreed. But despite that, there is no FF basis for this name. > 2. Volkov's stuff is in the public domain. So? > 3. A consensus seems to be forming... Wait a minute! Most people here are NOT involved in forming this consensus... > ...among those willing to have her named. Oh, sorry. > > I don't agree that the Volkov or Laumer books are part of the real Oz > > They aren't, but there are some things from these books that can be ported > to the real Oz. Yes, but it sure would help if this were made QUITE clear, and treated as an opinion, not fact. > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Let's Make Ozzy-ness, not war! :) :) :) > > I'm really becoming worried about the "war" that has errupted on the Digest, > especially as it has already driven one person to unsubscribe. That few, huh? Everybody, compared to some Net wars I've witnessed or heard about (fortunately not participated in, so far), this is EXTREMELY mild! And it's blown over pretty quickly. > So I think the > time has come for us all (including me) to admit that we went off the deep end > concede that we sometimes take things too personally and become a *little* > too agressive in our responses (as I have been), and let's reaffirm our mutual > love for each other and for Oz, in spite of our differing opinions, and let's > all be friends again. :) Agreed! I'm sorry, everybody. > Here is some productive action that I think we can take. Eric has raised the > legitimate concern that many people don't know what we're talking about when > we present our MOPPeT's or even that they *ARE* MOPPeT's. So what I think > we should do is each of us post to the Digest an outline of our own MOPPeT's, > so that everyone will know what the theories vs. "facts" on the Digest are. > And after everyone has posted a explanation of their MOPPeT's, I will > incorporate them into my FAQ, so people can freely read about them in future. I usually presnt my arguments (I hope) as MOPPeTs anyway, but okay. I think there's really only two statements I need to make for inclusion in Dave's FAQ: * As enjoyable as I find the non-FF to be, there are a number of factors that keep them, IMHO, from being considered an official part of the series. They are not as well known, they are not readily available or kept in print, they are printed in MUCH smaller quantities than the FF, and there is no method (yet) of Oz authors getting together and coordinating things [the Ozzy Digest is a good start, but it must be remembered that only a very small proportion of Oz fans and potential authors are here]. And it is EXTREMELY difficult, even for a completist like me, to get and read all of them. So, for consistency's sake, and so as to avoid too much confusion, the ONLY sources I try to use when researching and coming up with theories are the FF, with lesser emphasis, because of their connections to the FF, to the non-Oz fantasies of L. Frank Baum, "The Little Wizard Stories of Oz," the books published by the International Wizard of Oz Club, and Neill's "The Runaway in Oz." Baum's plays and movies, the MGM movie, etc., are not a basis for any Ozzy research, since they are not part of the books at all. * Since this seems to be the one everyone disagrees with me the most on, I will just add that IMHO, "The Enchanted Island of Yew," unlike the rest of Baum's fantasies, is not part of the same world as Oz for a number of reasons: + No character from Yew ever appears in an Oz book, or vice versa. {The veiled reference to Baum's Santa Claus in "Yew," although it does weaken this point a bit, is nebulous, since Baum did not create Santa Claus in the first place, and Santa seems to be able to transcend the barriers between worlds. Or there's one on each world, since there's one in Oz and one in our world.) + Despite its inclusion on the Oz Club's map of countries surrounding Oz, there's no textual evidence that it belongs there, and there was some carelessness in arranging the Nonestic islands anyway. + At the end of "Yew," civilization comes to the island, and it becomes a very different place from Oz and all the surrounding countries. But the Good Witch of the North, in "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", states that Oz is not a civilized country like Kansas, and so, by implication, Yew can not be part of the same world as Oz, as it appears that the entire Ozian world is uncivilized, at least by the Good Witch's definition ("In the civilized countries I believe there are no witches left; nor wizards, nor sorcerers, nor magicians. But, you see, the Land of Oz has never been civilized, for we are cut off from all the rest of the world. Therefore we still have witches and wizards amongst us.") While this may not preclude fairies and other magical beings from existing on Yew, civilization seems to have robbed the people of believing in them. (Much the same can be implied in our world, according to some of Baum's "American Fairy Tales".) --Eric "Was that enough rambling for you?" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 10:02:09 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: MOPPeTs and factions and HACCs! Oh My! Never read Volkov or Laumer, don't intend to. Mostly because a)they don't appear to be what *I* would consider "canonical" and 2) it seems like too much trouble to hunt them down. Y'all do talk enough about them enough to lessen any interest I might have had at one time in them. "Bear" aside, I still read and liked Wicked and much prefer Elphaba and Nessarose. So why would I give preferential treatment to a non-canonical author I haven't read when I can "wallow" (hi, Bear!) in the names given by a non-canonical writer I have read? Dave: you asked for it! For a reference point, saw the 1939 movie first, hunted down the Baums, found the Thompsons at the same time, fell in love and have been there ever since. Opinions: Style and substance have priority over simply using Oz in the title. The FF in various degrees all have it, but only some of the non-FF do. Shanower, Karyl and Eric ;)... and that's it of what I've read. And I do confer Canon status on Former FF writers who return to Oz later in life. Mainly because they haven't lost "IT", whatever that might be. History: Lurline's enchantment of Oz, IMHO, was more to set aside a special, pre-existing place than the outright creation of same. I don't believe anyone or thing is 100% perfect and the results of the enchantment may have caused some unforeseen side effects. Like increasing magical abilities in and around the country. I'm not sure yet on the requirement for Ozma to be on the throne for the enchantment to have full power. Mostly because I disagree on what the enchantment does. I think, at most, that it limits the causes of death in that particular country. Maybe to the point where each sentient being only has one or two ways to die. And nothing else will work. It also, IMHO, (although people are rarely humble about their opinions, IMO) made aging optional in that country. I also think when you have carnivores and omnivores, there is going to be some eating of living animals. Of course this doesn't mean there aren't meat trees, etc. Wam was certainly a busy little wizard. Anyway, the human-looking population will certainly have a variety of opinions on the propriety of eating other sentient creatures. It may be that the Court of Ozma decided against it on the basis that you could never be sure your meal wasn't the leading philosopher of its race, given the fact that not every animal feels like talking. The Wizard, depending on the point in history, is a good but weak person. He can do things that someone else would consider bad. Lobotomies, sending a 5 year old against an army lead by a Witch. But generally means well. Has definitely landed in clover and knows it. Glinda keeps her own council. She knows more than she tells and not as much as she pretends. Uses spies, maintains by some accounts the best army in Oz even in peacetime. Takes matters into her own hands without consulting anyone, even the ruler of the country. Ozma is exactly what she seems to be. And doing a fine job considering the life she's lead. Although sometimes she tends to come across as Little Miss Invincible, Mistress of All She Surveys, she genuinely means well. Dorothy, Aunt Em and Uncle Henry in the later books (post-WOZ) act differently than they do in the first book and are therefore different characters entirely. WHAT HAVE YOU FIENDS DONE WITH THE REAL GALES??? I DEMAND YOU BRING THEM BACK!!! *giggle* followed by lots of little smileys, picture it, I'm not going to really type lots of the same characters over and over and over. It is so much easier to type this long drawn out couple of lines. Bastinda... WWW... hmmm. Which was easier? I know! Elphaba! The rest is subject to moodswings and changes in weather. Ask my therapist. HA! I'm registering on the Eric G. side. Me like him. He nice. Update on Glassmangate. Librarians and booksellers in my area want to know what else of BOW's children's classics were edited secretly. I'd like to see sales figures on Patchwork Girl. Opinion here was that it wouldn't be bought since it was edited. All that aside, I love Tik Tok and the rest and wouldn't trade them for the world. My best to you all, Mike B ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 08:53:23 -0700 From: "W. R. Wright" Barbara asked: >What about putting one book on a month to give us the opportunity to >download them seperately? Then change the book for the next month? Barbara, I will work to do that. Only rather than have one a month, why not have all of them available all the time? If you go to the library section of my website, and then navigate to the page for the book of interest, somewhere on the page you will find a link to the on-line copy of the book, if it exists on line. Currently I have links to about half of them. I will work to get links in for the rest of the books. The links carry you to either an html formatted version of the book (that your browser can save for you), or a plain text version that can be downloaded by ftp (most browsers also provide this functionality as well). Big problem may be for users on aol/prodigy/compuserv/etc. They have a $meter running while connected, so downloads can cost some $$. BTW#1, most of these links are to Dennis Amundson's website. We have Dennis to thank for posting up most of the online book versions. (Dennis - BIG THANKS!!!!) (BTW#2 - if the traffic volume ever gets too high, we could always have copies on mirror sites. But I suspect that traffic volumes may not be a problem today.) Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 14:13:21 -0400 From: DAlbright1@aol.com Subject: Digests Was I dreaming or did I post once that an Oz chess set already exists and was included in the The Wizard of Oz Collector's Treasury? Mkie T. and Eleanor K.: I'll incoproate Mike's additional tradition in the "Passover in Oz" piece when I reprint it in The spring Oz Gazette unless one of your writes and stops me. No one has suggested any Oz "authorities" on either The Wiz (stage and screen) or Disney's Return to Oz since I posted my need of same in a recent digest. Any suggestions out there? I still need help. Are any of you ever asked by members of the general public for Oz trivia? I am rather often and wonder if I'm alone. I'm considering making my file of that stuff available digitally (preferably on the IWOC web page) if you think it would be helpful. It is styled as multiple choice questions, True/False questions and fun facts. Nothing challenging for those of us immersed in Oz, but fun and challenging for the non-enthusiast. There will be a survey included in the next Club mailing (Bugle?) asking for your interests re: the IWOC Oz centennial convention in 2000. Since I'd expedcted it to have mailed by now, at "return by" date of May 15 is on it. The printer will move to later in May. PLEASE, any of you, respond to it quickly. And feel free to photocopy and pass to non Club members. I'd like to have at least 100 responses before the June Ozmapolitan convention in order to have a statistically valid sample. Your help and opinions are greatly appreciated. Jane ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 15:12:42 -0400 From: RMorris306@aol.com Subject: Re: Recent Ozzy Digests Hi again! The last few Ozzy Digests were a trifle disappointing: I for one would rather spend my (sadly limited) time here talking about the Oz books, the Oz characters, and other things of possible interest than personal recriminations and hurt feelings. I for one enjoy some spirited discussion, but I certainly don't want to offend anyone or make it seem as if their opinions don't mean anything, and I'm sure that's true of the vast majority of other people here. I'm especially sad about the comments about Peter Glassman dropping out because of criticism: something I hope I didn't play a part in with my comments on the Bad Lads' smoking. (I thought I made it clear that I understood and sympathized with his reasons for excising that element, all the more so now that David Hulan has mentioned he had no trouble with it, and THE GLASS CAT OF OZ was his book, not mine.) Someone else mentioned comments on his editing of "The Patchwork Girl of Oz," which may have been before my time. Did he restore the deleted "Garden of Meats" chapter, or some such thing? Again, I can see it either way, but have no intention of second-guessing his decision. There's been a trend recently for popular writers like Stephen King and Robert A. Heinlein (sometimes even after they're dead) to put out "restored" versions of their books, with parts cut out by the editors put back in. For the most part, I've been inclined to think the editors cut or even changed those passages for a reason, and that even the best writers can sometimes benefit from good editing. I don't think it's coincidence that Heinlein's often-perceived decline as a writer began around the same time he'd acquired enough clout to insist on little or no editing. In Baum's case, I liked Crinkilink in the "Little Wizard" story better as a disguised Wizard than I would have if he'd been an actual giant killed by Toto while shrunken, and I think Baum himself did (or, at least, so he told his editor) as well. In regard to names of characters--I think, once you get away from the original writers, that's more or less what seems to resound with readers and other writers in a continuing series. I've never known anyone to call the Cowardly Lion "Dandy" (as in TALES OF THE WIZARD OF OZ) or even "Cowy" (as in Thompson's non-FF ENCHANTED ISLAND OF OZ) outside those specific works, but "Bastinida" (which I'm not sure I've even spelled right) still seems, to me and others, a bit better for a character whose creator never gave her a name. ("WWW" may be easier to write, but a lot longer to pronounce...and, especially in an Internet publication, all but invites confusion with the World Wide Web.) Other folklore provides similar examples: I don't think Baum ever named Santa Claus's reindeer, but many (if not most) writers have adopted the names given the original eight by Clement Clarke Moore, and even latecomer Rudolph (though he has a decade or more to go before he's public domain) seems to be an unofficial permanent addition. In the Batman comic books, creator Bob Kane and his writer/collaborator, Bill Finger, never got around to giving names to Batman's two greatest foes, the Joker and the Penguin. For want of anything else, most later writers have gone with names established outside the comic books, Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot (given to the Penguin by Alvin Schwartz in a 1946 newspaper strip) and Jack Napier (used for the Joker by Sam Hamm in the 1989 movie). At least the Joker's name was never made official by DC Comics, but nevertheless, if some Batman fan said, "I had a story in mind where Jack and Oswald fought Batman in Hollywood," most fans would know who was meant. If anything, "Locasta" is probably an even more authentic name for the Good Witch of the North, since it was used by Baum himself for the character. Whether she's the same person as Tattypoo is still open to debate (just as Omby Amby is almost certainly the same person as Wantowin Battles: I don't think anyone has yet argued that there are two Soldiers with Green Whiskers), but the possibility of Locasta and Tattypoo being two separate people was raised by Jack Snow in WHO'S WHO IN OZ, which, being a Reilly & Lee publication by an FF writer, deserves at least some consideration. Has anyone shown any similar objections to "Saladin von Smith" as Button- Bright's real name, since, like "Locasta," it was used by Baum, but not in any Oz book of the FF? Speaking of Button-Bright, his marrying Glinda is certainly off the wall, but I don't have any objection to it. Then again, our Shaggy Man's brother Al (to whom I apologize for not mentioning his taking part in our "Return to Oz" adventure in New York) can confirm how partial I am to young man/older woman liasons and marriages--at that, Philip Jose Farmer had a relationship (though not, as far as is known, a marriage) between Glinda and Dorothy's son (fathered by a chap named Stover, not by Tommy Kwikstep), who would've been chronologically younger than even Saladin. I suspect Laumer's inspiration lies in Baum himself, since it would parallel Gayelette's relationship with Quelala as described in THE WIZARD OF OZ.... Time to go! Rich Morrissey ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 18:08:47 -0400 (EDT) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Gingemma, Bastinda, etc. Mombi: Nice try, Eric, but I've had myself coated with Thompson's Water Seal! Percy: I wasn't aware Ruth Plumly Thompson had a seal. David Hulan (I think it's David Hulan), I can see your point about confusing the newbies by using "Gingemma" and "Bastinda." Therefore I will try to label the witches in question in future postings so as to avoid the confusion. (And, should anyone be confused, they can, of course, ask...) Wicked Witch of the West: Actually, my full name is Bastinda Elphaba Allidap Groepert Bananabanabobita Consuela the Third.7M1 ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 18:37:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest On multiple opinions: Well, why CAN'T I just see that people have ideas that differ and let it go at that? There is no reason, really. I just feel that it is intellectualy dishonest not to pursue the matter. If there are multiple opinions out there (even conflicting), it seems to me that the issue is unresolved and that the discussion "isn't finished". As Eric says, Oz does not REALLY exist (as far as we know :-)), so that objective truth is an impossible goal. But as far as the sense of story and history that exists in our hearts and imaginations, I believe that a best answer exists for each issue out there and it would be doing a disservice to Oz and ourselves if we did not try and find it. That means arguing, discussing, debating, doing research, considering our lines of thought and so forth. Sometimes this will be a little confrontational, but a little bit of that is acceptable, provided we do not go over the edge. For the record, I believe that nobody on this digest is mean-spirited in this sense. In some cases, I will be right. In other cases, other people will be right. Most of the time, each persons viewpoint has a kernel of "truth", and they combine to create something wonderful. If I take the ideas and interpretations of others and use them to alter my own, then I have made my own beliefs stronger and more "real", or as much as reality can be said to exist for an imaginary country. Eric: By the way, "truth" is not flexible. However, what we perceive to be the truth IS flexible, as new evidence comes to light and our interpretations change. This is called the pursuit of truth. As far as Oz is concerned, it can be said to be getting the best approximation. Eric and/or Dave: As Eric said, when new people come on board, they will be wondering what some of us mean when we say "Bastinda and Locasta met Gingemma and started to search for Ramina and Gwommokahlotokint with Lignum leading the way". WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?! Hopefully, all of the Laumerisms/Volkovisms will be placed on someones FAQ soon. Eric and others: Any video store should be able to copy VCR tapes for you. Of course, it ain't cheap, running about just under $20.00 per copy. Eric again: This time at least, you did not come across as a "grump" :-) I believe that we have finally spelled out the differences and can go on from there. Dick Randolph: Thanks for the support (for everybody, not just me). I hope that we will all continue to present our theories and discuss them and I hope we don't scare anybody off the digest anymore! :-) David (H): Welcome back! Your put the differnces between the inclusionists and the purists very well. I do not believe that one group loves Oz any more or less than any other group, and it is incumbent upon inclusionists such as myself to make it clear when I am discussing HACC theory. Maybe we just ought to use the phrase "HACC" often in paragraphs that contain such discussion. David and John White: I believe John was referring to Zurline, who treated Ak with a great deal of respect in _The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus_. I do not know if this means that Ak has any official authority over her or not. Eric and David: For the record, my position has been that the evidence amassed as to whether or not YEW is in the Nonestic Ocean is inconclusive so far. It may or may not be. I suggested assuming that it was so that if somebody wanted to write about Dorothy, etc. going to Yew (or maybe Captain Salt paying a visit), it would cause no problems for HACC theory. There's that phrase again! :-) ***** LAUMER STUFF ***** John White: Laumer held that Button-Bright, who had accidentally grown up during the Thompson administration, left Oz and came back much more mature and wise. Thus, he was a worthy companion for Glinda. Dave: This is kind of embarassing, but with all my high-falutin' talk about HACC theory, and pursuing the truth and other such noble things, I have to admit that HACC theory does not really exist! Eric, Dave, John, Barry, Aaron (and everybody else): WHAAAAAATTT?!?!?!?!?! Well, what I mean is that it is not formally written down in any kind of documentary format. It's all in my head. I will do my level best to scoop it out of there and post it to my web page. Until then, I'll just keep posting stuff as needed. "Make Oz, not war!", huh? How about If this Scalawagon is rockin', don't be knockin' --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:05:35 -0400 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-13-96 >--Eric "Am I coming across as as big a grump as I think I am?" >Gjovaag Yup. :-) Dick Randolph: >Also, as I said yesterday, please don't stop expressing your >opinions, and for OZ SAKES!!, don't leave the Digest. The >differences of opinion between you, Dave, Tyler, Bear and >others is what makes the Digest a "fun read" every day! >Everyone of the contributors I consider an "Oz friend" . And >you all have helped this "seasoned citizen" revive a long >dormant interest and education in Oz. Hear! Hear! Tyler Jones: I haven't read that many Buckethead books, but will provide reviews of CORY and INVISIBLE INZI if you want them, as soon as I'm settled in my house. (And DINAMONSTER, if you like. Since I thought TOTO was unreadable, I doubt if you want me to review it - sorry, Chris, if you're reading this.) John White: I agree with you that Button-Bright marrying Glinda is one of the most improbable Ozian events that I've heard of. Not that Button-Bright is all that dumb - in ROAD he was only about four years old, despite the fact that Dorothy is clearly ten or eleven and it says he's "two or three years younger". Baum's informant obviously couldn't gauge ages. If you read SKY ISLAND you know that Button-Bright is both clever and resourceful by the time he's eightish; he didn't pick up that much moxie in a year or two. But (a) Glinda has clearly stayed single for hundreds if not thousands of years, and has no need to marry anyone, and (b) Button-Bright has a completely wrong personality to appeal to Glinda even if she decided she was interested in romance. He's totally laid-back and irresponsible; she's the epitome of responsibility and type-A drive. I know they say opposites attract, but -that- opposite? If Laumer has made a serious case for it (as opposed to mentioning it in passing) I'd like to know the book, so I can critique it. David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:59:07 -0400 (EDT) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc Dave, do you mail a FAQ to new subscribers? That would solve the problem of getting them up to speed on Bastinda, Locasta, the many acronyms, etc. DavidXOE@aol.com writes: > What's your justification for saying that Lulea's band of fairies must obey > the laws of Ak? And that Lurline is more powerful than Ak? (The latter may be > that Ak clearly could not make Santa Claus immortal on his own authority, but > Lurline could make everyone in Oz immortal. But the former?) You are right about the latter. (Of course, the Oz people don't have *true* immortality as they can still be destroyed, but what they do have is more than Ak could give Santa Claus without using the mantle.) In IX Lulea's band has the duties of looking after chosen mortals, and her band visits Burzee in their spare time. In SANTA CLAUS there are fairies that visit Burzee whose duties are to "guard the lives of mankind unseen and unknown". Both books mention that the fairies have rainbow-hued wings. I am assuming from this that these books are talking about the same band of fairies. When Santa Claus leaves Burzee, Ak commands the Nymphs, Ryls, Knooks, and Fairies to help him (Santa Claus) if he needs it. When Ak fights a war with the Awgwas, his forces consist of these same four groups of immortals. This suggests that these immortals are all under his command. > I don't remember anyone saying that Yew MUST be in the same world as Oz; Well, someone said that there was no evidence in the text of YEW that Yew was in the Oz universe, and I pointed out that the fairy in YEW mentioned an event from SANTA CLAUS as if it had happened in the same universe. Combined with the fact that Baum wrote YEW, that Yew is on the IWOC map by Haff and Martin, and that Yew is an Ozzy sort of place, I am convinced that Yew is part of the Oz universe. Dave Hardenbrook writes: > So what I think we should do is each of us post to the Digest an outline > of our own MOPPeT's, I couldn't possibly remember all my MOPPeTs. :-) Also, at what point does something become a MOPPeT? For instance, my comments about Lulea and Yew (above) have direct support from the books, although the books don't explicitly say that Lulea must obey Ak or that Yew is in the Nonestic Ocean. I usually reserve the word "MOPPeT" for more speculative things, such as behind-the-scene events that can explain an apparent contradiction in the books. