] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, OCTOBER 31 - NOVEMBER 4, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:41:56 -0800 From: Steve Teller Subject: Ozzy matters Apparently only the superscription, and not the contents of my last entry arrived. So I will resend the contents with some new comments:: "J. L. Bell" Interesting that TIN WOODMAN would be a [the?] title Golden licensed. There were two others, ROAD and EMERALD CITY. Neill's depiction of the Hip-po-gy-raf seems much more dinosaur-like than Baum's description. Not that for little boys there's anything wrong with that! Fortunately, if the beast's a dinosaur, it's a plant-eater. This was a popular critter. It forms Michael Herring's cover of the Del-Rey edition. and appears in both the LGB and Russian editions. They all look saurian. Another example of violence in Baum's Oz book is the chopping up of Choggenmugger in RINKITINK, which is the subject of an illustration.. This made such an impression on Fred Meyer that when he was writing a menu for a convention and macaroni saladwas being served he called in Choggenmugger Salad. Steve T. Concerning copyrights: I wonder what the copyright situation was in the old Soviet Union and its current successors. There have been many publications of Volkov's "Oz" books with the Vladimirshy or other illustrations in both the old USSR and the current republics. This would be impossible under our copyright laws unless V & V retained their rights and "sold" them to the different publishers in different cities, or the original publishers sold/gave away rights for future publication. The earliest Volkov/Vladimirsky story was printed in 1959, less than 40 years ago. SPOILER FOR---THE FAIRY QUEEN IN OZ >Are Lulea and Lurline the same lady)? Actually March Laumer wrote a whole book on that subject, A FAIRY QUEEN IN OZ, in which Lulea and her band were invited to a city of the same ame in Sweden (The country Laumer spends much of his time). There the Queen finds herself so badly treated that she changes her name. END OF SPOILER Ruth Berman wrote: >Neill also was more traditional in his drawings of >the dragonettes of "Dorothy and the Wizard" and "Wonder City," It should be noted that Neill's Evan-Geline in WONDER CITY had two heads. Steve T. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 17:03:24 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-30-98 David G.: >According to their list, there was nothing in 1902 and not much in 1903 (a >couple of hard shakes around San Jose, but nothing strong enough to open a >fissure). But you are absolutely right, David, in pointing out that Dorothy >was well south of SF (and San Jose for that matter) when the big one >occurred. Could this have been a local event that went unrecorded? Or is >this more evidence for the parallel earth theory? Earthquakes in general don't open fissures big enough for a horse and buggy to drop into, in our world - even the Really Big Ones. That's why it's my theory (MOPPeT, we often call it on the Digest - My Own Personal Pet Theory) that the travelers shifted to a parallel world sometime between Dorothy's arrival at Hugson's Siding and the quake where the earth opened. This sort of thing seems to happen around Dorothy quite often. Whether Oz is on our Earth or not, it's clear that the primary way to get there is through some kind of spacewarp, whether it's into another dimension or an instantaneous transition of a lot of miles on Earth. Tornados don't last long enough to travel from Kansas to a point outside the US. Hot-air balloons with no internal heaters don't travel hundreds of miles. There isn't an unknown island continent several hundred miles across located somewhere in the South Pacific close enough to shipping lanes that a chicken coop washed off a ship, or a hatch cover from a sinking ship, could float to it overnight. A little boy couldn't have walked from Philadelphia to somewhere near Foxville. And those are just in Baum. Dorothy's aging and subsequent de-aging in _Lost King_ is interesting, but puzzling as well. The fact that she returned to her previous age in Oz when she returned to Oz might be an indication that when she came to Oz permanently in EC that she reverted to her age at the time of her first visit to Oz in _Wizard_. Or perhaps, since the indications are that non-aging didn't begin until after Ozma's accession, to her age as of her first visit to Oz after that, i.e. in _Ozma_. It's possible that the de-aging was an effect of the sand from the Wish Way - that "I wish I were back!" included "back to my original age" as well as "back in Oz." But one would think that in that case it would also include "back in intact garments," and we know that didn't happen. It's also puzzling that there was a delay of an hour or so between Dorothy's arrival in Hollywood and her starting to age. >BTW, however old Zeb was, it wasn't very old. Would you, as a responsible >parent, send a child of that age in a horse-drawn carriage to pick up a >passenger at the train depot late at night during an earthquake? Would you >not then worry about him sufficiently to go after him when he'd stayed gone >all night? I think Zeb was considerably older