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:17:38 -0700 From: ozbot@ix.netcom.com (Daniel C. Wall) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest MOPPeTs maybe I can give a little insight into the mind of the silent majority that we may have become. First, it can be a little overwhelming to jump into a major detailed discussion about Oz especially with all the theories posing as facts. I guess this is the underlining issue, but it stems from the fact that NOT A LOT OF US ACTUALLY KNOW ANY NON-BAUM BOOKS! True, I am making my way through Baum's post-TIKTOK OF OZ books, but it is slow going. I imagine the RPT's and Niells' will be even more difficult. Most of this is due to the fact that that these books are so hard to access, especially for those like me who need to OWN the books I read, and I WILL NOT settle for the Del Rey editions. (Blame Glassman for spoiling me.) Tyler-- Maybe the above reasons may be also given to your lack of support for book reviews? Robin (I think it's Robin)-- Ditto for your Favorite Books Poll? I have only been introduced to Lurline, the Adepts, even Kabumbo and Ozroar and Pastoria by virtue of all you arguing over MOPPeTs. Don't get me wrong, I love it, and it gives me a greater drive to read further. As Dave and Eric agree, the purpose for these discussions is to find out just how much Oz is out there and how deep we can plumb its depths. Until the Wicked Witch of the West calls herself "Liz Taylor" Danny ============================================================================= Date: Saturday 13-Apr-96 22:33:42 (PDT) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things ERIC: >So, IMHO, Yew isn't in Oz ... I haven't read _Yew_, but just looking at the map makes me form the humble opinion that Yew looks out-of-place, as though some had just "stuck it in". :) > ... to my knowledge Baumgea has never been mentioned in ANY book, in or >out of the FF. It has *NOW*!!! :) :) :) >In fact, IMHO some of the weakest Oz books are those that set out to >explain some inconsistency, often minor. Obviously, there is no correlation between strict consistancy and quality of the story. But IMHO, that doesn't consistancy is not something to be strived for. > ... I still maintain that the band of fairies in "Zixi" (and, by >indirect evidence, "Santa Claus") is the same band headed by Lurline that >enchanted Oz. But this is a gut feeling, based on a belief that there >should only be one band of fairies living in the Forest of Burzee. In _Fairy Princess of Oz_, I have Zurline's band of wood nymphs be a subsiduary of Lurline's band of *ALL* Baum-universe fairies. In fact, it is ambition on Zurline's part to rule more than just the wood nymphs that causes trouble in _Fairy Princess_. ERIC AND JOHN (MY FAQ): John wrote: >Dave, do you mail a FAQ to new subscribers? Eric wrote: >(Dave, a suggestion: Once the revised version [of your FAQ] >is finished, send it to all of us as a separate document from the >Digest so those of us who want to skip it, read it later, or save it can >easily do so. Then send it to new subscribers after that, and if you ever >make big revisions again, send us all copies again.) This is a good suggestion, and this is what I'll do... RICH M.: > I'm especially sad about the comments about Peter Glassman dropping out >because of criticism: something I hope I didn't play a part in with my >comments on the Bad Lads' smoking ... Someone else mentioned comments >on his editing of "The Patchwork Girl of Oz," which may have been before my >time... It was the comments about _Patchwork Girl of Oz_ (Yes, "before your time"), not yours about _Glass Cat_, that drove Peter Glassman out of active Digest participation. What BoW did was make minor alteration to two lines of Baum's narrative -- The Phonograph's song, "My Coal Black Lulu" was changed to "My Cross-Eyed Lulu", and Baum's description of the the appearance of the Tottenhots was altered to remove any reference to "black" skin. Many people (including me) criticized these changes, arguing that Baum wrote what he wrote, and it should not be altered. Although I *STILL* don't believe such changes, however tiny, should be made, I feel bad about driving Peter away and also I recently got BoW'===== ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 15, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 23:42:58 -0700 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: I have completed making links from all the Oz book descriptions (library section at my website), to the on-line text version of the books. The on-line texts are at Dennis A's site, courtesy of the hard work of Dennis and a number of other people he credits at his site. So now everyone with a browser can get at the books by the simple click of your mouse. Happy reading everyone. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 06:42:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-96 Since so much of today's Digest is fallout from Eric's-Little-Tiff-gate, I'm not going to respond to ANY of it today. IMHO, we need to start over, and find some actual Ozzy topics to talk about. (Except I just want to add to Dave that even if I did consider non-FF books in my arguments, I can't consider "Locasta and the three Adepts" yet because it hasn't been published, and I haven't had any sort of chance to read it!) (And Dave, if in a fit of pique you e-mail me selected portions of your manuscript, I will scream. I have no time to read more stuff right now, but thanks for thinking of me anyway.) Hey, when was the last time anybody saw "The Wizard of Oz" on television? Since I have at least three copies of it on video now, I haven't watched it on TV in years, but I do always try to note when it's on. And I don't think CBS has shown it since I got married, nearly two years ago! Has CBS just decided to cut their losses and not show it again? Well, at least Ted Turner will give it better treatment on TNT when he gets it back in 1999. Again, I will ask, who's in favor of forming an Oz newsgroup on Usenet? While it would seriously diminish the volumes of posts to the Digest (if not eliminate the need for it altogether), it would allow a lot more people access to Oz stuff, and we could pick and choose which topics we wanted to read. But if response is favorable (last time I asked I got no response whatsoever), I'll tell you right now that it will be a lot of work, especially if we want it in the rec.* heirarchy. Anyway, right now I just want to see if there's any sort of interest one way or the other. I just got a response to my web page today from a gentleman running a Judy Garland page. He wants to link his page with mine, and vice versa. Sounds fair to me! For those of you lurkers who haven't read very many of the Oz books, would you like us old-timers to post spoiler warnings when we discuss what happened on page 194 of a Thompson book? We don't want to spoil all the surprises for you if you ever get a chance to read them. On a personal, non-Ozzy note, I've now seen both the Fox and BBC1 ads for the new "Doctor Who" movie coming up on May 14. If science fiction is your cup of tea, WATCH IT! It looks TERRIFIC! And it will probably be better than any of us longtime "Doctor Who" fans would have ever dared hope when we first heard that the show was coming back. (Okay, if you want to ask me more about this, e-mail me, I don't want to clog the Digest with "Who" talk, that's what the rec.arts.drwho newsgroup is for.) Who here hopes that Eric Shanower and David Maxine publish "Oz Story Magazine #2" this year? Did I mention that I found "The Legends of Oz" CD-ROM remaindered at a used CD-ROM shop for only $6.00 a copy? I'm currently trying to read "Wicked." I wish I had more time to read, this is a fun book. Yes, CERTAINLY quite heretical, this Oz has the Emerald City build before the Wizard came along, railways, universities, etc. But culturally and socially, it's an interesting extrapolation of what we do know from the Baum books (Maguire does seem to know his stuff, for the most part), what it's like living in a country with magic and talking animals (or, to use the books term, Animals), and interesting reinterpretations of the characters. Oh, but one more confirmation that this isn't Baum's Oz is that Elphaba's skin is green. This is obviously borrowed from the movie, as Baum never mentions the Wicked Witch's skin color, and Denslow drew her as being the same color as most people of European descent. (Of course, this is the same man who illustrated Dorothy as having bright yellow skin in the color plates. I suspect this may have partly been to the crudity of the printing methods used to make the color plates in "Wonderful Wizard," however.) --Eric "There, is that enough to get us talking about more pleasant items?" Gjovaag ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Come visit my "Wizard of Oz" web site! http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/ # ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 11:56:57 -0400 From: RMorris306@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 4-14-96 Eric wrote: <> Since the Santa who visited Oz mentioned (in ROAD) also having seen Dorothy on Button-Bright on Christmas Eve, I'd say he can transcend the barriers between worlds...though, sad to say, not as often to this world as he once did, <> Maybe it's the same band of fairies, but chooses a different leader every so often, like most real groups today. Lurline, Zurline, and Lulea all could have led the group over the course of its history. Michael B. wrote: <> I can live with that, even if it does stick us with "Cowy" as the Cowardly Lion's name (THE ENCHANTED ISLAND OF OZ). On the other hand, it also gives official status to the idea that Locasta and Tattypoo were two different people (since Jack Snow first proposed it in WHO'S WHO IN OZ). <> Dorothy was young in WIZARD, but I don't think she was quite *that* young. I'd say she was closer to 7 or 8. Jessica Dubroff, the 7-year-old pilot killed this week in an accident, reminded me of Dorothy in the way she took on tasks well beyond her years, risking her life and ultimately losing it. We would have thought far differently of the Wizard if Dorothy had indeed died, but I don't think there'd have been anything like the blame now being given, only partially with justice, to Jessica's parents and guardians. As for the Wizard's lobotomies, I'd forgotten a third, in addition to his previously-discussed operations on the Glass Cat and Jenny Jump. In PIRATES IN OZ, the Wizard anounces his intention of operating on Clocker, the Cuckoo-Clock Man, to "replace his bad works with good ones." It's almost a Frankenstein-like progression (artificial animal to mechanical man to human being), but I still like to hope that, since the Glass Cat's lobotomy was ultimately reversed, the other two (if Clocker's was even performed: we don't know that it was actually carried through) may have been as well. Danny wrote: <> I can sympathize with that requirement. Fortunately, having been brought to libraries (which, even more fortunately, did stock Oz books) since my earliest childhood, I never had that orientation, and still don't. I still own only a third of the books, mostly Del Rey editions, but some of my most delightful memories have been tracking down the various Oz books and reading them (in no particular order). I'd read all the Baum Oz books by rhe time I was 9, but most of the Thompson books had to wait for my college years (I'd read only JACK PUMPKINHEAD, owned by my second-grade teacher, as a child) and after. I borrowed ROYAL BOOK and YELLOW KNIGHT from a British collector named George Beal (David Gerstein may know him: he's written a few stories for the Disney comics), and the last of the FF I read was OJO, taken out of the Harvard library a few months before Del Rey came out with its edition. In fact, one reason I've been disillusioned with comic fandom of late (not all of it, but much of the mainstream) has been an overemphasis on collecting and ownership rather than history and discussion. Dave H. wrote: <> As with the smoking, I don't entirely agree with but can respect his decision, especially in a book marketed for children. Baum was unusually non-prejudiced for his time, evidenced by the very few such passages that even today come off badly, and most of those are in his more obscure books (like THE WOGGLE-BUG BOOK). I'd love to see FATHER GOOSE: HIS BOOK reissued (perhaps for its 100th anniversary), but I can also see that a couple of the blatantly racist rhymes (certainly the one about the "Little N***er Boy, perhaps "Lee-Li-Lung-Whan" as well) would need to be eliminated, or at least changed (to "Little Farmer Boy" or something). Curiously enough, the one rhyme that does seem to have been dropped during the books life was evidently eliminated for violence rather than racism, "Polly Wants a Cracker," where a boy gave him a firecracker. Not something we'd want kids imitating, even though it's nothing more than cartoon violence. Literally. I just saw the identical gag in a Bugs Bunny cartoon ("Bucaneer Bunny"). Take care, Rich Morrissey ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 11:41:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Hanff Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-13-96 Dave, Here's a suggestion to subscribers who like to engage in lively and spirited debate concerning the Oz canon and the analysis and resolution of apparent inconsistencies. The essays of Robert Riley Pattrick in "Unexplored Territory in Oz" have always struck me as gracious, thoughtful, intellectually keen, and open ended. Bob wrote those essays in dialogue with other Oz enthusiasts and I think the results could serve as a healthy model for all of us. He achieved balance, clarity, and a hopefulness that later readers would contribute even greater insight. I think all of the lively discussion of recent days would be even more effective and productive if the participants derived some inspiration in thier approach of Bob Pattrick. Peter ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:34:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy DIgest Eric: (beating the dead horse of YEW): Well, it comes down to what Locasta (Dave's MOPPeT name) meant by being civilized. I agree with you that she meant it as more of an attitude than urbanization. However, we diverge at the point where you say that because Oz was never civilized, then the rest of the Ozzy Universe was also never civilized. I believe that most of us can hold conflicting ideas in our head (I have some non-Ozzy ones that I won't go into), but I can't stop there. If two non-FF books have a contradiction, I can still enjoy them, but there remains a nagging feeling inside that something is missing and there is something going on that is hidden and I must dig until I can resolve it. That is the just the way I am. I have to know the "truth", even if it is only the imaginary truth of Oz. :-) Eric again: yes, I am assuming that "everybody" knows who Locasta is and that her existence is HACC theory (developed by Dave). With Dave sending out the FAQ to newbies, this will hopefully no longer be a problem. I will let John present the case for the different fariy bands, as he does a better job than I do. I'm just stealing his ideas and incorporating them into HACC theory. However, let me just say that from the way the faries act in various books, it does indeed seem that is more than one group, with different powers, responsibilities etc. The name of the WWW: The problem is, of course, is that there is no FF basis for ANY name for this person, unless you buy into Aarons satirical remark that her full name really is "The Wicked Witch Of The West" :-). I like Barrys name for her, which incorporates all three current names for her that have been mentioned outside the FF, although I will stick with Bastinda for now, as I consider Laumer's books to be closer textually to the FF than _Wicked_. By this, you can see that I use Bastinda because LAUMER used it, not because Volkov did. Jane: I am asked for Oz info ocasionally. The most recent time was Wednesday when one of our right fielder wore red shoes to the game. Our left fielder made some comment about the Ruby Slippers and called him "Dorothy... hey, what was Dorothy's last name?" I informed him that it was "Gale", but that you would not find that info in the movie, you must read the books, and even then it was not until book 3. I did not bother to mention the stage play. John: Good point about when is a MOPPeT a MOPPeT? I don't know the answer. For example, there is even some indirect evidence in the FF for the existence of Locasta! :-) Danny: Yes, it's true that very few people have read a lot of non-FF, the entire FF or even all the Baum 14. Some of our discussions can seem like a lot of stuff that people have never heard of, but part of what we are trying to do is to raise awareness of the material and get people interested in it. This, combined with the Bill Wright/Dennis Amundson project to get most if not all the FF on-line, will increase peoples knowledge. It's a tough road, but it will be rewarding in the end. Dave and Eric: True, Yew was just "stuck in" only because the thing was written by Baum, but who knows? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. This is one of the few areas where HACC theory has no answer. Also, I like what Dave said about there being no correlation between consistency and quality of story. However, I believe that it is possible to write a good story that also resolves contradictions. Of course, it is not necessary for EVERY story to do this. Most of them are (and should be) just fun stories. Only once in a while do we need to get "technical". --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 11:08:56 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: What little I know about The Wiz Besides the fact that he is a Wiiizard who liiives in OOOz. Original Stage production directed by Geoffrey Holder who later became a spokesmodel for 7-Up, the UnCola. Butterfly McQueen (Prissie from Gone With the Wind) was cast to play the Queen of the Field Mice until her scene was cut from the musical. Disastrous movie version. The stage version is far superior, IMHO, and gets revived every now and then by colleges and community theatre groups and once in a great while by a major production company. Original recording on Atlantic 18137-2. Book by William f. Brown, music and lyrics by Charlie Smalls except for Tornado by Timothy Graphenreed and Everybody rejoice by Luther Vandross. WWEast named Evvamene, GWNorth named Addaperle, WWWest named Evillene. Dorothy aged thirteen is played by Stephanie Mills. The shoes are silver. Hinton Battle is the Scarecrow, Tiger Haynes is the Tinman, Ted Ross is the Lion, who is getting psychiatric help from an owl. They get lost in the land of the Kalidahs, barely escape from the poppy field. The Lion has to be rescued by the Mice Squad. Andre de Shields plays the Wizard. The great Mabel King plays Evillene and Dee Dee Bridgewater plays Glinda. After the Witch's death, the Wizard tries to weasel out of his deal, stands revealed as a two-bit conman from Omaha who had supposedly divine inspiration to look for the simple things in life: power, prestige, and money. He came to Oz in the expected way and became Wizard by giving everyone in the City green sunglasses. The magic is not in the glasses themselves but in what you allow yourself to see through them. After the Wizard's balloon takes off without Dorothy, Addaperle summons Glinda to see if she can help. She tells Dorothy about the shoes. Dorothy goes home. the End. For the most part, William Brown stayed real close to the book version of the story. But the movie version did not. Great Music!!! Dorothy's song, Home, is right up there with that other song from that other musical. The 1939 one. I can't seem to recall it offhand though.};-) If I could find the book of the musical, I would be thrilled. Oh, the show also won 7 Tony Awards, including Best Musical. Any way. that's it for today. Mike B. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:57:50 -0400 From: OzBucket@aol.com Subject: Whatever Dear Digest subscribers, Pour yourselves some coffee. This is gonna be a LOOOOONG one! The Ozzy Digest is quickly losing its appeal for Rinny and me. We have not even checked it for the past few days, and today it was a major chore to wade through three days' worth. Bottom line: It is very disappointing. A lot of arguments, most of which are not even Oz-oriented! If this doesn't correct itself, we'll be forced to unsubscribe. Not that I expect any of you to notice... Now, I know that I should be the last person to argue that there are more Oz books than the FF. However, why would anyone argue in favor of March Laumer's pornographic and vastly unresearched stuff? It is absolutely in contradiction with all known Oz books, it is filthy and inappropriate for sensitive readers of any age, and it is not even well written from the perspective of goodly usage of the English. I accept Volkov's books as true and accurate tales about Goodvinia. I also respect THE ARTHURIAN BOOK OF DAYS as a very fine book that has every bit as much to do with Oz as do Volkov's. Of course Bastinda and Gingemma are the accurate names of those witches from Goodvinia, but there is no evidence anywhere that either of them have ever been to Oz. And to equate them with some Ozian witches whom they've never even met is foolish! That is like saying that Bill Clinton and the Queen of Hearts are the same person. Would any of us make that mistake? Well, March Laumer probably would, but... I will not demand that the Wiz Kids' use of the name Allidap is the only true name she has ever used. (Note: Buckethead Enterprises of Oz is NOT the publisher, nor even the distributor of ANY Wiz Kid books!) In fact, in THE MAGIC TAPESTRY OF OZ, a full list of her names is given, I think even including the Volkov entities (as a joke, I would think.) As for you who are arguing Baumgea, I have a ms by Dave Hardenbrook which uses that name for the Continent of Imagination. Of course it is not the accurate name, but it is A name. Dave assures me that he is fixing this in the text. If you go to the place we call Sweden and call it that, the residents have no idea what place you are talking about. Germans do not use the word Germany (but I cannot spell Doitchland, so can't use that example). Within the boundaries of the Continent, it is called the Continent of Imagination. But if it is known as Baumgea elsewhere, so what? I have also heard the name Nonestica, but I do not hold that it is the name of the continent. It is a real name, much like Atlantica or Pacifica, but it refers to any of the Nonestic island territories, not specifically to the Continent of Imagination. I had a personal objection at first to the name Locasta and the discounting of Tattypoo. But Dave's book is well written and gives adequate explanation of this problem. I am now able to accept both Locasta and Tattypoo as different people, much as Bastinda or the Ozian Witches are different people. Oh, someone mistakenly mentioned in one of the past Digests that Oz authors do not check with one another or try to make the books gel. This is an outright lie! We definitely DO work together and try to avoid all contradictions. This is a LOT more than can be said of the FF authors, who ofttimes contradicted THEMSELVES as well as one another. It is impossible now to justify, for example, THE SHAGGY MAN OF OZ as a part of the "real" Oz. If it had been written by me or Rinny, it would be passed off as non-canonical. But because some people place religious significance on a certain publisher (which, by the way, is NOT the original Oz publisher!), we are forced to accept it anyway. I am anxious to read the so-far unwritten book which explains away its inaccuracies and justifies it as a canonical Oz book. But no, I don't plan to write it. At least, it is not among my current plans... And another thing: Someone put in all CAPS that Oz is not real. This is a real problem for those of us who not only believe in Oz, but have been there! If there are any more lies to that effect, we will certainly have to de-subscribe from the Digest. I will NOT have my queen or her country ridiculed, and will certainly not have them accused of being fictional! Hey, I am not insulting YOUR country; why must you insult mine? In future, can we try to be a bit more Oz-focused? I realize that not everyone sees eye to eye on everything. That is even true of Americans' view of America! But we needn't repeat over and over and over all of these arguments that have no relevance to Oz, and usually seem to contradict the facts given in the Oz books! Why? I hope that future Digests can go back to the friendly atmosphere that they had for the first few days when we had just subscribed. Please? Chris Dulabone Marin (Rinny) Xiques ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 16:16:56 -0400 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest 4-14-96 Danny: A great source for Baum and Thompson Oz books (and others, too) are the auctions at any of the IWOC conventions. You can pick up good reading copies for very little money, or even better ones if finances allow. Fellow subscriber Herm Bieber is someone to check with, also. In general: I too am disturbed that Peter Glassman has ceased participation in the Digest. I know a few folks expressed their displeasure with what I consider insignificant editing in the Books of Wonder reprinting of "The Patchwork Girl of Oz", but I was unaware that he was so offended by their opinions. He has a wealth of knowledge and information and I, for one, have missed his comments. I feel we Oz friends and fans owe a debt of gratitude to Peter and Books of Wonder for the beautiful reprintings of the first 8 (at the moment) of LFB's Oz books. For those of us unable to own 1st editions, or editions with color plates, these allow us to see what they looked like, and to see the wonderful color of John R Neill's illustrations. I have the first 7 already, and yesterday ordered , and am anxiously awaiting,"TikTok"! (:-) Dick Randolph ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:09:36 -0700 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: I have posted the results of the first week of responses to the browser survey. The url for the result page is: http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/bresult.htm Interestingly, there were many more responses from people who are not on the Ozzy Digest. Only eight of the 95 people on the Ozzy Digest mail list have responded to date. This leaves me wondering why the response from the Digest members has been so low. (Even the normally loquacious members of the Digest have not responded.) One reason may be that many of the members do not have a browser capability. It would be an important data point for those of us working on Ozzy websites to know how many members do not yet have browsers, and whether they plan to acquire one in the future. So if you only have email, please send me an email and let me know. I will also post this information to the survey results page also. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:16:52 -0500 (CDT) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-96 FRED UPDATE: Fred Meyer will be in rehab for the next 4-6 weeks. He's able to stand with assistance and, hopefully, will eventually be able to walk again. It is extremely unlikely that he'll be able to attend any of the conventions this summer. He *loves* having cards sent to him, even if they're from people whose names he knows but whose faces he's never seen. And if you're a member of the IWOC, he does know your name. JANE: I'd say David Maxine is an expert on WIZ. Try Melody for RETURN TO OZ. NEWBIES, et al: I agree with Danny's perception of our situation. Many, MANY of our customers love Oz, but come to us knowing only a few Baum books. Just because quite a number of us who dominate the DIGEST *do* know quite a lot about Oz, that doesn't mean that the majority of subscribers share our breadth of experience. ERIC: *Only* one member has unsubscribed? Why the sarcasm there? I find it uncalled for. CHRIS: I'm glad you're on-line. Hi! NEWBIES again: Please don't feel "out of it" if it seems that quite a few of us know each other. One great thing about the DIGEST is that everybody's comments are welcome. I feel I know some of the folks I've met in this forum just about as well as I know people I've known for years through the Oz Club (IWOC). Speak up! Longish post. Sorry! --Robin ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:21:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-96 OOPS! Here's the address of Fred Meyer's sister, Nancy. She has approved my posting it here. Cards will reach him much quicker if you mail them to: Fred Meyer c/o Nancy Petrasko 1438 Ullman Appleton, WI 54911 Nancy makes the trip to Madison at least once/week. She'll bring Fred his mail. ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:48:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Yew in Oz's World 1) If I may sidetrack the discussion on whether or not Yew is in Oz's world (now THAT's something that could use a decent name) is there any objection to writing an Oz story in which Yew is placed in Oz's world. Currently my brother and I consider anything on the map to be fair game (within copyright restrictions, of course) and have shamlessly written a Quokian (specifically Quentin the Kiwi of Quok, who I invented) into Lurline's Machine. 2) On the subject of Barry and I and our opinions on Laumer: No, we don't put Laumer on a higher level than Baum. It's just that we're both very familiar with the Baum 14 and have both paperback and electronic copies of them. Therefore, when we have a question about what Baum holds, we can easily look it up. However, each of us has read only two of Laumer's books, The Green Dolphin of Oz and The Frogman of Oz. As a lot of Laumer's ideas are interesting, since we do not have Laumer's books, we have to ask people on the Digest in order to learn more of them. And while we have adopted some of Laumer's ideas into our working model, there are some we have rejected. For example: a) Laumer claims that Oz is surrounded by a range of mountains. This borrowing from Volkov is not accepted in Adelmanian Oz as it is in contradiction to every scene in the FF where characters come to the Ozite= side of the edge of the desert. b) Laumer claims that Glinda, Tattypoo, Bastinda (=3D the Wicked Witch of the West), and Gingemma (=3D the Wicked Witch of the East) are all biological daughters of Lurline. That Tattypoo/Orin is a daughter of Lurline has been completely rejected, and most likely we will follow my brother's suggestion that the term Daughter of Lurline is not to be taken literally, but more in a tribal or ideological sense. In the current partial draft of Trot of Oz we actually present more than one theory of the geneological relationships among the afformentioned people and other magicians on the Continent of Imagination. In all probability, we will not come to any definite conclusion. c) Laumer claims that Ozma is a lesbian (in drives, though she does not act upon them). This claim is considerably weakened in Lurline's Machine, as we accept Dave's premise of Ozma falling in love with a member of the opposite sex. (Sorry, can't tell you what happens to Ozma and Dan a century or so later, but I can tell you that we did this as it made the scene it gets mentioned in work better.) 3) On the idea of Glinda being beyond having an intimate relationship with a man: Uh, er, Barry and I not only accepted Laumer's idea of Button-Bright falling into a mollases pit, growing up, and marrying Glinda (although we had to reject Laumer's chronology for these events), we made mention in The Woozy of Oz to her having a first husband before him who passed away long ago. Again, these make the scene work better. Tangent: My brother and I definitely do not accept the idea that celibacy and sorcery go hand in hand. Not only do we have references to Glinda and Ozma having relationships, but we have Mombi at one point in the past having had three kids (presuming a husband) and implications about Gingemma. One may also theorize that since the Red Jinn's culture is based more or less on that of Arabs, he probably would not be beyond having a harem. I must also note that I can name off the top of my head three prominent married couples in Lurline's Machine where both partners are magic-workers (Hiergargo and Garudiprostrella, Steve and Beverly, and= the Green Warlock and the Silver Witch). Sidenote: In Lurline's Machine Button-Bright is called by his first name, Saladin, as I insisted that "Button-Bright" is not an appropriate name for an adult. As a compromise, Trot (who we have also grow up) retains her nickname. 4) I have discovered that YU's UNIX machine does not allow students to have their own home pages, and I am therefore unable to make the HI/RCC available via WWW. Does anyone out there care to host the HI/RCC on one of their pages? 5) It's amazing what you can get through ILL. The Forgotten Forest of Oz= came in today. 6) I managed to read The Wooden Soldiers of Oz (by Alexander Volkov) and The Number of the Beast (by Robert Heinlein) over the spring break. The former is about the same quality as The Underground Kings of Oz except Dorothy isn't so wimpy (thank G-d!). The Number of the Beast, on the other hand, deserves to be burned. First, Heinlein made the previously mentioned error of claiming that babies are not born in Oz. Secondly, (and for this Heinlein derseves condemnation) the cultures he creates for his own characters tend to be designed as a cheap attempt to play upon the reader's hormones rather than for any substantial reason, incorporating the bizarre combination of nudism and dressing provactively, plus sexual practices which would make a lot of diseases really, really happy. He also managed to insult the substantial fraction of our planet's population who do not consider clothing to be optional, calling them "sick". I'm beginning to suspect my brother is right in theorizing that Glinda deliberately lied to the protagonists, telling them that babies cannot be born in Oz, so that the would not settle there but move on to another universe. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:49:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mark K. DeJohn" <103330.323@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-96 Hi Digest!!! I received my first book from Buckethead. :-) :-) It is " The Disenchanted Princess of Oz." I enjoyed it very much although there was not any regularly used characters from other books. I recommend it highly. There has been discussion on the Digest about how awkward and awful it would be for ages to be frozen at one time and people to have to remain that age forever, especially for infants. I am now 4 days past due for my baby to be born. If I had to remain this way for eternity I would not be a happy camper. ( or Ozian) Fortunately I know that this baby will be born eventually. Barbara DeJohn 103330.323@compuserve.com ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 18:03:48 -0600 From: estelle@usa.net (Estelle E. Klein) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-96 I'm thoroughly enjoying the ozzy digest- and at the risk of sounding naive, could someone please explain why L.F. Baum is credited as the "originator" of OZ, when the HACC list addresses books prior to the books he wrote--am I missing something? Thanks! ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:58:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy digest part 2 ********** THE BASIS FOR MY MOPPETS ********** While the extended HACC theory is too massive to post to the digest, (and it has never been fully written down), the least I can do is to post the "Mission Statement" for the HACC, or to state which Oz books I use, the level to which I use them, and why. When the Oz series began, it was the creation of L. Frank Baum, and he alone had the power to define Oz and to determine its history. As Oz grew, it became something greater than it was before and eventually superseded Baum and the publisher, Reilly and Lee. The uniqueness of Oz is such that it now belongs to no single person, family or publisher. It belongs to everybody who believes in its spirit. However, I hold that the FF is the basis for all that is Oz. It is in these books that the nature of Oz was created and first explored. For any other item to be called Historically Accurate, it must be true to the events recorded herein first. The whole of Oz is a living breathing saga, with each new episode adding a new thread to the ongoing tapestry that is the history of Oz. Some threads may appear to contradict others, but that is only an illusion. Diligent effort, which includes such things as resolving contradictions and sharing of information to ensure that major contradictions do not occur, can make all contributions to Oz vibrate together in a symphony of harmony without sacrificing that which made Oz what it is: telling fun stories that are a simple joy just to read, although they are also so much more. Of course, this assumes that the stories agree with the FF. Many of these goals are difficult, if not impossible. Many stories are very rare, so people cannot read them. Many people write stories and each has their own interpretations, beliefs and ways in which they love Oz. 100% total agreement and consistency will never be achieved, and every single niggling little detail will never be fully resolved, but we owe it to Oz and to ourselves to make the best attempt that we can. Why? Because. Just because. It is the search for truth that is its own reward and its own reason, even the imaginary truth that is the world of Oz. --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:08:48 -0400 From: "Melody G. Keller" <104270.2374@compuserve.com> Subject: Ozzy Digest, 04-13-96 Dear Dave: Enjoyed the Ozzy Digest. Hope some people write nice, long Ozian theory articles for it. By the way, as soon as I figure out how to send this gargantuan critter via E-mail, would you care for an article on the layout of the EC Palace? Sent this one to the Baum Bugle (it won first prize for Ozian research article), but the editors who replaced the original one I sent it to have not deigned to publish it. Supposedly because of its length. Yes, it IS very long, because Ozma's Palace is the most frequently-described building in the Oz books. The original editor suggested cutting direct quotes from the Oz books, but did not have the heart to do it because one can get the best flavor of the author's intentions from the authors' original descriptions (at least that's my pet theory) not from some presumptuous paraphrasing of mine. I would do it if I had to, but noone from the Bugle has given the go-ahead--so, would you like to have it & distribute it? It was originally written to help ME get the Palace right in my stories, and it could be a big help to other authors as well. Are you interested? [I E-Mailed her privately, telling her that we were! :) --Dave] By the way, MY pet theory about the FF is this--some of it may be accurate, but some may be full of wild exaggerations. Real historians have been known to be guilty of exaggerating, so why not the Oz chroniclers? I "believe" some things in the FF, but not others. The only way I could accept John R. Neill's books as "absolutely true" is if some incredibly powerful magical being (ala Mr. Mxyzptlk of Superman) did a lot of magical mischief in Oz around that time. (Bringing all the buildings, plus almost every other inanimate object, to life, etc.) Yes, there are likely exaggerations in the Oz books of other authors as well. I only single out Neill because his books exaggerate Oz the most. Anyways, hope this provides grist for your mill! Melody Grandy Keller ============================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:22:55 -0400 (EDT) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc Eric Gjovaag writes: > But this is a gut feeling, based on a belief that there > should only be one band of fairies living in the Forest of Burzee. My interpretation is that Lulea's band is the one that spends a lot of time in Burzee (IX, SANTA CLAUS), and Lurline's band only visits on rare occasion (like the 200 year meeting in MIMICS). > > 2. Volkov's stuff is in the public domain. > >So? This means that writers of non-FF books can use a name from Volkov's books without worrying about copyright/trademark problems. > + At the end of "Yew," civilization comes to the island, and it becomes a > very different place from Oz Actually it becomes much more like Oz. Baum's words were: "Civilization had won the people, and they no longer robbed or fought or indulged in magical arts". This sounds like Oz after Ozma ousted Jinjur and passed a law against the practice of magic. > But the Good Witch of the North, in "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", states > that Oz is not a civilized country like Kansas, and so, by implication, > Yew can not be part of the same world as Oz, By this logic, when Oz became civilized it was teleported from the Oz world to some other world. Somehow I doubt that a place will change worlds just because the people living there alter their behavior. :-) Also, a statement about civilization in Oz does not imply anything at all about the other countries in the Oz universe. Tyler Jones writes: > Laumer held that Button-Bright, who had accidentally grown up during the > Thompson administration, left Oz and came back much more mature and wise. My objection to this is that Button-Bright is a Baum character who is going to appear as a child in other non-FF books. This causes problems with trying to put such books together into a consistent extended history of Oz. Also, I understand that he grew up because he got trapped in a pit (or some such thing, I haven't read Laumer's books). This doesn't make sense because Ozma would have checked up on him with the Magic Picture. Dave Hardenbrook writes: > In _Fairy Princess of Oz_, I have Zurline's band of wood nymphs be a > subsiduary of Lurline's band of *ALL* Baum-universe fairies. The trouble with this is that in SANTA CLAUS Zurline is clearly under the command of Ak, and Ak doesn't seem to take orders from anybody. (A possible loophole might be that Lurline technically commands Ak, but has given him complete discretion to run things however he likes.) > In fact, it is ambition on Zurline's part to rule more than just the > wood nymphs that causes trouble in _Fairy Princess_. I find it hard to imagine Zurline doing this. Maybe she would if she really felt that she had to control something that was affecting her forest. In any case, Lurline is so vastly more powerful than Zurline that the latter would immediately defer to Lurline once Lurline noticed what was going on and made her wishes known. > Auxannah (the Brown-Haired Adept) is vivacious and rather sassy; Augnetah > (the Adept with Golden Hair) is wisecracking and is a grouch at times, > though is no less sweet and kind than her two sisters; and Audirfah (the > Dark-Haired Adept) is gentle, quiet, and very philanthropic. The original Adepts had gold, brown, and *white* hair, so these must be a different set of Adepts. I guess Auxannah, Augnetah, and Audirfah must have turned Audah, Aujah, and Aurah into fish and thrown them into the lake. :-) > and that there are plenty of examples in literature that fairies > *CAN* fall in love. Well, Necile fell in love with a mortal baby. It was sort of like a little girl falling in love with a stray kitten. (She wanted to keep him.) :-) -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Monday 15-Apr-96 00:18:36 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things ERIC: >Again, I will ask, who's in favor of forming an Oz newsgroup on Usenet? My big problem with an Oz newsgroup is that there are peole who don't have USENET access whereas nearly everyone (on the Internet) has E-Mail access. I also personally find newsgroups a bit of a hassle as I always download everything and read it offline anyway. I'll also admit that I *enjoy* putting the Digest together, and am not anxious to be put out of business. :) CHRIS: >Someone put in all CAPS that Oz is not real. This is a real problem >for those of us who not only believe in Oz, but have been there! ... >I will NOT have my queen or her country ridiculed, and will certainly >not have them accused of being fictional! HOORAY! Thanks for being the first to say it: OZ IS REAL!!! :) :) :) :) (BTW, this is the main reason I prefer the name "Baumgea" -- "Continent of Imagination" strikes me as a name that, like "Neighborhood of Make-Believe", sounds too much like a self-proclamation of non-existence, which is nonsensical since Oz is real!) ESTELLE: >... could someone please explain why L.F. Baum is credited as the "originator" >of OZ, when the HACC list addresses books prior to the books he wrote ... Tyler explains HACC theory in detail in his post in today's Digest, but I'll just say in summary that the HACC is a timeline of actual Oz history, not of the publication of Oz books. The dates on the HACC list represent the year a given book TAKES PLACE (according to HACC theory), not the year it was written. So for example, although Baum wrote _The Wizard of Oz_ in 1900, HACC theorists believe that the events in that book actually occured in 1899. Another example: _Lurline and the White Ravens of Oz_, which describes the "Genesis" (so to speak) of Oz, takes place in the twelveth century, although it was written only a couple years ago. (P.S. Please don't say you're naive...It's good that you're able ask questions about what you don't understand...I wish everyone was!) JOHN: >The trouble with this is that in SANTA CLAUS Zurline is clearly under >the command of Ak, and Ak doesn't seem to take orders from anybody. Who is Ak??? Whoever he is, maybe *HE* could be the power-hungry troublemaker in _Fairy Princess_...Or should I maybe just invent a brand-new character? (Horror!) :) :) :) -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 16, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:16:52 +0300 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-15-96 Long one today. A. Does anyone here know if and where I can get a copy of the Australian film "Oz" or "20th Century Oz"? B. The last word from me (I hope) about inconsistencies in Oz books: one author who wrote a story for "Oziana" a few years back formulated the following idea, which especially appealed to me. The reason no Oz movie up do date has been entirely consistent with the book "The Wizard of Oz", is that Glinda cast a spell, enhancing the Invisible Barrier around Oz, to make sure that all information that reaches our world from and about the land of Oz will be subtley but significantly confused. That way, we can never know quite enough about the REAL (yay Chris!) Oz to get there ourselves. Our mistakes in writing about Oz are Glinda's means of protecting the land of Oz from a massive invasion by us. :-) Eric - about the usenet idea: personally, I'm not sure I can access usenet, and I must admit I'm pretty fond of the present format of the digest. However, if there is a significant rise in the number of subscribers to the digest, this may be a useful idea. Also, what is the "Legends of Oz" cd-Rom? And I would very much like to see "Oz Story Magazine #2"! Santa Claus can probably skip worlds, he seems to have made it into so many children's books, including the Narnia series. I have a problem with that, because I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I do believe in Oz... Chris and Rinny - please stay on! Digests are usually much more Ozzy than they have been in the past week. :-) And yes, of COURSE Oz is real! Robin - thanks for the update on Fred. I'm wishing him a speedy recovery. Barb - keep us updated on the baby, too, if it's not too much of a strain for you! Best wishes to you! Bill Piglet - I do not have browser capability. Estelle - just in case this was not clear from Dave's explanation: L. Frank Baum is the first person who ever wrote about Oz. The HACC lists books not in the order they were written, but in the order they supposedly occurred in Oz. The first books you should read are the books written by Frank Baum, as even those non-FF books which occur in Ozian prehistory are books "founded on and continuing the Oz series by L. Frank Baum". Oh, yeah, Chris again: DEUTSCHLAND. :-) I'm not signing with my kitty today, because the message is long enough as is - but don't worry, I haven't erased her! :-) Gili P.S. Dave - Ak is the master woodsman from Baum's book about Santa Claus. I think... ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:30:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Bill Wright: Many thanks to you and Dennis (and the other hard working people associated with him), for making these books easily available. Eric: I can't remember when I last saw the MGM movie on TV, since I now have it on tape, but it seems that it's been a few years. It seems to me that most of us who discuss events in FF books usually put a warning label on top of the paragraph so that if someone has not yet read the thing, they won't be suprised. Rich (On Dorothy's age and the HACC response): HACC theory assigned her an age of 5 or 6 at the time of _Wizard_ as part of an overall plan to place the first six books chronologically that needed to explain why Dorothy did not age during this time, even though she was not in Oz for the most part. Using information in _Lost Princess_ and _Giant Horse_, we know that Dorothy is physiologically 11 when she moves to Oz permanently. We assumed that her four visits to Oz had the cumulative affect of slowing her aging by two years. Thus, by the time of _Emerald City_, she was chronologically 13 and physiologically 11. To get this, we said 5 at the time of _The Wizard_, albeit a very resourceful 5 year-old. Danny: If possible, don't "settle" for cheap versions. If you can afford them, go for the best ones possible! :-) Peter Hanff: Kudos for your praise of Robert Pattricks essays. This is the source that propelled me on my favorite Oz project: Pre-Dorothean history. The Oz club has two versions available: with or without annotations. I have both and I enjoyed reading them very much. Mike Burns: Well, you know more about "The Wiz" than I do. I just know some of the surface details, such as some of the people who starred in it, etc. I have something called "The Wiz Book/Scrapbook" which contains the full text of Baum's story plus some black and stills from the play. Chris D: Let me again reinforce what Dave said to you: Most of the time, the Ozzy digest is not so confrontational. Usually, it is very nice and friendly. We just came through a tough time, so please bear with us and give us a few days. We need you and Rinny! :-) ********** GRIPES ABOUT MARCH LAUMER ********** Chris mentioned Laumers pornographic material as a cause for it to be considered non-Ozzy. However, let me repeat what I have probably said a couple of times. With the exception of _The Green Dolphin of Oz_, I have never seen anything in Laumers writings that I would consider pornographic or filthy. There are a couple of VERY SUBTLE innuendoes, but that is it. In my opinion, Laumers use of the English language is excellent and he appears to have a strong working knowledge of the Baum 14, the Thompson 19 and the Neill 3. Except for that _Green Dolphin_ horror (which would receieve 0 stars if I reviewed it), I find that his books are very much in line textually with the FF, and in fact, March and Chris have a common purpose, which is to resolve apparant contradictions. I will agree with Eric Gjovaag here when I say that I find Laumers works very different from Mainstream Oz, in that they are written in an adult and sophisticated (NOT pornographgic!) manner that is usually not found in Oz books. For this reason, they are not included in the HACC, but I find them to be very historically accurate, with the certain exception of _Green Dolphin_ and the possible exception of _A Farewell to Oz_. As far as Volkovs books being about Goodvinia, this is also what I believe. His material is clearly based on Oz, but is not the Oz that we know. There are some similarities, however, and some people seem to exist in one form or another in both Universes. I have assumed that the Witches have separate identities here and there, based on Laumers use of the names Gingemma and Bastinda and hence I use them too. ********** END OF LAUMER GRIPES, CONTINUING CHRIS'S COMMENTS ********** It is true that many people put a large amount of significance of the FF, but that is becuase these books (by Reilly and Lee and their predecessor) formed the original Oz series. Chris has commented on _Shaggy Man_ before as being inaccurate, but I cannot confirm this, as I have read the thing a couple times and can find nothing in it that is contradictory to eariler FF titles. The simple fact is that most people who know the books know only the FF, or at best some of the FF. It is our duty to educate and to raise awareness of other books that in some cases are better than the average FF. This is the reason why people on the digest discuss things that have been "resolved" by other books: they don't KNOW about them (yet). Let me beg you again, Chris: Please stay on and shine the light of knowledge everywhere you can. :-) Aaron: So you finally got _Number of the Beast_, huh? Heh, heh, now THAT'S pornography, far more than what little (if any), exists in Laumer. That is not the reason I did not include it in the HACC, however. When the party left Oz by going straight up, they saw only Oz and the Deadly Desert, apparantly extending out to infinity. Therefore, all the other lands that we know are there don't exist, according to Heinlein. This, despite the fact that Tik-Tok is in the story, who comes from Ev, which, according to Heinlein, does not exist! Despite all this, I may write _The Blackhats in Oz_ someday. Estelle: I'm glad you asked that! Dave has given you a partial answer, but let me expand on it. I'm sure Dave won't mind :-). Dave has already told you that the dates on the HACC are the dates in which the story has occured, as far the evdidence so far indicates. These dates can (and have) changed as new evidence comes to light and old evidence is re-interpreted. Wait a minute! This still only partially answers the question. If Baum was the creator of Oz, how can people write stories from before Baum's first book, which supposedly started the whole thing off? The answer lies in history. When an author writes book 1 of any series, the story generally progresses in a forward direction only. It is assumed that anything that happened before book 1 is not important, else book 1 would have started sooner. However, there are hints and small discussions of the history of Oz before Dorothys house fell on Gingemma (WW of East). Using these clues, some people have written stories about the early history of Oz. If you read the first book, it is obvious that Oz had been around a while and MUST have a history of some kind prior to the arrival of Dorothy. Pre-Dorothean history is largely unknown. One of my many projects is to publish an outline of HACC theory regarding the early history of Oz and to post it on the web. Melody: If you have a huge file, you can convert it to ASCII and use the "Send File" command which lies off of the Mail command in the Menu Bar of your CompuServe Information Manager. This command will allow you to send a text file as a mail message. More Melody: before you arrived on the digest, some of us theorized that Ozzy authors have an informant who fills them in on the latest Ozzy news. These informants may not know the whole story, may fill in bits they do not fully understand and may exaggerate their own roles in the story. They may also embellish the tales a little so they sound more exciting. "And then the houses threw their bricks at each other and all the shoes began to sing..." etc. John White: You point about most people writing of Button-Bright as a child (as in the book _Button-Bright in Oz_ is a good one. Maybe after he got back, he did not like being an adult and went back to being a kid again. Actually, Ozma DID look in the Magic Picture and saw only darkness, as the molasses pit was a dark little hole, similar to the inside of the peach pit in _Lost Princess_. Of course, this is only ducking the issue, since by this time, the Ozzies had access to an enormous amount of magical resources that would have allowed them to easily find Button-Bright, such as the Searchlight and the million-and-one items that grant wishes. I like your idea of a command structure for immortals :-) Under your system, Ak would be CFO, or Chief Fairy Officer :-) Chris and Dave: YES! Oz is real! I asked Dave this privately and got no answer :-(, so I will now ask all of you. If Ozma appeared before you RIGHT NOW, and said that she needed your help in the Emerald City, would you really be all that surprised? Dave: Ak is the "Master Woodsman" from _The Life and Adentures of Santa Claus_. I haven't read that in a while, so perhaps someone else could expand on him. Also, to whoever will take up this challenge: Weren't their other "Masters" at the meeting of immortals who were equal to Ak? --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:56:49 -0400 From: OzBucket@aol.com Subject: will Dave use this title? Dear Digest subscribers, Thank you for your time yesterday. I hope to keep this one shorter, but I am known to be long-winded when I don't have to pay a typesetter. I appreciated the toned-downedness of the mud-slinging yesterday (curiously enough, my own letter did more than anyone else's, go figure!), and I hope that a friendlier tone will continue. In response to the digs at Eric Gjovaag, I am sorry that he was one of the mudslingers of the past few days. I respect Eric, and I want to see us all get along. For all it may be worth, I had planned to publish the unabridged version of E and C's book before BoW got 'hold of it. I am happy that it has been offered, as it is a book that SHOULD be read. I refuse to restrict my statements concerning this or any other book. I will not be mentioning WICKED or BARNSTORMER as HA, as they were never intended to be. Even Laumer has told me outright that he has no respect for earlier Oz authors or the information contained in their writings, so I think I am officially through responding to comments on him. All other books on the HACC are fair game, and I do intend to do a few dissertations on them in the future (yes, I will even talk openly about Dave's masterpiece, but probably not until it is in print. I have to sell copies, so mustn't give too much away!) I agree with most of Tyler's statements, but must nit-pick on his demanding that Oz is fictional. However, I can overlook this error this one last time, as it is a common misconception held by many MGM fans. (There! If that doesn't get a long reply, nothing will!) But I have to admit that there are some contradictions in the FF that need to be explained (not ignored, mind you, but EXPLAINED!) Tyler and I seem to have come to an agreement that any FF book is HA by default. But, as I said yesterday, I still anxiously await the book that justifies SHAGGY MAN. Tyler has a more open mind than I do when it comes to PUBLISHED books regardless of their accuracy. But I do add them to my copies of the HACC as well. Why is it that we accept any published book that comes along as HA, but not just any ms? I think we are die-hard inclusionists. That and the fact that I really enjoy writing new Oz books that explain these seeming contradictions. But please, do not feel obligated to write a totally HI book for my sake. I enjoy books that are entities in their own right just as well. Also, as most ms's are submitted to me, I can always have the author correct any problems prior to publication. Ofttimes in consultation with people like Tyler. I have not followed the MGM TV airings. But do look at the mailbox in front of the house. It gives Dorothy's last name as GAYLE. Weird spelling, but it's there! One of my own books has the Red Rogue of Dawna return and make his way to Oz. I had assumed that it is part of the same world as Oz (as is AMERICA, contrary to the opinions of some people. If you disagree, see below), but I suppose that even my own book can be interpreted differently than I had interpreted it. As for the Oz planetary theory, well... Baum was very clear that Oz is part of our own world. There are a few offhand remarks in Thompson that can be interpreted to place it in outer space, but the later authors went back to Baum's statement. My theory (and that is all it is) is that a rumor was started to keep us Earthlings from trying to go there and foul things up. The rumor was dropped when it was not acknowledged by anyone except Rankin/Bass. (By the way, Eric, can you make me some better copies of those cartoons? I am grateful to you for the ones you gave me before, but they are not that easy to watch) As to the editing of the text and illustrations in several books (not just PATCHWORK GIRL), I am not in favor of it. I contend that anyone who has read that edition of PG has not read Baum's book, and has not seen the whole of Neill's art. Nor has he read DOT & TOT. Nor is the BOY FORTUNE HUNTERS in Oz-Story complete (though it did retain some bad words anyway). I am not as demanding when it comes to the smoking issue in GLASS CAT, as that was not a book that had been previously published. Still, if it is not HI, why mess with it? I'd have prefered that they stick to correcting HInaccuracies than putting their time into being PC. Barbara, thanks for the kind words concerning Melody's book. I always appreciate feedback, especially when it is positive or constructive. No, it is not the case that anyone is frozen in age. On a person's birthday, he must wish to be the same age for another year (Thompson). A newborn baby, of course, cannot voice such a wish, so will age until old enough to do so. I expect that this will be deleted, but I'll try anyway: I now have actual, physical copies of THE FANTASTIC FUNHOUSE OF OZ in my hands. NOT to be confused with EGOR's FUNHOUSE. Tyler has already got one coming. Some of you have said you'd order it when it was actaully back from the printer. Well, it is. I expect copies of FWIIRP IN OZ any day now as well. Next up will be Peter Schulenberg's THE TIN CASTLE OF OZ, unless a certain backer comes through for another book. This one is known only to Melody and me, so I guess I should make a formal announcement (sorry if I'm jumping the gun a little, Melody...). The recent death of Marcus Mebes has inexplicably left me in possession of a lot of old artwork he had done for various purposes. Much of this will be featured in future Oz Club Calendars. I also am using it in Oz books, as that was really Marcus' wish. I have a few basic outlines for books that he gave me info on, but I may never get to (anyone feel like writing?), but THORNS AND PRIVATE FILES IN OZ is going to be ready (hopefully) yet this year. It has illustrations by both Marcus and Melody, and we have worked together on the text. Fans of Zim Greenleaf can rejoice, as he and Dinny are here again! If this paragraph isn't deleted, I will tell you all when I actually have physical books to mail out. I am not yet able to take credit cards via e-mail, but can send you out a book if I know that the check is in the mail (I trust that all Oz fans are honest). I would add my publication list right here, but you can access it via Tyler's page. I hope to have my own page some day soon: As of today, I am off America Online. It had caused too many problems, and I have a cheaper Internet source. My new address is ozbucket@nmia.com, and I hope to get LOTS of replies! Just say Hi, if nothing else. Rinny and I are very lonely here with no communication from anyone but Queen Ozma and Toto! ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:10:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-15-96 Oz is as real as you want it to be. Anyone got a problem with that? BTW, I'm one who has no browser capacities, so I'd really miss the chats if many of y'all defected to a newsgroup. I think I can access it at school, but I'm not sure. Chris, I hope you and Rinny hang in with the Digest for a while longer at least. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:32:03 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: Civilization Somehow this discussion of civilized versus uncivilized reminds me of The Princess Bride, where one character repeatedly uses the term "inconcievable" and is repeatedly told "I don't think that means what you think it means". It also reminds me of my undergraduate study in Asian Studies. The Chinese believe to this day that they are the only civilized people on the planet and all others are "barbarians". Tattypoo says that civilized means non-belief in magic. So whose definition do you use? The same words can mean different things. (Especially in Chinese, where you can have one word with umpty-umpth different meanings depending on how you pronounce it) Anyway... Rereading my MOPPet, I think it needs a little (okay, a lot!) explanation. I am a natural born questioner. The question isn't "Why is the sky blue?" but "Is the sky blue?" and "What the heck is this thing we call the sky anyway?" So I like to periodically question widely held assumptions about everything. Is it really necessary for Ozma to be on the throne for Lurline's spell to achieve full effectiveness? There have been lots of times where she was missing or transformed and Oz wasn't shaken one jot or tittle. What exactly was Lurline's Spell? Did it really eliminate death and aging in Oz? What about Neill's stop-aging age? What about Thompson's prince who tired of being an infant and decided to be a teenager? How old is Glinda and why doesn't the presumed non-aging work on her? Was she really an early test for Queen Zixi or is she related to her? So many questions. Bye! Mike B. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:23:34 -0400 From: DIXNAM@aol.com Subject: Re Ozzy Digest 4-15-96 Eric: >When was the last time you saw the Wizard of Oz on TV? I really can't remember when I last saw it on network TV, but I did watch it on laser disk around the Christmas holidays. I vote Yea for Eric Shanower and David Maxine to publish Ozstory II!! (:-D I read "Wicked" a few months ago, and enjoyed it as a novel, but it sure doesn't depict the Oz that I know. (:-( Rich: Yes, I too confer "canon" status on some former FF writers later works, particularly Rachel Cosgrove Payes. I enjoyed her "Wicked Witch" even more than "Hidden Valley". When I was a kid (30's & 40's) the local libraries in my area didn't stock any Oz books. My parents got most of mine from garage sales, and a few from department stores. Peter (or anyone who knows): Where is Robert Riley Pattrick's "Unexplored Territory in Oz" currently available? Chris and Rinny: It's great to have you folks subscribing to the Digest, please don't bail out on us now!! Also, I was under the impression that "The Shaggy Man of Oz" was #38 of the FF, and published by Reilly & Lee. Am I wrong about this?? Robin: Glad to hear Fred is coming along well, and thanks for the address info. I'll drop him a line. Dick Randolph (DIXNAM@aol.com) ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:07:02 -0700 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Eric said: >Did I mention that I found "The Legends of Oz" CD-ROM remaindered at a >used CD-ROM shop for only $6.00 a copy? Please tell me where the shop is: I would like to get a copy. Also, if anyone else would like a copy I will pick up extras for you as well. Just send me an email. >Again, I will ask, who's in favor of forming an Oz newsgroup on Usenet? I suspect most people are satisfied with the way the digest is working right now. However, the day will come when Dave either burns out, or it becomes difficult for him to continue to spend the time he is currently committing to run the digest. It will probably become important at that time to get serious about a newsgroup. Barbara said: > I am now 4 days past > due for my baby to be born. If I had to remain this way for eternity I >would not be a happy camper. ( or Ozian) Fortunately I know that this baby >will be born eventually. Please keep us informed (if you can) of your progress to becoming a happy camper. You might not feel compelled to dash off a note to the Ozzy Digest when the happy day comes, but perhaps the daddy-to-be could. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-15-96 This seems to be the month of Oz comics wrapping things up. I just got issue #15 of "Oz," and it concludes the current storyline, and (of course!) sows the seeds for the next one. But in the "Ozitorial" at the end, there's some word on Caliber's immediate plans for the future of their "Oz" title. Seems the regular run will be suspended for a while so they can run a three issue mini-series, "Romance in Rags." It will introduce the Patchwork Girl, the Shaggy Man, and a number of other characters who haven't been in the series so far. It takes place right before "Oz" #1. Then when the regular run starts again in #16 in July, there will be a new art team, and Dorothy, Betsy, and Trot will begin exploring the newly-liberated Oz, and it's hinted that the title will become more like Baum's books. A new trade paperback, "A Gathering of Heroes," was also announced, reprinting issues six through ten. (BTW, Caliber's back issue ordering line is 1-800-346-8940, or write them at Caliber Back Issues, 11904 Farmington Rd., Livonia, MI 48150.) And now, my replies to the last Digest: > From: Peter Hanff > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-13-96 > > Dave, > Here's a suggestion to subscribers who like to engage in lively and > spirited debate concerning the Oz canon and the analysis and resolution of > apparent inconsistencies. The essays of Robert Riley Pattrick in > "Unexplored Territory in Oz" have always struck me as gracious, > thoughtful, intellectually keen, and open ended. Bob wrote those essays > in dialogue with other Oz enthusiasts and I think the results could serve > as a healthy model for all of us. He achieved balance, clarity, and a > hopefulness that later readers would contribute even greater insight. I > think all of the lively discussion of recent days would be even more > effective and productive if the participants derived some inspiration in > thier approach of Bob Pattrick. See, everyone? I'm not the only Pattrick fan around here! I STRONGLY encourage everyone who wants to argue arcane points of Oziana to get "Unexplored Territory in Oz" and read it as soon as possible. (Peter, do you know if Bob left enough essays for "More Unexplored Territory in Oz"? I wouldn't mind seeing some of his "Bugle" essays reprinted as well.) > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy DIgest > > Eric: (beating the dead horse of YEW): NO, STOP IT! This is how this whole mess got started in the first place! Dave wanted everybody's MOPPeTs for his FAQ, and I complied, since the Yew one seems to be the one everyone wants to argue with me about ad nauseum. BUT THEY'RE DOING IT AGAIN! I do NOT want to argue about this any more! I've said my piece, and now I shouldn't have to put up with this any more! Let it drop! (I'm certainly TRYING to...) > Jane: > I am asked for Oz info ocasionally. The most recent time was Wednesday when > one of our right fielder wore red shoes to the game. Our left fielder made > some comment about the Ruby Slippers and called him "Dorothy... hey, what > was Dorothy's last name?" I informed him that it was "Gale", but that you > would not find that info in the movie, you must read the books, and even > then it was not until book 3. I did not bother to mention the stage play. Er, but it WAS in the movie. GLINDA: Are you a good witch, or a bad witch? DOROTHY: Who, me? Why, I'm not a witch at all! I'm Dorothy Gale, from Kansas. > From: OzBucket@aol.com > Subject: Whatever > > The Ozzy Digest is quickly losing its appeal for Rinny and me. We have not > even checked it for the past few days, and today it was a major chore to wade > through three days' worth. Bottom line: It is very disappointing. A lot of > arguments, most of which are not even Oz-oriented! If this doesn't correct > itself, we'll be forced to unsubscribe. Not that I expect any of you to > notice... I'll tell you right now that, honestly, it usually isn't like this. You just picked a bad time to start subscribing, it seems. (You both know me personally, you know I'm usually not this big of a grouch. Er, don't you? Hey, stop laughing!) > From: DIXNAM@aol.com > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest 4-14-96 > > In general: I too am disturbed that Peter Glassman has ceased participation > in the Digest. I know a few folks expressed their displeasure with what I > consider insignificant editing in the Books of Wonder reprinting of "The > Patchwork Girl of Oz", but I was unaware that he was so offended by their > opinions. He has a wealth of knowledge and information and I, for one, have > missed his comments. Then I guess it's time for me to spill the beans. As Patchworg-Gate was winding up, he sent me a note explaining why he was bailing out. (Peter, I hope you don't mind my telling everybody this, now that it's come up.) For those of us who were here back then, remember, there was all kind of talk about boycotting Books of Wonder and the like, and no matter what kind of argument Peter brought up, somebody would try to shoot it down. This is all despite the fact that, unlike most of the rest of us, Peter Glassman has been a professional children's bookseller and publisher for many years now, and probably has a better perspective on the children's book business than just about anybody around. Why should he put up with all the flak he was getting? It's very similar to what happened on the "Babylon 5" group with J. Michael Stracz...Strazcin...that guy who created, writes, and produces the show. (For those of you not familiar with THAT, JMS, as he's called and much more easily spelled, was a frequent poster in the B5 group. But THREE people -- that's all it takes -- spoiled it for him and everybody else by constantly bombarding the group with libelous posts about JMS, the show, the actors and crew, etc. And no matter how many times JMS told everybody to just ignore it, and/or debunked whatever it was they were saying, it just kept going and going and going, and JMS finally said, "Enough is enough" and left. Word has it that he got over 10,000 e-mails after he left, about two thirds of them saying, "What took you so long? *I* certanly wouldn't have stuck it out as long as you did.") So, Peter Glassman isn't as thick-skinned as JMS. I personally don't blame Peter for not contributing any more, I nearly quit the list myself at that time. > From: Robin Olderman > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-96 > > FRED UPDATE: Fred Meyer will be in rehab for the next 4-6 weeks. He's > able to stand with assistance and, hopefully, will eventually be able to > walk again. It is extremely unlikely that he'll be able to attend any of > the conventions this summer. Mixed news, I guess. But at least he's in generally good shape, it seems. > He *loves* having cards sent to him, even if they're from people whose > names he knows but whose faces he's never seen. And if you're a member > of the IWOC, he does know your name. We do have an Oogaboo Rendezvous coming up this weekend. I'll see if I can get a big card and all of us can sign it! > JANE: I'd say David Maxine is an expert on WIZ. Try Melody for RETURN TO OZ. Problem is, she's BEEN trying to contact David, but he hasn't gotten back to her. > ERIC: *Only* one member has unsubscribed? Why the sarcasm > there? I find it uncalled for. What sarcasm? I am truly and genuinely surprised that it was that few! I was afraid it would be a lot more! > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: Yew in Oz's World > > 1) If I may sidetrack the discussion on whether or not Yew is in Oz's > world (now THAT's something that could use a decent name) is there any > objection to writing an Oz story in which Yew is placed in Oz's world. Despite all I've said on the subject, no, I have no objection. (The problem seems to be people thinking that I don't WANT Yew in Oz. It's not that at all, it's just that the evidence as I interpret it makes it not too likely, is all. If someone wants to write an Oz book about Yew, I have no problem with that.) BTW, while we're talking about "Yew," perhaps I should mention for those of you who don't already have a copy and would like to read it that it is available from Buckethead Enterprises of Oz in a nice reprint edition that I'm sure Chris would like to unload a few copies of. It's all there, Baum's text, Cory's illustrations, and there's even a new cover by Chris Dulabone. Last I heard it was ten dollars, but maybe I should shut up now and let Chris give more information about it... > From: "Mark K. DeJohn" <103330.323@CompuServe.COM> > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-14-96 > > Hi Digest!!! This is the best greeting I've ever seen! > There has been discussion on the Digest about how awkward and > awful it would be for ages to be frozen at one time and people to have > to remain that age forever, especially for infants. I am now 4 days past > due for my baby to be born. If I had to remain this way for eternity I > would not be a happy camper. ( or Ozian) Fortunately I know that this baby > will be born eventually. Oooh, Barb, I feel for you! (Hey, kid! Hurry up and get born soon!) > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy digest part 2 > > ********** THE BASIS FOR MY MOPPETS ********** > While the extended HACC theory is too massive to post to the digest, > (and it has never been fully written down), the least I can do is to post > the "Mission Statement" for the HACC, or to state which Oz books I use, > the level to which I use them, and why. Oh, not again ... > From: "Melody G. Keller" <104270.2374@compuserve.com> > Subject: Ozzy Digest, 04-13-96 > > Enjoyed the Ozzy Digest. Hope some people write nice, long Ozian theory > articles for it. By the way, as soon as I figure out how to send this > gargantuan critter via E-mail, would you care for an article on the layout > of the EC Palace? If it's as long as you say it is, perhaps you or Dave could send it out as a separate document, and not as part of the Digest? (And yes, I CERTAINLY want to read it!) > From: jnw@vnet.net > Subject: misc > > Eric Gjovaag writes: > > > 2. Volkov's stuff is in the public domain. > > > >So? > > This means that writers of non-FF books can use a name from Volkov's books > without worrying about copyright/trademark problems. Are the writers here so creatively bankrupt that they can't think of a name on their own? > > Auxannah (the Brown-Haired Adept) is vivacious and rather sassy; Augnetah > > (the Adept with Golden Hair) is wisecracking and is a grouch at times, > > though is no less sweet and kind than her two sisters; and Audirfah (the > > Dark-Haired Adept) is gentle, quiet, and very philanthropic. > > The original Adepts had gold, brown, and *white* hair, so these must be a > different set of Adepts. I guess Auxannah, Augnetah, and Audirfah must have > turned Audah, Aujah, and Aurah into fish and thrown them into the lake. :-) Oh, gads, not the Three Mombis school of explaining things again... > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > ERIC: > >Again, I will ask, who's in favor of forming an Oz newsgroup on Usenet? > > My big problem with an Oz newsgroup is that there are peole who don't have > USENET access whereas nearly everyone (on the Internet) has E-Mail access. > I also personally find newsgroups a bit of a hassle as I always download > everything and read it offline anyway. > > I'll also admit that I *enjoy* putting the Digest together, and am not > anxious to be put out of business. :) Okay, that's one no. Anybody else have an opinion? > CHRIS: > >Someone put in all CAPS that Oz is not real. This is a real problem > >for those of us who not only believe in Oz, but have been there! ... > >I will NOT have my queen or her country ridiculed, and will certainly > >not have them accused of being fictional! > > HOORAY! Thanks for being the first to say it: OZ IS REAL!!! :) :) :) :) Hey, that was me who said Oz is not real. Okay, I don't REALLY believe it, but you wouldn't believe (or maybe you would?) how many people choose not to believe it, and how much power they can have over your life at times... --Eric "I'm never going to mention Yew again..." Gjovaag # Come visit my "Wizard of Oz" web site! http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/ # ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:18:00 +0300 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: April 12 I've just recieved April 12th's Digest, which for some reason hadn't reached me. I'd just like to add: Tyler wrote something along the lines of "the truth is out there". Today, I wrote that the reason we are often fuddled about Oz is Glinda's intervention, in other words, a Ozian government plot. Is this leading to: "The X-files of Oz"? Barbara Belgrave: COOOL SIGNATURE! |\ _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Gili Bar-Hillel, |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' avigailb@zoot.tau.ac.il '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat (c) by Felix Lee ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:05:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: What happened to Dave Scene: Dave Hardenbrook is walking down the streets of New York, turning into a dark alley. Stranger: Put your hands up in the air, and whatever you do, don't scream. Dave: Who are you? Stranger: I'm Robert Anson Heinlein, author of The Number of the Beast. Dave: What do you want? Heinlein: I'm just trying to prevent you from putting out the next edition of the Ozzy Digest. If you'll just step into my time machine, please. Dave: Why would you want to do that? Heinlein: Because three hours from now I read the Digest for April 15, and to my horror I discovered that Aaron Solomon Adelman dissed The Number of the Beast in it. I'm sorry, but I can't allow negative reviews to be published about my work. The time machine is to your left. Dave: You'll regret this! Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:17:15 -0400 (EDT) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc, Ak, etc. Eric Gjovaag writes: > Again, I will ask, who's in favor of forming an Oz newsgroup on Usenet? My ISP doesn't always get all posted articles, and those it does get are often delayed by many days. I suppose this is due to the rapid increase in the volume of news overflowing spool disks and history files all over the net. Mail, on the other hand, is much more reliable. Because of this I would hate to see the Oz digest switch from mail to news. Perhaps a moderated "alt" group could be created where the only thing posted would be the digests, and attempts to post to the group would be forwarded to Dave. The Digest masthead could be modified to include information on how to subscribe directly and how to send submissions directly to Dave. That would let the Digest reach more people while keeping it the same as it is now for the rest of us. > (Of course, this is the same man who illustrated > Dorothy as having bright yellow skin in the color plates. I suspect this > may have partly been to the crudity of the printing methods used to make > the color plates in "Wonderful Wizard," however.) I have always wondered about this. I've suspected that this was due to the inks shifting in color with age. Perhaps a magenta ink was used that faded over time. Does anyone know? When I look at the pictures through a magenta filter Dorothy looks much better, as does some other things such as the faces of the winged monkeys. However, some things still don't look right, and the background in the Emerald City gets messed up. This may be because a filter is not the right way to do the correction. It affects white areas most strongly, but the white areas never had any ink on them, so they shouldn't be corrected for a change in the ink. "Melody G. Keller" <104270.2374@compuserve.com> writes: > would you care for an article on the layout of the EC Palace? Yes indeed! :-) Dave Hardenbrook writes: > Who is Ak??? The Great Ak is the Master Woodsman of the World, who rules the forests and the orchards and the groves. Have you read Baum's SANTA CLAUS? This is a must-read if you want to write about the Immortals. I understand that it is available electronically from "http://rrnet.com/~djamund". Do you have access to the web? > Whoever he is, maybe *HE* could be the power-hungry troublemaker in > _Fairy Princess_... Hmm, maybe he could be. Of course, he's basically good, and has a soft spot for mortal children, and so forth. But he tends to be a bit arrogant: "I, the Master Woodsman of the World, have said it, and my Word is the Law!" And Ak's none-too-diplomatic demand that the Awgwas obey his wish literally started a war! Ak commands the Nymphs (who look after the trees), the Knooks (who look after the animals), and the Ryls (who look after the flowers). That makes sense, but he also commands the Fairies who are the guardians of mankind. That doesn't make sense, even if they do spend a lot of time in one of his forests. Perhaps Lurline really is the queen of all fairies (but not of nymphs and such), and thus Lulea is under her command. Lulea could have taken orders from Ak because she didn't want to offend the master of the forest where she liked to dance, and Ak's orders were things that she didn't mind doing. Lurline may have ignored all this as long as her laws were also being followed. Then one day ... :-) :-) :-) > Or should I maybe just invent a brand-new character? (Horror!) :) :) :) You could always do this, especially if you want a villain that you can "dispose" of in any manner you like. :-) -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:52:01 -0400 From: DAlbright1@aol.com Subject: Oz Daniel, We all are much to busy THANKING Peter Glassman for "spoiling" us with beautiful, affordable first-editiion facsimilies to blame him for anything! LFB's editor once wrote him a concerned note about his having left a Kalidah stuck on a pole in the middle of a river. At another time, a chapter was omitted -- at the editor's suggestion -- that had the characters in an Oz book discovering a garden in which flesh-and-bone or "meat" people grew. Having demonstrated in these and other instances an openness to be led in a direction that would not be alarming or offensive to his young readers, I hope Mr. Baum set a precedent -- one that would lead him to agree quite readily to sensitive edits today. Since I have no MOPPETs to share and try to limit my posts to informative or factual material, I'll describe my project of the the moment to newcomers. (Welcome :)!) I get exhausted and annoyed trying to find specific information by digging through all my Oz reference books and old Bugles. I've been an IWOC member and collector for25 years, so I have quite a pile. Assuming I'm not alone, and knowing that folks who have no Oz reference books or Bugles will soon be looking for information (that centennial is right around the corner, you know) I've been compiling, expanding and gradually building a long document that puts "great outside world" Oz events in chronological order. It's somewhere over a hundred pages of fact after fact after fact. Right now, several people with expertise in certain areas or else an enviable level of general Oz knowledge, are reviewing it for me to help me weed out the weeds and identify things that should be added. Eventually, I'm expecting the IWOC to make the information available through either our Web Site or a dirt-cheap publication. An expensive publication chock full of photos and art would be a heck of a lot more fun, but money doesn't grow on the trees in my yard. Combined with the Oz books available on line, the FAQ sites and other interesting Oz stuff available on the Web today, we should get to a point where people looking for any kind of Oz info can find it quickly. That will make our mutual "service to Oz" a good return on the investment of our time. FYI, I've sent Jim VanderNoot for possible inclusion in the IWOC site a bibliography of Oz reference books that is pretty exhaustive. Also offered 14-pages of trivia, long list of plays that adapt the Oz story in one way or another, lesson ideas for classrooms.... If he can find the time to tackle the page again, he has quite a few options of material to add to it from me. Angelica Carpenter (Author: LFB Royal Historian of Oz) has been surveying libraries building a resource list of institutional collections, too. A welcome and long-overdue Oz research project. Baum Bugle Winter '95 hits the post office late next week. Oz Observer/Gazette will be right on it's heels. And (drum roll please) -- now don't faint dead away in shock, folks -- the Spring 1996 Baum Bugle will actually mail in the Spring! Like, late May, early June. (according to Lee Jenkins who handles the design/printing logistics for Bill Stillman). Till the Halleluia chorus fades, Jane ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:57:06 -0800 From: Ken Cope Subject: hard to digest I have to get this one out of my system, too. Sorry in advance for the extent of this rant. I am afraid I have to side with the purists, for fear this will turn into the Laumer Digest. But I am primarily a Baumian, and collect the rest primarily for the link provided by the illustrations of Neill. I find very little of what I love in Baum in the work of the other authors who have contributed their voices to Oz. I should mention that I have only read Speedy in Oz from cover to cover, and skimmed and or started all but six of the Thompson titles. I have read Neill's Wonder City eagerly turning the pages, and while I recognize his absurdist and surreal world-view, it has only a little in common with Baum. I enjoyed Rachel Cosgrove Payes' The Wicked Witch of Oz, as much for Eric Shanower's illustrations as for her tone that did not speak down to, but sought to please a child. Ms. Thompson rose to an impossible task, and attained amazing success in spite of tremendous odds, as evidenced by Michael Patrick Hearn's essay in the Club's issue of Ozoplaning. She had a tough act to follow, a publisher and an estate at odds with her and with each other, and an eye on more substantial participation in the property she and Neill nurtured for nearly two decades. She certainly found her own voice, and judging by collectors of Oziana, is frequently preferred to Baum! I will quite stubbornly read every Oz book she wrote, if only to find out what others like about what she brought to their subjective view of the World of Oz. But any aspiring Royal Historian who here holds Baum's characters hostage daily, threatening this pairing or that naming, has at least two tough acts to follow: those of Baum and Thompson. We have, as Thompson did, Baum's entire output, and now, some of Thompson's to do with as we will. There is nothing to prevent anybody from exploiting the name of Oz, from turning it into a casino, mall world or painfully bad pastiche. I know that some of us treat Baum's world with more reverence than did Thompson, but I can't abide anybody treating it with less. (Wicked and Barnstormer are alternate histories, and don't pretend to be chronicles). From what I've read here, I can't think of anything to say about Volkov or Laumer that doesn't involve calling them pirates, parasites or worse, and to the extent that I see this digest filling up with names like Bastinda or Guacamole Lint the less I find it has to do with Oz. At least I can choose to read no further postings from advocates of book-burning. That brand of flame bait gets you painfully spammed on Usenet and is evidence that Oz stands a slim chance of doing well in the alt.* groups, let alone the rec.arts.* at this low water mark. Having just changed the setting on my Bozo-filter from *skim* to *skip* I already feel better. On a tinier gripe, I'll cite Clarke's law and Occam's razor, that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic, and mention for the last time that the use of Trekno-Babble (hyper-dimensional wormhole) to describe the connection to and separation from the Outside World and Oz, obfuscates rather than communicates. I believe the word I'd look for is 'magic'. As a participant in the Scraps/Glassman quagmire, I'll mention that Mr. Glassman's contribution to the Digest has remained about the same from day one; infrequent and sorely missed. I received private e-mail from two members of the Digest supporting the position I took, which was that his revision was well-intentioned but not an improvement, and that I would prefer annotation to revision. I was probably fairly didactic, but I will continue to enjoy and support the work Peter has done for Oz. Though I've recently bought nearly all of his Oz catalog, I was unable to obtain his edition of Lucky Bucky in Oz, and I wonder if the reason it is currently unavailable has anything to do with the racist stereotypes drawn by Neill (if my copy of the Oz Scrapbook is correct). I don't know what he's going to do when he gets to The Royal Book of Oz, or Cowardly Lion, or whichever one contains the Red Jinn. But he's an integral contributor to the world of Oz, and I cannot believe he's so skittish as to be unable to stand the heat when his work is discussed publicly. Thank you, Peter for the wonderful job you did on Tik-Tok of Oz, particularly with the compasses. Three favorite Baums: Ozma of Oz The Patchwork Girl of Oz The Lost Princess of Oz I'm glad the trouble that went into the HACC was taken; it is a valuable research tool. But I have trouble accepting anything beyond the Famous Fourteen, let alone the Forty. Consistency is not one of the hallmarks of anybody's Oz. It is hard to believe so much bickering over marginalia has anything to do with such a deeply personal part of our childhoods. Oz is a real place that lives inside each of us. In The Number of the Beast, Heinlein (another deeply personal part of my childhood, YMMV) describes the stable place the Oz books provided for him in a childhood with no fixed abode. To the extent that we can keep the spirit of Oz alive and share the discoveries we make in our explorations, Oz will thrive. ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 17, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:03:23 +0300 (WET) From: Gili Bar-Hillel Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-16-96 Bill Piglet - I *may* want a copy of the cd-ROM, but first I have to hear more about it! I hope Eric has answered me in this present digest. (You probably have Eric, being as devoted as you are :-) ). Eric - could you write a little more about the "Oz" comics for those of us who have never seen them? (I can't even walk into a comic shop and look for them...) I assume they are not as true-to-Baum as Shanower, and not as warped as "Oz Squad" - approx. where do they fall in that spectrum? I'm wondering if any of you can identify with the following story. I have been collecting Oz books more or less from age nine on. I'm used to finding them individually, by chance, among other books in a store which does not specialise in Oz. I have a want list a mile long, and I usually wait years before I get anything on the list. But then I walk into a shop like "Books of Wonder" (I've been there three times in my life), or I see something like the sales display at the Winkie Convention, or I discover a catalog that lists zillions of things from my want list which can be mail ordered, AND I CAN'T BUY ANYTHING. I'm overwhelmed. There are so many things I want, that I can't decide what to get, and usually end up buying whatever's cheapest. Or take ordering things by mail - it feels like cheating. Like I haven't searched long or hard enough to deserve getting the book. Is this my own private neurosis, or does anyone else out there identify with me? BTW, that's one of the reasons I like trading stuff from Israel to sending a check or ordering by credit card (asides from complications like calculating currencies, and the fact that I don't have an American bank account). When I send a check, its just a piece of paer. It doesn't mean anything. When I send a copy of "Yellow Fog" in Russian, that I had to go to three different sto to find and rummage through shelves and pretend to be able to read cyrillic characters, THATS when I deserve getting "The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz" or whatever in return. (Speaking of which, anyone out there willing to trade me for "The Mysterious Chronicles of Oz"?) I'm probably anal retentive or something. Bye, Gili ============================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 22:39:02 -0400 (EDT) From: swarkala@cris.com (Sharon Warkala) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-15-96 Been busy so I haven't responded lately. doubt you missed me but I'm back. Eric: Rest assured that CBS has shown WOZ the last two years. Even if I don't know that it is on I will always get about five phonecalls while it is on that start with "You probably already know this Chris but I had to call to let you know the Wizard of Oz is on". Dick Randolph: I could not agree with you more about Peter Glassman and Books of Wonder. Having met Peter at the Munchkin Conventions and having discussions with him about many things both Oz and non-Oz his loss to this group is disappointing. Books of Wonder is a treasure for all Oz fans and I am glad that being in close proximity to it I have had the opportunity to visit. A definite must see if you are ever in New York. That's all for now. Time to do the taxes! By the way in honor of April 15 is there any mention of Oz citizens having to pay taxes or is Oz the Utopia I always thought it was. Chris Warkala ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:07:14 -0400 (EDT) From: jnw@vnet.net Subject: misc Tyler Jones writes: > If Ozma appeared before you RIGHT NOW, and said that she needed your help > in the Emerald City, would you really be all that surprised? Yes, I would be quite surprised, but not nearly as surprised as I would be if Bill Clinton appeared and asked me to help him balance the budget! :-) > Weren't their other "Masters" at the meeting of immortals who were > equal to Ak? From SANTA CLAUS: But in the center of the circle sat three others who possessed powers so great that all the Kings and Queens showed them reverence. These were Ak, the Master Woodsman of the World, who rules the forests and the orchards and the groves; and Kern, the Master Husbandman of the World, who rules the grain fields and the meadows and the gardens; and Bo, the Master Mariner of the World, who rules the seas and all the craft that float thereon. And all other immortals are more or less subject to these three. In spite of the above, Lurline appears to be far more powerful than Ak, as she halted aging in a whole country while Ak couldn't do this for Santa Claus without using the Mantle of Immortality. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:39:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Gwomokolotolint of Oz 1) On Button-Bright being stuck in a molasses pit: In The Woozy of Oz my brother and I posit that certain substances and objects interfere with the magic needed to locate objects and hence may be magically unfindable. Perhaps molasses is one such substance. What I'm wondering now is how Laumer got Button-Bright out of the pit. 2) Chris, what in The Shaggy Man of Oz is FF-inconsistent? 3) No newsgroup, please! YU's server is lousy at picking up newsgroups. 4) Eric, I'm saving my creativity for creating names for characters I invent. (: 5) Dave, uh, I didn't get a Digest yesterday and didn't expect you to actually post that bizarre explination I wrote for it. 6) Ken, Gwomokolotolint isn't a Laumerian name. Due to a mistake, it was posted on this Digest as the name of the Woozy, and since then it has only been used in this capacity in the still unpublished The Woozy of Oz and the nowhere near finished The Queasy in Oz. The name has only come up incidentally on this digest, and I can't really see it "filling up this digest" in any realistic form. As for your misspelling of this name, tell me please, JUST WHERE DID YOU GET THAT? WHERE DID YOU GET A COPY OF THE WOOZY OF OZ? Now I'm going to have to change that joke... Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 13:29:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest Chris D: So you've already bailed out on AOL, huh? If you had taken my advice earlier, you would not have had this problem :-) When Laumer mentioned that he had no respect for "eariler Oz authors", did he mean FF authors or non-FF authors? From his writings, he gives Oz an adultish and sohpisticated tone that did not exist in Baums writings. While he wrote very differently, I believe he respected Oz (and its authors) enough to keep the basic structure of Oz intact. On Chris's claim that I am an MGM fan: Well, not a LONG response, but one nonetheless. Did I claim that Oz is not real? If I did, I was mistaken. It is as real as our imaginations will allow it to be. Also, I don't have to tell you that as much as I enjoy the MGM movie, it is the written material that is my true love. I do not accept *ANY* published book as HA, but I do prefer to hold off on ms's until they are published. I seem to recall asking you what your reasons were for not considering _Shaggy Man_ accurate Ozzy history. Could you refresh my memory? As far as "open-mindedness", one difference between Chris and myself when it comes to judging accuracy of books is that my only requirement is textual accuracy, while Chris prefers that the book also retain the tone and atmosphere of Baum. We've already discussed "Where is Oz?" to death in the digest, but let me just say that IMHO, it is unlikely in the extreme that Oz and the other fairy lands are on the same planet for a number of reasons and it seems more likely to me that they are in a parallel Earth, so that one can get to it easily and it is LINKED to Earth, in any case. Mike Burns: Does this mean that you'll write _The Dread Pirate Roberts in Oz_? I'd battle Prince Humperdink "to the pain" any day of the week! :-) Keep asking questions! That is the beginning of knowledge. Eric: I won't mention that certain island again unless someone else does. Also, I checked Peter Hanff's claim and Miss Gulch does indeed refer to Uncle Henry as "Mr. Gale/Gayle". I'll look at the scene in Munchkinland when Dorothy mentions her last name. Also, that book about "Eric's favorite island" is next up for a review by myself. Hope to see it soon! What's in a name?: I do not think that people using Volkovs names reflect bankrupt creativity. The play's the thing, and peoples creative energies should be used to write fun and imaginative stories rather than re-inventing the wheel. If that were the case, we would have to think up a different name for that girl from Kansas every time a new book came out :-). --Tyler Jones ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:29:27 -0500 (CDT) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-16-96 Gee, I never thought Peter G. felt unappreciated. Attacked, maybe, but how *could* he feel unappreciated when BOW has done so much to spread the "gOzpel"? I don't happen to agree with his editing P.Girl, but that certainly won't stop me from buying more of his books. It's not as though he did anything malicious and deserves boycotting. (Did any of us actually *say* that? I must have a convenient memory, 'cause I don't recall that, or maybe I've must blocked the thought because it's so stupid and petty.) We're d%*!#d lucky Peter cares so much for Oz. Actually, Peter, I wish you would comment more often. I like hearing from you. You're knowledgeable and downright Ozzy. New topic: Wow! I mean WOW!!! I did something today I've never done before in my teaching career. Although I frequently use examples from WIZARD to explain literary concepts, I've never actually "taught" the film. Today I did just that...showed and discussed the first half hour or so of the MGM movie. I was stunned. My freshmen are a basically unmotivated group and don't frequently display more intelligence than a tree stump, but they really came alive today. They sat still, stayed awake, participated in discussion, and generally were really involved. Amazing. They loved some of the trivia that most of us take essentially for granted as being common knowledge. Ebsen's aluminum illness fascinated them. They giggled about the ducks turning blue in the Munchkinland water. They expressed relief ("I *thought* so!") when I told them that some of the Munchkings were really "regular" children. The only story that left them cold was the one about Professor Marvel and Baum's coat. Go figure! Some of them were even sharp enough to recognize that Hickory never got a foreshadowing scene as an Oz character the way that Hunk and Zeke did. I can't wait until tomorrow. --Robin "Oz is a hit again/still" Olderman ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:38:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: The Wooden Soldiers of Oz Does anyone out there know who translated Urfin Jus and His Wooden Soldiers/The Wooden Soldiers of Oz, Opium Books' edition? Also: Some goofy titles to get out of my head: The Killer Tomatoes in Oz Plan 9 from Anuther Planet Sir Harold and Papa Smurf Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:30:26 +0000 From: rri0189@ibm.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-16-96 Since the subject of Babylon 5 and the great rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 flamewar has come up a few times since my first incidental mention, I thought I'd point out to those who may not know that there is a new, moderated newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, which is turning over several hundred messages a day, and in which J[oseph] Michael Straczynski is a regular participant. I understand its creation received the greatest ever "yes" vote in the history of USENET. And while we're on the subject, let me _very_ strongly recommend the series. I wouldn't exactly call it "Ozzy", but I would unhesitatingly call it the best written and best acted drama in the history of television, and the two Oz fans living in this house watch it religiously. Besides, Ambassador Delenn _is_ a lot like Glinda.... // John W Kennedy -- Hypatia Software -- "The OS/2 Hobbit" ============================================================================= Date: Tuesday 16-Apr-96 22:18:27 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things GILI: Boy I sure *CAN* relate to your story, Gili!!! In Southern California, forget obtaining Oz books, except Barnes and Noble, whch has the Del Rey Paperbacks and a few of the Books of Wonder facsimilies. Then when I went to my first IWOC convention (South Winkie) and saw all the books they had I went crazy!!! To paraphrase Peppermint Patty from _Peanuts_, it was like finding a man starving to death on a desert island, and immediately handing him a menu! I finally decided on getting _Scarecrow_, _Wicked Witch_, _Silver Princess_, and _Ozmapolitan_, but the desicion was agonizing! :) AARON: >5) Dave, uh, I didn't get a Digest yesterday and didn't expect you to >actually post that bizarre explination I wrote for it. It's always best to indicate on the subject line that a message is and not meant for inclusion in the Digest, because sometimes I'm not sure... ROBIN O. >Some of them were even sharp enough to recognize that Hickory never got a >foreshadowing scene as an Oz character the way that Hunk and Zeke did. This always bothered me too. In the scene when Hunk and Zeke are offering Dorothy suggestion on how to deal with Miss Gulch (using brains and courage respectively), why didn't they have Hickory say something like, "Use your heart Dorothy, try to see things from her point of view..." etc.? -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 18, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 08:25:44 -0400 (EDT) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: _The Green Dolphin of Oz_ Recently there has been some criticism of Laumer's _The Green Dolphin of Oz_ and I have a few words to say: It wasn't that bad! Admittedly, the New Teaching cult was inappropriate for Oz, but this book was about as much an Oz book as _Rinkitink in Oz_. On it's own level it was a fairly enjoyable adventure, albeit a wierd one, and it would have been great the whole way through if Laumer hadn't forced the situation and brought them all to Oz; that, if anything, was the weakest part of the book. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:18:57 -0400 (EDT) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-96 Dave H.: > > ROBIN O. > >Some of them were even sharp enough to recognize that Hickory never got a > >foreshadowing scene as an Oz character the way that Hunk and Zeke did. > > This always bothered me too. In the scene when Hunk and Zeke are offering > Dorothy suggestion on how to deal with Miss Gulch (using brains and courage > respectively), why didn't they have Hickory say something like, "Use your > heart Dorothy, try to see things from her point of view..." etc.? Well, Robin, it's true that he doesn't get one "in the same way as" Zeke and Hunk, but "Someday they're going to erect a statue to me" "Well, don't start posing now" was supposed to be evocative of the rusted state the Tin Woodman was found in, of course. Of course, that scene also has what is to me one of the most unusual bits of regional English I've ever heard: "Stop your jabberwoffing" My Kansan friends cannot confirm this is a phrase they've ever heard. Can anybody else? On other issues, I have no objection to the wogglebug's addition to the Passover Seder being disseminated, as long as you can do it in a way that won't detract from Eleanor's fine work. Also, my provider gets NO newsgroups, so please, keep it as e-mail. --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky, who thanks to the internet just found out there is a Castle Turniansky in Slovakia (check out http://www.tuke.sk/kosice/ks/ks29.jpg for a picture of it)! ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:57:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-16-96 > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > It seems to me that most of us who discuss events in FF books usually put > a warning label on top of the paragraph so that if someone has not yet > read the thing, they won't be suprised. Same should probably go for the non-FF books as well, wouldn't you say? > Chris has commented on _Shaggy Man_ before > as being inaccurate, but I cannot confirm this, as I have read the thing > a couple times and can find nothing in it that is contradictory to eariler > FF titles. What about the tunnel from the Nome Kingdom to the Emerald City still being intact and unfilled? That is a major contradiction with the end of "Emerald City." Some might also gripe about the Barrier of Invisibility still being there (MOPPeT is that it was lowered to allow Shaggy to leave Oz and look for his brother in "Tik-Tok," and nobody ever got around to raising it again, which is how everyone can come and go from Oz again without trouble. But I know others have different explanations that leave the Barrier there, so "Shaggy Man" is not a problem for those people.) But is the tunnel being there enough reason to not count "Shaggy Man"? Some think so, others don't. > From: OzBucket@aol.com > Subject: will Dave use this title? > > In response to the digs at Eric > Gjovaag, I am sorry that he was one of the mudslingers of the past few days. Me, too! RE: "Tales of the Wizard of Oz" > (By the way, Eric, can you make me some better copies of those cartoons? I am > grateful to you for the ones you gave me before, but they are not that easy > to watch) I wish I could! But the ones I have were taped over the air on an old VCR, and there was nothing I could do at the time to improve the quality and CERTAINLY nothing I can do now. I did try to get new copies from a n Internet contact in Vancouver, but it turned out that the "Wizard of Oz" they were showing at the time was the Cinar series, not "Tales of the Wizard of Oz." So that's that, unless somebody finds out that one of their local stations is showing it. Dick Randolph asked: > Peter (or anyone who knows): Where is Robert Riley Pattrick's > "Unexplored Territory in Oz" currently available? From The International Wizard of Oz Club, in two editions (one is just Pattrick's essays, one with annotations and further comment from Patrick Maund). > From: Gili Bar-Hillel > Subject: Re: April 12 > > Tyler wrote something along the lines of "the truth is out there". Today, > I wrote that the reason we are often fuddled about Oz is Glinda's > intervention, in other words, a Ozian government plot. Is this leading > to: "The X-files of Oz"? I can just hear Gillian Anderson saying it now: "Mulder, are you saying that a scarecrow can talk?" > From: DAlbright1@aol.com > Subject: Oz > > Daniel, We all are much to busy THANKING Peter Glassman for "spoiling" us > with beautiful, affordable first-editiion facsimilies to blame him for > anything! Not EVERYONE here, unfortunately. Every time he popped his head out to say something, some bird would try to cut him down for DARING to even THINK about editing a SINGLE WORD of "The Patchwork Girl of Oz." He was villified so much, I don't blame him one bit for keeping a low profile. An excellent case of a small number of people spoiling the fun for everybody. --Eric "One down, one and a FAQ to go" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:27:19 -0500 (EST) From: Michael F Burns Subject: stuff... In the last two days I have been called a bozo, and stupid and petty by complete strangers who wouldn't know me if I passed them in the street. Aren't Oz fans special! None of you, no matter how much time I spend explaining it, will ever understand the depth of feeling I have towards the Oz books. They have been the only constant, unchanging, sure thing in my life for all of my life. So try to understand when I get a little mad (a sure sign none of you know me: No one on this list has seen me truly mad; think about it) when someone comes along, a complete stranger to me, and says: Hey! I bet I can sell more of these books if I rewrite them. Regardless of Peter's good intentions, in my eyes he has begun the process whereby the last vestiges of my childhood are being swept away as if they didn't really matter. Hey, they're only books. Hey, they're only words. Not to me. Never to me. I'm sorry none of you get that. NEW TOPIC :) What do we mean when we talk about immortality? L. Frank Baum, though no longer with us, has a kind of immortality. Roquat Ruggedo gave the 14th King of Ev immortality. The Great Ak, Queen Lurline, the Kings of the Knooks and the Ryls, the King of the Sleep Fays, Tititihoochoo, etc. etc., all have what I would consider *true* immortality. They have always been and always will be. But go back to the 14th King of Ev: he is dead even though he was given immortality by the Nome King. I would argue (gently) that there are different kinds of immortality at work in the Oz universe. There is what I call *true* immortality, which is that shared by the race of beings known as Immortals. Beings which for the most part are archetypes of Nature and the Physical World. Then there is what I would call *apparent* immortality. Apparent immortality does not mean the same thing as true immortality. Apparent immortality can be given as a gift, the same as true immortality but that is the only thing they have in common (IMO of course). Apparent immortality, like the kind given by the Nome King, means only that you will live forever providing you don't die. I would venture to say that the gift of immortality given by the Immortals to Santa Claus was a one time only gift that had the effect of making Santa Claus a *true* immortal, equal in power to the other Immortals but given rule only over a specific area (children) the same as the other Immortals only have rule over their specific areas (light and dark, sleep, sounds, wind, plant life, animal life, oceans, lakes, and streams, etc., etc.) Santa Claus, like the true Immortals, can never die. Apparent immortals, like the former King of Ev and the native population of Oz that are not members of the various clans of true Immortals, can die, be destroyed, cease to exist, pass from being to nothingness, what have you. I would suggest that Lurline, while powerful in her own right, can only gift someone or someplace with apparent immortality and can of course provide safeguards to protect that person or place from harm. Anything else would be beyond her abilities and would probably need the approval and help of the other true Immortals. Please keep in mind that the gift of true Immortality is no longer possible in the Oz universe since the Mantle was given to Santa Claus and that this is all merely my own personal pet theory. See. You can tell I'm serious because I got all polite and nice and such. Bombs away! Mike B ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:02:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Robin Olderman Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-96 Dave--There was a foreshadowing scene for Hickory, but most of it ended up on the cutting room floor. All that remains is Aunt Em's line about his tinkering with that contraption in the barn and his declaring that someday they'd build a statue to him. Today, my kids saw the parallel between Dorothy's risking herself to save Toto when he fell out of the trap door (I read them some of the first coupla chapters) and her slapping the lion when he threatened to attack him. One of them noticed how brave Toto, the smallest of the party, was when he "fronted" the Cowardly Lion. I wanted to cheer...that's part of the theme! And they're very aware that the Scarecrow doesn't need brains, etc. ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:32:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Hanff Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-16-96 Dave and Dick, I was delayed getting to the 4-16-96 digest until this afternoon, but noticed a number of inquiries about Robert Riley Pattrick's "Unexplored Territory in Oz." This is available from the International Wizard of Oz Club, Jim Vander Noot The International Wizard of Oz Club 1343 Del Norte Street Houston, Texas 77018-1307 There were, I believe, just three essays in the original edition, but a fourth essay was added in later editions. Fred Meyer produced the book on behalf of the Oz Club (years before the Club had a publications program) and it has been in print ever since. So far as I know, there were no other essays left by Pattrick at the time of his death. The Club offers two editions: the Pattrick essays alone at $1.50 and an annotated version at $3.00. Peter ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:54:03 -0200 From: amyjones@mindspring.com (Amy Jones) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-96 TYLER: >I'd battle Prince Humperdink "to the pain" any day of the week! :-)< Wouldn't you rather face the three dangers of the Fire Swamp? (I wonder if there are any R.O.U.S's in Oz--maybe they are related to the Queen of the Field Mice.) I love Princess Bride! ROBIN: > My freshmen are a basically unmotivated group and don't frequently desplay more intelligence than a tree stump< There are times that I look out into the blank faces of my class and I wish to myself: if they only had a brain! Tell me what concepts you are teaching with the movie-- I would like to talk my teammate into doing the same! (Since I am a math teacher, I don't think I could get away with showing the movie.) GILI: Yes, Yes, Yes! I understand what you mean about coming by the books "too easily." I have a long list of Oz and related books. Beside most of them I have marked which rare bookstore I have found them and how much they cost. Of course, they cost too much for me to purchase, but I greatly enjoy the hunt. My favorite find was an old (not first edition) copy of Rinkitink that I found in my Great-Uncle Iloney's junk shed, which we were cleaning out after his funeral. He had been using it as a a prop for a broken leg on a rickety, defunct player piano. I kept it. (The book, I don't know what happened to the piano.) Amy Jones ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:35:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@CompuServe.COM> Subject: TODAY'S GROWLS Good Grief, a dozen Digests to go through...... In my on-going effort to help with people's collections (including my own) I stopped by Robert's Book Shop in Lincoln City, Oregon. He has an INTERNET address: ROBERT'SBOOKSHOP@INTERNETMCI.COM His other address is 3412 S. E. Highway 101, Lincoln City, OR 97367 Phone (503) 994-4453 He has the following Oz books: Land of Oz w jacket $75 Tik Tok $100 Purple Prince $250 Jack Pumpkinhead $200 Grandpa $225 Magical Mimics $25 Cowardly Lion $125 another copy $150 Shaggy Man $225 Land of Oz repaired? $75 Scarecrow $100 Tin Woodman $90 Enchanted Gnome of Oz $??? I didn't check them all but he told me the more expensive ones were firsts with color plates. I bought two books from him, "The Magical Monarch of Mo" the 1947 hardback edition with color plates $20 and the 50th Anniversary Pictorial Edition of WOZ by Fricke et. al. It was in mint condition for $20. Robert knows the value of what he has and his prices seem fair to me. He has a lot of other childrens books, fantasy, sci fi, big little books, etc. Good hunting. It's the little things in life. Dave, if you would just leave off 6 ====== on your seperator lines it would save me, and possibly others, a lot of work. Eric says >I've seen my royalty checks from "Queen Ann," so I know you can't make money from Oz anymore... Wellllll, you better check with Gregory Maguire. Eric continues >Hanna-Barbera bought the TELEVISION rights to the entire FF still unde rcopyright at the time, yes......sometime early next century we could see a cartoon series from them based on the Thompson books,...... What a tragedy. I suppose that is great news for kids under ten. However, with Disney there was always the hope for another Oz movie of substance. Sigh. Bill W. - Good Grief!!! You have all of Baum's books in a data base so you can search them? What a research tool. Where are they located? Are they accessible? How about Thompson's books? Michael F Burns - On Oz Squad >Nice mix of "heresy" and "canon" with a shocker of an ending that will not endear this comic to Dave, Aaron, Un-Bear, and a lot of others. But that's okay. "Un-Bear" ???? What do I conclude from this abusing of my nick-name? Did you mean to say Un-Bear-able? Eric Once More >I will now no longer give ANY of my opinions on this Digest! My, you were really out of sorts that day. What would we do without you? Well that gets me up to April 11th. Regards, Bear (:<) ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:14:23 -0700 (PDT) From: The Oz Trading Post Subject: FW: Wizard of Oz Papergoods --- On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 12:06:32 -0400 PLBKRGR@aol.com wrote: Hi Oz Fans, I have a little dilema....My son, Brian, who is turning 4 in July is a Wizard of Oz fanatic. Watches the movie constantly, reads the books, draws Dorothy, went to see the show on ice, has it taped, watches the one in concert, has two sets of oz characters to play with....I guess you get the picturee.. We're trying to have a wizard of oz theme, however, all the party stores I call in my area (Central, New Jersey) have no wizard of oz motif.... I can have a cake made, no problem. I have on order the life-size figurines found in a magazine, but I cannot locate invitations, plates, napkins, decorations...etc. Can someone help me. I would be most appreciative... Thanks, Linda -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: The Oz Trading Post E-mail: The Oz Trading Post Date: 4/17/96 Time: 9:14:23 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:24:45 -0700 (PDT) From: International Wizard of Oz Club Subject: FW: The Wizard of Oz --- On Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:42:04 -0400 MzRead@aol.com wrote: I am a third grade teacher and am looking for a teaching unit for THE WIZARD OF OZ. Can you help? -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: International Wizard of Oz Club E-mail: International Wizard of Oz Club Date: 4/17/96 Time: 9:24:45 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:26:53 -0700 (PDT) From: International Wizard of Oz Club Subject: FW: (no subject) --- On Sat, 13 Apr 96 19:26:50 -0700 Colin Hall wrote: Looking for Win95 Wizard of Oz soundclips can u help? Thanks -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: International Wizard of Oz Club E-mail: International Wizard of Oz Club Date: 4/17/96 Time: 9:26:53 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 19, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 03:07:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-18-96 > From: Michael F Burns > Subject: stuff... > > In the last two days I have been called a bozo, and stupid and petty by > complete strangers who wouldn't know me if I passed them in the street. > Aren't Oz fans special! None of you, no matter how much time I spend > explaining it, will ever understand the depth of feeling I have towards > the Oz books. They have been the only constant, unchanging, sure thing in > my life for all of my life. So now you understand how Peter Glassman must have felt when the same thing was happening to him here on the Digest. (Really, for those of you who don't remember or weren't here, it WAS THAT BAD.) > So try to understand when I get a little mad > (a sure sign none of you know me: No one on this list has seen me truly > mad; think about it) when someone comes along, a complete stranger to me, > and says: Hey! I bet I can sell more of these books if I rewrite them. > Regardless of Peter's good intentions, in my eyes he has begun the > process whereby the last vestiges of my childhood are being swept away as > if they didn't really matter. Hey, they're only books. Hey, they're only > words. Not to me. Never to me. I'm sorry none of you get that. And I'm sorry that you don't get that this is not an ideal world, and as much as people may not like it -- myself included -- consessions have to be made for today's world. I'm not wild about what Peter did, either. but what's done is done, and at least we have the option of not buying them. And should Peter go overboard and do major rewrites of Oz books (as opposed to the very minor he made in "Patchwork Girl"), I will be the first in line to tell him that he is dead wrong. But unlike you, I DO know Peter Glassman (and not because he's my publisher, I knew him even before Karyl and I submitted "Queen Ann in Oz" to him), and I know that he, too, loves Oz just as much as the rest of us on this Digest. I'm sorry people don't get that. And that is now my last word on the subject. > From: amyjones@mindspring.com (Amy Jones) > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-96 > > (Since I am a math teacher, I don't think I could get away with > showing the movie.) Start off a discussion on the Pythagorean Theorem with the Scarecrow's dead wrong mathematical statement when he gets his diploma. If nothing else, it ought to be good for a laugh once they know how wrong he is. > From: Richard Bauman <72172.2631@CompuServe.COM> > Subject: TODAY'S GROWLS > > In my on-going effort to help with people's collections (including my own) I > stopped by Robert's Book Shop in Lincoln City, Oregon. He has an INTERNET > address: ROBERT'SBOOKSHOP@INTERNETMCI.COM > His other address is 3412 S. E. Highway 101, Lincoln City, OR 97367 > Phone (503) 994-4453 Another shop for my FAQ! (Does he do mail order?) > However, with > Disney there was always the hope for another Oz movie of substance. Sigh. Considering the bath they took on "Return to Oz," I doubt it very much. > Eric Once More >I will now no longer give ANY of my opinions on this Digest! > My, you were really out of sorts that day. What would we do without you? Dunno, but you're going to have to find out. As my spring cleaning projects I've been going through old e-mail I've sent for the past few months, deleting it to make room for new stuff. And I've been reading it all to see if there's anything I need to keep or print out. This includes EVERYTHING I've ever sent to this Digest. And I've seen all the same stuff I've been saying here now! I've already brought up whether or not Yew is part of Oz, the tunnel in "The Shaggy Man of Oz," and all kinds of other stuff that are STILL being talked about. So I've come to the conclusion that my posting my own opinion or pointing out flaws in logic or adding my MOPPeTs is an exercise in futility. It does me no good, because I'm just going to end up doing it all again. When I posted that, yes, I was "out of sorts" and half meant it, but now I totally mean it. I'm adapting the same stance that Peter Hanff, Jane, Robin, and others seem to have done. I'm only going to answer questions of a generally factual nature (Where can I get Such-and-such of Oz, for instance), and only post news. If anyone posts an opinion or MOPPeT, I will keep mum. (Okay, I may slip up once in a while...) --Eric "Your source for news -- ONLY news!" Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:02:51 -0400 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-96 Before it slips my mind again, I wanted to tell everyone that on our trip across country we listened to Piglet Press's tapes of THE EMERALD CITY OF OZ, and even my wife, who isn't an Oz fan, thoroughly enjoyed them. It's an extremely well-done complete reading of the book, with a full cast of voices that are mostly very good. (I've taken up what I consider the few exceptions - all fairly minor characters in this book - with Bill privately.) I recommend it highly to everyone on the Digest, especially if you ever take long trips. The gain is nicely set so that everything is quite clear even over road noise, unless you have a very noisy car. Or, of course, you could listen while jogging or ironing or doing anything else where you can spare the attention and don't need your hearing. So everybody buy a copy so they'll have enough money to record another book! Digest of 4/14: Mike Burns: >Opinions: Style and substance have priority over simply using >Oz in the title. The FF in various degrees all have it, but only >some of the non-FF do. Shanower, Karyl and Eric ;)... and that's >it of what I've read. I hope, then, that you haven't read my book yet... Jane Albright: I've E-mailed you privately with the name of someone who should be able to help you on RETURN TO OZ, depending on just what you need. Barry Adelman: I don't remember who said using Bastinda and Gingemma might confuse newbies, but 'tweren't me. Tyler Jones: If I recall aright, Laumer doesn't recognize the Snow books, right? Because I'm almost certain that Button-Bright appears as a child in MAGICAL MIMICS. (My Oz books are in storage at the moment, so I can't check it out for sure.) John White: I'd forgotten that Burzee was mentioned in ZIXI. Danny: I guess it's a question of priorities - I would certainly not "settle" for the Del Rey editions of the Oz books for my permanent collection, but if there were an Oz book I hadn't read that I could only find in a Del Rey I'd settle for it as an interim measure until I could get a better copy. (The first copy of JOHN DOUGH that I got was a really bizarre PB edition from Opium Press, for instance, illustrated not by Neill but by Liu Fan Tan or some such Chinese name.) You should have run across Pastoria already, since he's first mentioned in LAND; Lurline first appears in TIN WOODMAN, the Adepts in GLINDA, and Kabumpo in his eponymous book. Ozroar is an invention of Fred Meyer's and doesn't appear in the FF at all. (By that name; as "Ozma's grandfather" he's mentioned in DOTWIZ and possibly elsewhere in the FF.) Dave Hardenbrook: For the record, the BoW PATCHWORK GIRL also deleted one illustration that depicted a Tottenhot, looking far more like a stereotypical Negro than the others where they appear, looking out of a trap-door. (I'm waiting to see what they do with the transformation sequence at the end of RINKITINK. That's going to be harder to edit.) Is the 100 miles across Oz in your MoPPET east-west or north-south? As we know, Oz is "oblong" and not square, and the maps generally show about a 3:4 aspect ratio. (Your size is close to mine in either case, since I figure it about 90x120 miles. This keeps most of the travel times fairly plausible, and agrees with Thompson's statements in WISHING HORSE.) Digest of 4/15: Eric Gjovaag: I'm not sure that I have access to Usenet; if I do, I don't know how, though if I had to I could learn, I suppose. I like the Digest as it is, as long as Dave is willing to run it; if the day comes that he isn't, then we'll have to look into alternate methods to keep Ozzy communication going. Dick Randolph: I found the BoW TIK-TOK at the Borders in Naperville a few days ago, and it's very nice indeed, just like all the other BoW reprints. I don't think you'll be disappointed. And I suspect that these books will hold up much better than the R&L originals ever did (R&L didn't do a very good job in the physical production of the books, IMHO). Bill Wright: I have a Web browser capability but have yet to use it. Once I have a house and a decent computer setup I plan to visit all the Ozzy Web sites to see what they're like, but right now it's enough of a pain reading and responding to the Digest - I have a very unergonomic setup at the moment. Aaron Adelman: Actually, the FF can easily justify the assumption that celibacy and magic aren't mutually exclusive; Dr. Pipt and Bini Aru are both married magic-workers. Melody Keller: I'd love to see your article on the layout of Ozma's palace. If for no other reason, to see how consistent the descriptions I gave in GLASS CAT are to those extracted from the FF. If it's not posted as part of the Digest, could you E-mail it to me directly? Digest of 4/16: Tyler Jones: As I've said in private correspondence, I don't accept the HACC chronology of the first few Oz books. It seems much more probable to me that the real dates are WOZ - 1899; LAND - 1901; OZMA - autumn 1902; DOTWIZ - May or June 1903; ROAD - August 1903; EC - October or November 1903. This is consistent with Dorothy being about 7 for WOZ and doesn't require any non-aging tricks to make her 11 when she comes to Oz permanently. It also gives consistency to Eureka's remaining a "kitten" without her having to get back to Oz between DOTWIZ and ROAD or to be run back in age. And I'm unaware of anything in the books that contradicts this chronology (or something much like it - LAND could shift a year either way without any problem, for instance). I find it very hard to believe that a five-year-old living on a farm in the middle of Kansas with guardians who clearly aren't very intellectual could read something like "Let Dorothy go to the City of Emeralds", however bright and resourceful she might be. Want to give your justification for the longer span? >If Ozma appeared before you RIGHT NOW, and said that she >needed your help in the Emerald City, would you really be all >that surprised? Well, I'd be surprised for a couple of reasons. (1) The only thing I could imagine Ozma needing my help for would be if she needed a lens designed, and I have a hard time thinking of a reason why she'd need a lens; and (2) Ozma never went on such a mission out of Oz herself in any book I've read, so I'd expect a messenger rather than the Princess herself. But I wouldn't be all that surprised to have a contact from Oz. Delighted, but not wildly surprised. Chris Dulabone: I have to disagree that Oz is physically on our planet Earth. There are too many things described in it that would be impossible if it were. I don't say it's in outer space (nor do I think it is), but it has to be in some other vibration-plane of reality or something of the sort. Just for starters, in our world it would be completely impossible to build a ladder to the moon and climb it, as Mr. Tinker did. And that's even in Baum. Thompson has the Flyaboutabus catch on the point of a star, and Benny fall into a hole in Boston and crash through the sky of Oz - again, impossibilities if Oz is physically on our planet. On aging, is it your opinion that Baum was lying or mistaken when he said in TIN WOODMAN that since Lurline's enchantment, nobody in Oz had aged a day, and that babies stayed babies forever? And in GLINDA that Dorothy "could not grow big"? Will you, or someone representing Buckethead, be at Ozmapolitan? There are several of your books that I'd like to buy, but I'd rather just pick them up at a dealer's table than order them through the mail, if it will be possible. Mike Burns: What prince decided to stop being an infant and age to being a teen-ager? And why would you say the stop-aging spell didn't work on Glinda, when we know she's been around for a long, long time and still looks to be a young woman (albeit older than Ozma)? Anyhow, I think the reference to the stop-aging spell taking full effect only when Ozma was on the throne referred to her accession, not to her physically occupying the chair. This at least makes all Baum's statements on the subject consistent with each other, though it leaves contradictions with Thompson and Neill. Both the Wizard and Tip clearly aged in the pre-Ozma era, and Ojo is told that he will grow up, though PG is near enough the time of Ozma's accession that the rather isolated Margalotte might not have noticed the stopping of aging. Otherwise, Baum is very clear and unequivocal in saying that nobody in Oz aged after Lurline's enchantment. Any other interpretation (including Thompson's and Neill's) requires ignoring that plain statement. Ken Cope: What advocates of book-burning? I don't remember any racist stereotypes in LUCKY BUCKY. I don't have my books available at the moment, but I've gone through the whole plot-line mentally and can't think of anything that would fit that description. The illustrations of the Red Jinn's servants, however (in JACK PUMPKINHEAD, PURPLE PRINCE, and SILVER PRINCESS) are pretty stereotypical depictions of Negroes, though in none of those cases does the text reflect racist ideas, as best I recall. Anyhow, it'll be well into the next millennium before any of those books are PD. Digest of 4/17: Chris Warkala: I don't think there are taxes as such in Oz, though it says in EC that in times of plenty surpluses are stored in Ozma's warehouses and then given out when they're needed. That seems to be voluntary, though, so it isn't really "taxes". Tyler Jones: What are the problems people have with AOL? I haven't had any, aside from a (very infrequent) inability to log on because all the local lines are busy. (This might be more a problem in an area where there are fewer local lines available.) Dave Hardenbrook: It's not impossible to find Oz books in Southern California, just expensive. The Book Baron in Anaheim, for instance, has quite a good selection of them - but they're priced at $50 and up. And there used to be a place in Long Beach with a whole room full, though they were also priced at $50 and up. I don't know if that place is still there or not; it was quite small, and its Oz collection was about half of all it had. Rizzoli in SC Plaza usually carries the BoW reprints as well. Digest of 4/18: Amy Jones: Of course there's at least one ROUS in Oz - Percy, from HIDDEN VALLEY and WICKED WITCH. There may be others that haven't come to mind yet. Short Digest this time. Well, this post should mean that the next one will need downloading instead of just saving to Flashmail... ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:31:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest YIKES! I forgot to mail Dave my post, so here's two for the price of one! PART I, SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED APRIL 18TH: Gili: I felt that frustration as well in my 17-year quest to collect the entire FF. The satisfaction I got when I got the last one, _Lucky Bucky_, made it all worthwhile. BTW, don't feel "guilty" when Oz books simply fall into your lap or if you grind out a check without doing any leg work. Oz books are out there to find, and I say get them any way you can, as long as it's legal and nobody gets hurt, of course. Ozma frowns on such things :-). Also, I believe that _Mysterious Chronicles_ is still available from the author. I may have his address around somewhere. I'll try and find it for you. Chris W: I can't remember any specific mention of taxes, but in _Emerald City_, Baum mentions that each person/family produces whatever they can, and it is all sent to EC for redistribution by Ozma. John: Maybe when Baum said immortals, he only meant certain classifications of immortals. Other, more powerful ones (such as Lurline) would not be under the control of the three masters, and would even have more power then they did. Aaron: ********** LAUMER STUFF ********** I believe they retraced Button-Brights last known route and saw the pit, then hauled him out. I shall look it up and see. PART II: TODAY'S STUFF: Barry: _Green Dolphin_ equatable with _Rinkitink_? This really goes to show how there are different opinions on the digest! One one level, though, I agree with Barry on their similarity about having a story that has nothing to do with Oz until it is forced at the very end. Eric Gjovaag: It seems to me that the issue of the tunnel was discussed a little while ago in the digest. While it is fairly clear at the end of _Emerald City_ that Ozma filled up the tunnel solid, we theorized that maybe Baum got this info from Dorothy, who was only guessing what Ozma had done. Further theorizing (by either Aaron or John White, I think) held that possibly the Belt at that time was drained of power after sending the armies home, so the best Ozma could do was to plug both ends. She spread the word that the tunnel was filled solid so as to prevent people from going in there and Dorothy believed that. ********** INFO FOR NON-FF RED JINN OF OZ ********** IN the non-FF book _The Red Jinn of Oz_, which HACC theory has placed near the time of _Shaggy Man_, also uses the tunnel of the Nome King. IMHO (which also means HACC theory), the statement at the end of _Emerald City_ is not conclusive that the tunnel was entirely filled and thus there is no contradiction with _Shaggy Man_. I believe we also theorized that the Barrier of Invisibility was lowered only above the Deadly Desert, and that it remained below, possibly only in selected areas. On Pattricks essays: They are very low-priced, so I recommend it as a good value, with or without the commentary by Patrick Maund. As I said before, I have both versions, but of course I use the one with the commentary. Mike Burns: You must be a little more sensitive than I am. Okay, a LOT more; I am a thick-skinned clod, but what can I do? :-) Anyway, I say this because I cannot remember anybody using the words "stupid", etc. Granted, the people who criticized Glassman for editing _Patchwork Girl_ have been raked over the coals a little, but not viciously, IMHO. My own personal jury is still out on this issue, but I realize that Glassman did this with only the best intentions in mind. However, I do sympathize with your for your statements that the Oz books are not just a collection of words and sentences. To me, the stories come alive and I can truly feel that I am in a place of beauty. I too feel a deep love for all that is the Land of Oz, and if I may be so bold, I believe that most people on the digest feel the same way, otherwise they would not be ON the digest :-) On immortality: I like your theory that there are different "levels" of immortality. Perhaps the mantle that Santa Claus has prevents him from ever being destroyed, while Lurline cannot pass this gift on to anybody else. Didn't Dorothy/Ozma and Roquat/Ruggedo have this arguement already about whether or not the 14th King of Ev got a long life? Roquat gave it to him, all right, but then the king threw it away. The life was the king's to do with as he pleased and on this issue, I must side with the Nome King. It was not Roquat's fault if the king destroyed the gift he received. Amy Jones: R.O.U.S.'s? I don't think they exist in Oz... (AUUUUUUGGGGHHH!!!)... :-) Amy again: (I survived the R.O.U.S.!) Your story of the _Rinkitink_ table-prop reminds me of the late Marcus Mebes. He offered to help clean out a trash-filled room in the University library. Under a pile of junk, he found a first edition _Sky Island_ in absolutely pristine condition! :-) As you wish... Bear returns! :-) Now if we could only get some lions and tigers... :-) --Tyler "Every ship but your four fastest" Jones ============================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:20:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-96 > From: Gili Bar-Hillel > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-16-96 > > Bill Piglet - I *may* want a copy of the cd-ROM, but first I have to hear > more about it! I hope Eric has answered me in this present digest. (You > probably have Eric, being as devoted as you are :-) ). Er, um, no, I didn't. Time just ran away from me yeaterday, and I never got a chance to respond, so there are two responses from me today. But in answer to your question: "Legends of Oz" is, so far as I know, the only Oz-related CD-ROM out there. It's cute, but not terribly valuable. It has all kinds of goodies in it. I especially liked the Quicktime clips from the movie, and Toto's rendition of "If I Only Had a Bone" is cute. But it also leaves a LOT to be desired. Click on "Authors," and you get information on L. Frank Baum and Roger S. Baum. WHAT? No Thompson, Neill, Smow, et. al.? And surely L. Frank Baum wrote other Oz books than "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz." (I mean, they're sitting right there on my shelf!) There is an electronic text version of the book, and also a version told from the point of view of many of the characters in the book, and cute little CD-ROM-book versions of Roger Baum's three SillyOZbul picture books. Oh, and a truly pathetic game that's nothing but matching pictures together. No creativity behind THAT. So all in all, I'm glad I only paid six dollars for it... > Eric - could you write a little more about the "Oz" comics for those of > us who have never seen them? (I can't even walk into a comic shop and > look for them...) I assume they are not as true-to-Baum as Shanower, and > not as warped as "Oz Squad" - approx. where do they fall in that spectrum? As you guessed, somewhere in between. It's a grown-up version of Oz, but not overly violent or straying too far ffrom Baum. I don't want to say too much, for fear of giving anything away, but here's a REAL brief outline of the first story arc, covering the first fifteen issues: Three young adults (and the dog belonging to one of them) are magically transported through a book to Oz, where they find the country is in ruins. Seems a few years earlier the Nome King, with help from Mombi, successfully conquered the country, and enchanted the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and Cowardly Lion to be his lackeys. Our visitors from America meet up with another bunch of old characters (Sawhorse, Woglebug, Hungry Tiger, etc.) who have formed a band of Freedom Fighters and are waging guerrilla warfare against the Nomes. Needless to say they help out, but it ain't easy... > From: jnw@vnet.net > Subject: misc > > Tyler Jones writes: > > If Ozma appeared before you RIGHT NOW, and said that she needed your help > > in the Emerald City, would you really be all that surprised? Nope. All I'd do is grab my toothbrush and my wife and say, "Let's go!" > From: "Aaron S. Adelman" > Subject: The Wooden Soldiers of Oz > > Does anyone out there know who translated Urfin Jus and His Wooden > Soldiers/The Wooden Soldiers of Oz, Opium Books' edition? I think it was March Laumer! (Small world, isn't it?) > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > ROBIN O. > >Some of them were even sharp enough to recognize that Hickory never got a > >foreshadowing scene as an Oz character the way that Hunk and Zeke did. > > This always bothered me too. In the scene when Hunk and Zeke are offering > Dorothy suggestion on how to deal with Miss Gulch (using brains and courage > respectively), why didn't they have Hickory say something like, "Use your > heart Dorothy, try to see things from her point of view..." etc.? Actually, there were some allusions, but like "The Jitterbug," they got cut. IIRC there was a machine he was working on that was supposed to break up storms, but all it ended up doing was squirting oil into his face. In the scene where he's showing it to Dorothy he says something along the lines of "Miss Gulch has no heart." --Eric Gjovaag ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:57:09 -0400 From: DAlbright1@aol.com Subject: theme park The Kansas City Star, metropolitan section, Wed. April 17, 1996 Oz theme park will get hearing by KCK council The $440 million project would use tax breaks and private funding by Anne Lamoy, staff writer Construction could begin next year on the long-awaited Wonderful World of Oz, a theme park proposed four years ago for western Kansas City, Kan. Developers are scheduled to discuss preliminary plans for the $440 million park with the Kansas City, Kan., city Council during a special meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday at City Hall. The proposed $370 million theme par and $70 million resort hotel complex would sit on 3,500 acres generally north of Interstate 70 and west of Interstate 435. The complex could open as early as 1999. After four years of planning, the massive project is finally ready for public scrutiny. Its not a done deal, its not a dead deal, Mayor Carol Marinovich said Tuesday. Its alive. The developer, the OZ Entertainment Co., is based in Los Angeles. Its founder, Robert B. Kory, has been involved in the Kansas City, Kan., effort since its inception in 1991. Skip Palmer, president of the new theme park, said in an interview Tuesday that money for the project would come from a combination of private investors and tax breaks. The tax breaks include use of a little-known state sales tax lay that was enacted by the Legislature for the Oz project. Kansas City, Kan., can sell bonds to pay for construction, and sales taxes collected at the park will be used to repay the bonds, Palmer said. Developers tentatively have allocated $150 million in sales tax bonds for the project. Without the bonds, Palmer said, We wouldnt have a project. When the idea for a Wizard of Oz-based theme park surfaced, local restaurant owner Gus Fasone was instrumental in floating the idea, Palmer. But Fasone has little to do with the newest plan. He is a stockholder in the development company but isnt an officer or an employee. He does serve as an adviser to Palmer on local issues, Palmer said. Fasones early involvement drew criticism after developers received $550,000 in grants from the city, Wyandotte County and Board of Public Utilities for a feasibility study. Allegations that Fasone diverted that money to his restaurant were never proven, and an FBI investigation was dropped. On the contrary, Palmer said the feasibility study was completed. It showed that 55 million people live within a days drive of Kansas City, Kan., Palmer said. That convinced the development group to proceed. The next step, after the presentation Thursday, is for the City Council to sign a policy statement. That statement, which has already been drafted, sets out plans for public hearings during the early phase of the project. ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 06:20:41 -0700 From: "W. R. Wright" Subject: Bear asked: >Bill W. - Good Grief!!! You have all of Baum's books in a data base so you can >search them? What a research tool. Where are they located? Are they >accessible? How about Thompson's books? If want to get access to them, most are available on Dennis Amundson's website. I have every available on-line book linked from the library at my site. If you go to url http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/books.htm There you will find a menu to each collection of Oz books. Go to the section of interest, and then to the book of interest. You will find a link on the page to the book if it is available on line. The Thompson books are not available yet on line however. Bill W. ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:28:36 -0400 (EDT) From: "Aaron S. Adelman" Subject: Immortality in Oz Mike, as I remember it Roquat/Ruggedo allegedly gave Evoldo (not the 14th king of Ev) a long life (not immortality). Evoldo then killed himself, leading to a paradox. As for fairy beings being immortal, that is definitely not unconditional. In Tik-Tok of Oz Ozga is demoted from fairy to mortal, which would indicate that immortality is not an inherent property but one bestowed upon fairies, revokable at any time, or at the very least it is a nullifiable property. An interesting variation on this can be seen in Eric Shanower's The Forgotten Forest of Oz, but I can't say what happens in there without giving away the ending. Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelman@yu1.yu.edu ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:56:40 -0400 (EDT) From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net Subject: immortality Michael F Burns writes: > Roquat Ruggedo gave the 14th King of Ev immortality. Roquat gave the King a long life, not immortality. I suppose that one could call 70 years a long life. As the King then drowned himself we'll never know. Other than that I aggree with what you said. -- jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:36:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Barbara Belgrave Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-18-96 Happy Friday Digest!!! Hope you all had a nice week. Mines been a bit busy so I have a lot of catching up to do. Mike..... Great Castle!! Needs a little restoration huh? ;^) Hey kidding aside, I think that's quite a find. Next to Oz, castles are my favorite thing. In fact I was born at one. Ok so thats stretching it a bit. I was born at Castle AFB. Well a girl can dream. Again thats great. Hope you can find more info on it to share with us. Eric..... Guess there are five of us coming for the Oogaboo Rendevous. Wish all the digest could come too huh? Maybe someday. You never know what will happen!!!! What about the IRC? Are you going to try and do that sometime in the future? I liked your idea about the newgroup too but I don't want it instead of the digest but in addition to would be good. Not everyone has news readers though. Whats the news on the Judy Garland page? Did you link it yet? Whats the "Oz Story Magazine"? Is it possible to get the #1 issue somewhere? Yes you were sounding like a grump but nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion. But ALL of you that were squabbling should remember..."It's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice". Dave..... Help! I accidently deleted the new FAQ. Could you send me a new one. Wouldn't it be a good idea to include in the masthead the address where newbies could get the FAQ again if they do like me and delete it by mistake. What were you talking about Sempernunquam? Where is that from? I'm all for includinf spoiler alerts. I have hit a couple of items I wish I had never read till I read the books. What is the rest of the statement you made in your MOPPET about 3. Locasta --Will......the real Good Witch of the North. The Three The three what? I don't have anymore words after that and then you go on to 4. Tyler..... I still need the Feb digest. I still haven't figured out how to print it so the ends of the line comes out. It is one my terminal fine but I can't print it. IMHO all books that resolve contridictions of previous books and cause no new contridictions should be included in HACC. If Ozma appeared to me I'd just ask her when she left to take me with her. Rich..... What's wrong with the Del Rey editions? I think for the first ime reader who really doesn't know what wonders they are in store for the Del Reys are great starters. Chris..... What is the "Arthurian Book of Days"? What does this have to do with Oz? Melody..... You bet I'd like a copy of the EC Palace layout article. May make my reading easier. What a nice thing you created for newbies. Robin..... Thanks for the info on Fred. That's nice to keep us posted. I'd like to know what you are putting together in the area of trivia. Dick..... Sorry about the Randolf. I guess I was just hooked on phonics that day. Well I guess that catches me up for now. Love hearing from all of you. Keep up all the great chatter. Gotta fly, Barbara ============================================================================= Date: Tuesday 16-Apr-96 22:18:27 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things BEAR: Could you be more specific as to why it wold make it easier for the message dividers in the Digest to be six '='s shorter? ERIC: >Start off a discussion on the Pythagorean Theorem with the Scarecrow's >dead wrong mathematical statement when he gets his diploma. If nothing >else, it ought to be good for a laugh once they know how wrong he is. I'm not even sure what he says, he says it so fast...Something like: "The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side." This is such a horrendus misstating of the Pythagorean Theorem that I wonder if there's another theorem that is closer to this that the screenwriters had in mind... Or did they, with good old-fashioned contempt for the public, say to themselves: "Just make something up...People are stupid...Nobody will ever know..." :( :( :( DAVID: >I guess it's a question of priorities - I would certainly not "settle" for >the Del Rey editions of the Oz books for my permanent collection... I've managed either through Dover, BoW, or IWOC to get my hands on decent copies of most of the Baum 14, but I'm still stuck with the Del Rey of _Lost Princess_, and _Glinda_...Counting the days 'til BoW bring them out! :) >Lurline first appears in TIN WOODMAN ... She DOES???? (Can someone give me a page/chapter?) :) >Is the 100 miles across Oz in your MoPPET east-west or north-south? ... >Your size is close to mine in either case, since I figure it about 90x120 >miles. Your estimates are so close to mine, I think I'll adopt yours. I was toying for a while with the idea of making the width/height ratio equal to the "Golden Section" = (1 + sqr(5)) / 2 = 1.618... of the ancient Greeks, but I found that making Oz a "Golden Rectangle" made it too elongated. :) >Actually, the FF can easily justify the assumption that celibacy and magic >aren't mutually exclusive ... Er, you mean that *marriage* and magic are not mutually exclusive, right? IMHO, the strongest "proof" that powerful sorcerers like Ozma, Glinda, the Wizard, and the Adepts are not condemed to spinsterhood is in (the non-FF but very good, IMHO) _Red Reera the Yookoohoo and the Enchanted Easter Eggs of Oz_, in which the once anti-social Reera ties the knot with a handsome Prince. >What are the problems people have with AOL? A lot of AOL-users have been missing Digests at various times; I'm glad to hear that *you've* had no problems. A QUICK QUESTION: What is a ROUS??? -- Dave ============================================================================= ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, APRIL 20, 1996 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:33:37 -0400 (EDT) From: BARRY ESHKOL ADELMAN Subject: Cheeriobed and the Wishing Horse of Oz I've heard that you can use characters from copyrighted books who appear in public domain books if in the public domain books they are major characters. I know for certain this means I could use Pigasus as he is definitely a major character in _The Wishing Horse of Oz_, as is Gloma. But what about others, such as Joe King, Queen Hyacinth, Queen Orin, and King Cheeriobed? Joe King only gets a small speaking role (so far in the book as I've read), and the others don't even say anything. On the other hand, the kidnapping of these people (and the Tin Woodman, Glinda, Ozma, the Wizard, and Jinnicky) is the overriding reason-for-being of the book. Does this make them major characters and thus usable in writing without possible copyright infringement? (Well, there are certain parts of _Lurline's Machine_ which would go better if the current royal families of Munchkinland and Gillikinland appeared...) ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:47:37 -0400 (EDT) From: MICHAEL TURNIANSKY Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-19-96 > > (I'm waiting to see what they do with the transformation sequence at the end > of RINKITINK. That's going to be harder to edit.) Heck with that! What are they going to do with the entire ROYAL BOOK? The depiction of the Silver Islanders isn't exactly flattering to Asians. And then there's Thompson's complete degradation of Gypsies (which book? GIANT HORSE?). Which reminds me. If they are so bad so that Ozma banishes them, why did she pick on the rest of us folks to banish them to? Barbara: > Mike..... > Great Castle!! Needs a little restoration huh? ;^) Hey kidding aside, > I think that's quite a find. Next to Oz, castles are my favorite thing. Well, seven hundred years of not keeping up on the monthly maintenance contract payments will do that to you :-). Well, I'm not a writer, but if I were, maybe I'd come up with a story of my oldest son exploring said castle, and finding a pathway to Oz.... Eric: > IIRC there was a machine [Hickory] was working on that was supposed to > break up storms... but all it ended up doing was squirting oil into his > face. In the scene where he's showing it to Dorothy he says something > along the lines of "Miss Gulch has no heart."Dave H.: Ahhh! That explains why is holding a piece of machinery, and Em says "I saw you tinkering with that contraption!" > >Start off a discussion on the Pythagorean Theorem with the Scarecrow's > >dead wrong mathematical statement when he gets his diploma. If nothing > >else, it ought to be good for a laugh once they know how wrong he is. > > I'm not even sure what he says, he says it so fast...Something like: "The sum > of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to > the square root of the remaining side." This is such a horrendus > misstating of the Pythagorean Theorem that I wonder if there's another > theorem that is closer to this that the screenwriters had in mind... > Or did they, with good old-fashioned contempt for the public, say to > themselves: "Just make something up...People are stupid...Nobody will > ever know..." :( :( :( On the contrary. The screenwriters were letting us folks in on the fact that, like the great thinkers the Wizard alludes to, the scarecrow is no more smarter than before. He just believes he is. This, at least is consistent with the books. > What is a ROUS??? I second that! All: Can I ask those folk who don't do so to put their names on the bottoms of their posts? When I reply, I "cut on the fly". I may not remember who wrote something I'm responding to, and by the time I get down to the bottom of it, it's too late. --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky, off to feed the hogs before they worry themselves into anemia..... ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:35:24 -0500 (CDT) From: "Dennis J. Amundson" Subject: Ozzy Digest Submissions Dave (and others), I recently added a page to my web site to hold the 15 most recent submissions of the digest. I felt that this would be somewhat useful mainly for two reasons: - Subscribers can get copies of the daily postings, if for some reason their copy gets lost or deleted (there seems to be plenty of these lately). - Potential subscribers are able to preview what they would get if they subscribed to the digest. The URL that can be used to reference the recent copies of the digest is: http://rrnet.com/~djamund/misc/ozzy-digest/ I also added your FAQ posting to the list. Hope this is alright with you, Dave (let me know if it is not). Dennis ------------------ Dennis J. Amundson Voice: (701) 239-2442 PO Box 1103 Internet: djamund@rrnet.com Fargo ND 58107 ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:34:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Gjovaag Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-19-96 There seems to be enough people saying "nay" to an Oz newsgroup that I won't say any more about it at this time. > From: DavidXOE@aol.com > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-17-96 > > Tyler Jones: > If I recall aright, Laumer doesn't recognize the Snow books, right? Because > I'm almost certain that Button-Bright appears as a child in MAGICAL MIMICS. > (My Oz books are in storage at the moment, so I can't check it out for sure.) Yes, Button-Bright has a small part to play in "Magical Mimics," and he's still a kid there. > Mike Burns: > What prince decided to stop being an infant and age to being a teen-ager? Pompa, in "Kabumpo in Oz", wasn't it? > I don't remember any racist stereotypes in LUCKY BUCKY. I don't have my books > available at the moment, but I've gone through the whole plot-line mentally > and can't think of anything that would fit that description. I think this was a reference to the blurb on the back jacket flap of the first edition (reprinted in "The Oz Scrapbook"). It took the form of a note from Bucky urging readers to buy war bonds so the Americans could beats its enemies such as the "Japs" . The book itself is quite harmless, and it's entirely possible that that blurb wasn't even written by Neill. > The illustrations of the Red Jinn's servants, however (in JACK PUMPKINHEAD, > PURPLE PRINCE, and SILVER PRINCESS) are pretty stereotypical depictions of > Negroes, though in none of those cases does the text reflect racist ideas, as > best I recall. The trouble is, they're not called servants, they're called slaves. > From: Tyler Jones > Subject: Ozzy Digest > > Eric Gjovaag: > It seems to me that the issue of the tunnel was discussed a little while > ago in the digest. Yes, it was. Which is why I'm now not going to say anything more about it. > From: Barbara Belgrave > Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 04-18-96 > > Eric..... > Guess there are five of us coming for the Oogaboo Rendevous. I'm looking forward to it! > What about the IRC? Are you going to try and do that sometime in the > future? Dunno yet. I'm pretty busy for the next couple of weeks, so it won't be soon. Considering how sparsely attended they were before -- there were nights when I was the only one there, and it was unusual for there to be more than two -- and how many people here don't have access to IRC (I know you can't get to it from AOL, for instance), I'm inclined not to try it for a while. Of course this wouldn't prevent someone else from conducting IRC sessions if they wish to try. > Whats the news on the Judy Garland page? Did you link it yet? No, but I have the information, I will soon. > Whats the "Oz Story Magazine"? Is it possible to get the #1 issue somewhere? I haven't seen it in the shops for a while, so your best bet is to order it directly from the publishers, Hungry Tiger Press. (I'm not at home right now, so I don't have their address, butit is on my web page, and I'm sure others here can tell you if needed.) > From: Dave Hardenbrook > Subject: Ozzy Things > > ERIC: > >Start off a discussion on the Pythagorean Theorem with the Scarecrow's > >dead wrong mathematical statement when he gets his diploma. If nothing > >else, it ought to be good for a laugh once they know how wrong he is. > > I'm not even sure what he says, he says it so fast...Something like: "The sum > of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to > the square root of the remaining side." That's about it, yes. > This is such a horrendus > misstating of the Pythagorean Theorem that I wonder if there's another > theorem that is closer to this that the screenwriters had in mind... Not that I'm aware of. > Or did they, with good old-fashioned contempt for the public, say to > themselves: "Just make something up...People are stupid...Nobody will > ever know..." :( :( :( Or perhaps it was the writers mis-remembering their old high school math themselves. > DAVID: > >Lurline first appears in TIN WOODMAN ... > > She DOES???? (Can someone give me a page/chapter?) :) She doesn't actually APPEAR anywhere in the FF. But she is first MENTIONED by name in "Tin Woodman," soemwhere in the middle IIRC, that first chapter with Ozma and Dorothy. > A QUICK QUESTION: > What is a ROUS??? Yes, I'd like to know, too. --The New Eric Gjovaag # Come visit my "Wizard of Oz" web site! http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/ # ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 16:18:22 -0200 From: amyjones@mindspring.com (Amy Jones) Subject: ROUS >A QUICK QUESTION: >What is a ROUS??? A Quick Answer: Rodent of Unusual Size. It is one of the three dangers of the Fire Swamp from the movie "Princess Bride." Amy Jones ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:41:29 -0400 From: DavidXOE@aol.com Subject: Ozzy Digest 4/19/96 Not too much to comment on today... Dave H.: I don't have my copy of TW available to cite a page and chapter, but Lurline is first mentioned (strictly speaking, she never "appears" in the FF) in the chapter where Dorothy and Ozma head out for Jinjur's farm to reverse the transformations of their friends. Well, yeah, I guess I mean "marriage and magic" aren't mutually exclusive - but since the Arus have a son, and there's no indication that he was conceived before Bini started doing magic, I think it's highly likely if not certain that they don't have a celibate marriage. I think I missed one Digest once, but only the one in several months. And I got it later. A ROUS is a Rodent Of Unusual Size (from PRINCESS BRIDE), and if Percy doesn't qualify I don't know what does... David Hulan ============================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:32:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Tyler Jones Subject: Ozzy Digest David: I believe that Laumer stops with the Neill books. If I remember correctly, he believes that Oz was getting to weird to be realistic at that point. Of course, I must say that Oz does "calm down" after Neill. Melody: Let me say again, please share your layout of EC with us! :-) David again: The HACC justification for the years of ocurrence of the early Oz books is as follows: We assumed that _Wizard_ took place in 1899, the year it was written. We used the Great San Fransisco Earthquake of 1906 to place _DOTWIZ_. _Road_ takes place in August of that same year. _Emerald City_ a few months later early in 1907. We placed _Land_ and _Ozma_ in the gap between 1899 and 1906 and then came up with the un-aging thing to explain how Dorothy could have aged so little between 1899 and 1907. We compromised a little by having Dorothy start off at age 6. Aaron: I don't think that Ozga can be considered on the same level as Lurline. As a "Lesser Fairy", she could probably have her immortality or whatever revoked by leaving the Rose Kingdom as her abilities seem tied to her country. The incident in _Forgotten Forest_ is similar, but Lurline herself was the agent behind the removal. Barbara: ********** LAUMER INFO ********** "Sempernunquam" is March Laumers name for the Ozzy continent of imagination/Baumgea. It is a Latin phrase meaning "Ever-Never-Land". Dave suspects that it is a play on Peter Pan's "Never-Never-Land". On the backup digests: On some of the earlier ones, I decided to take out all the carriage returns in each paragraph to make them easier to read in Microsoft Word. This was NOT a good idea, and maybe ove