than Dorothy; Baum isn't specific, but he acts like a youth of 14-16 rather than like a kid of 11-12. And you have to remember that Zeb wasn't living with his parents but with an uncle, and their relationship seemed to be more employer-employee than familial. It's not that much problem keeping track of the various Davids on the Digest; except for Dave Hardenbrook and me, a last initial is still good enough to distinguish us, and Dave and I are generally distinguished by his using the nickname and my using the full form (though since John Bell persists in calling me "Dave" as well, so he has to tack on a full last name). Lisa: I think Dorothy was older than five at the time of _Wizard_, but the most generally accepted chronology of the books doesn't really allow for her to be older than that. MOPPeT is that she's 8 or 9 at that time, but my chronology isn't that widely accepted. Michael: Good Ozzy math puzzle. The answer, of course, is 11, 10, and 12 respectively. Nathan: I doubt if Aunt Em and Uncle Henry would have noticed a 1-year lag in Dorothy's growth; since she was "a well-grown child for her years" at the time of _Wizard_, she probably wouldn't seem much different from her age peers a few years later if she'd only lagged about a year. The more difficult thing to reconcile with the "age delay" idea is why Dorothy would consider herself to be only 11 when she'd lived 12 years (and presumably celebrated 12 birthdays). After all, people mature physically at very different rates; there's no way of looking at kids and being sure this one is 11, this one 12, and this one 10. Bear: >Ah Mr. Bell. That is exactly why all of the interesting book stores are >going under. People shop at the chains because they can save a few bucks. I know this is a hobby-horse of yours, but you're misstating John's comments. He wasn't talking about saving a few bucks; he was talking about a particular independent having a poor selection compared to the chains. And it should be noted that Borders has a much better selection of Oz books than any independent within reasonable traveling distance of where I live, though there's a good one in the Lincoln Park district of Chicago (roughly comparable to your going to Berkeley to book-shop). I'm sure that I've read most of the Oz books at least eight times, though that's spread over more than 55 years. I reread favorite books quite often, though I doubt if there are any I've read eight times as an adult. There are some I've probably read four or five times, though. But I spend a lot of time reading; I also read a lot of new books. Dave: I think you misunderstood J.L. - _Little Men_ has been PD for a long time. He was saying that the time when his first book would go PD, if he lived to be 85 as he figures to, would be as far from now as now is from the original publication of _Little Men_. I'm sure that everything Alcott wrote that was published in her lifetime is now PD. I think setting a date for _Magic_ would be appropriate; there may be a few more comments on TW, but probably those would fit into the time between now and the date you set, since you usually give about a 2-week lead time. >"TOO MANY DAVES": >I'd offer to clarify things by adopting *my* high school nickname, but I >really don't want anyone here calling me "Cosmo-Gremlin"... I didn't really have a nickname in high school; in one grade school I went to I was "Horse-nose," and in college I was "Hulot," at least after the film "Mr. Hulot's Holiday" showed. I prefer "David," or even "Dave"... David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 13:13:11 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: the Ozzy mailbag Content-Disposition: inline One of my three favorite uncles has just sent me a copy of "A Tour of L. Frank Baum's Aberdeen," by Don Artz. This is a 20-page pamphlet with photos, maps, and illustrations about Aberdeen, SD, during the period that Baum and his in-laws lived in there. As a publication it's very well done, with interesting layout and a high quality of writing and editing. The stories create an intriguing window onto the edges of white settlement in our Gilded Age. Among the facts about Baum's life and work, I found only one statement I'd quibble with. Rated against other tourism material I've seen, it's even more impressive. If Don Artz or any of his Aberdeen colleagues receive this digest, I send my praise. Also in the mail this past week was the fall 1998 Oz Observer from the Int'l Wiz of Oz Club. Since it arrived several days after all the events its calendar lists, I was mercifully spared any dilemma about whether to attend those. Most of the newsletter is devoted to plans for the 2000 celebration; for that, of course, I have plenty of decision-making time. The undeniable highlight of this newsletter is a photo of Herm Bieber is his award-winning Dorothy costume. It's everything people said it was, Herm! And last out of this week's mailbag is Martin Gardner's VISITORS FROM OZ. I'll put my response at the end of this posting. Folks who wish to avoid learning any plot points at all or to avoid negativity should skip it. Steve Teller wrote: <<==================================================================== Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:53:43 -0800 From: Steve Teller Subject: Ozzy Matters ====================================================================>> Steve? Steve? Talk to us! David Frank Godwin wrote: <> When Dorothy is on the wish way in LOST KING, she muses aloud, "...and yet I sometimes wish I were in America again, just to see--" Then she's whisked to Hollywood [128]. The unspoken intention of Dorothy's wish, which the silver dust may have picked up, is probably "just to see what my life would be like if I'd stayed there." That seems a more likely ending to her sentence than "just to see Hollywood," or "just to see Cousin Zeb," or other possibilities. In that case, Thompson may simply have misinterpreted Dorothy's growth as a natural result of her returning to America, rather than an unnatural result of her wish. That ILTT theory at least makes it possible for Dorothy to go back to America in new books without being inconsistent with LOST KING and without ending up dead. About Baum's manuscripts, Dave Hulan wrote: <> I wouldn't be surprised if these Baum manuscripts/typescripts indeed came from the publisher's files. With the growth in literary collecting, authors have started to see their typescripts as potentially valuable. Many book contracts now include a clause saying the publisher will return the original typescript *if the author asks for it.* Just in time for typescripts to lose a great deal of value, given the ease of printing out multiple copies. The versions with handwritten changes are what future collectors and scholars will treasure. Ruth Berman wrote: <> Quite so. I do that myself sometimes. But if that scrap in the BUGLE was Baum's *second* draft, I must severely downgrade my image of his writing talent. (It could, of course, have been typed from a handwritten page with no changes.) About, I believe, the growth of book superstore chains, Richard Bauman wrote: <> Much as I share the distrust of an unfettered free market evident in your statement, Bear, I must point out that a superstore that offers 40,000+ different titles ipso facto provides more variety than a small store that offers 10,000. That's why a small store should develop specialties, stocking titles not in the larger stores to attract a wide and steady customer base. An outlet like Books of Wonder is just such a specialized success. As for my philosophy of buying books, I seem to be planning to be hit by a truck and laid up for several months with a hefty financial settlement. That's the only way I'll even get close to reading my library. Alas, the most likely way I'll break my legs is by tripping over a pile of books! About TIN WOODMAN, Ruth Berman wrote: <> Endpapers? This book has endpapers?! What I miss by keeping my old Rand McNally edition! Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> No, no, no! Sorry, Dave; my complaint plunged you into sootier darkness than before. I mentioned LITTLE MEN and other works published in 1871 to show what old books would still be under copyright *if* the upcoming law had been in effect back then and *if* those authors had lived as long after they wrote their works as I hope to live after mine. All work published in the 19th century has been in the U.S. public domain for decades, including all of Alcott's children's books. (When scholars "discover" her *unpublished* manuscripts, as recently happened with an adult thriller, those get new copyrights as of the publication date.) ******** SPOILER ******** SPOILER ******** Now for VISITORS FROM OZ. When I was growing up, Martin Gardner's ANNOTATED ALICE and INGENIOUS DR. MATRIX were two of the books I read and reread--probably more often than any Oz book. The former was more important than any other single volume in opening my eyes to the possible levels of meaning in literature. I never reread a Dover borderlands novel without rereading Gardner's introduction as well. So I had high hopes for VISITORS. Unfortunately, novel-writing is not Gardner's strong point. VISITORS isn't his first novel, his author's biography shows. But it still reads like a first novel, with long and stiff expositions, descriptions washed out by the passive voice, and dialogue that doesn't flow like real (or even Ozian) speech. The story matches the weakest and most musty Oz narratives with a contrived motivation, plotless episodes that exist just for puns and clever images, dei ex machina who sap tension from the action, and lots and lots and lots of repetition. In Baum's Oz books, what saves weak and meandering plots is a cast of characters we believe in. The animals in LOST PRINCESS may go on for a soporifically long time about who's most attractive, but what each of them says is right for him; the conversation reads as completely natural, even if we feel Baum needn't have let us in on it. In contrast, I find many actions and speeches of the characters in VISITORS too creaky to believe. I'm no purist when it comes to new takes on old characters and settings. I accept Gardner making Dorothy 17 years old, and the complex parallel dimensions he invents to position us and them. I like the cleverness of giving the Tin Woodman a door in his chest so he can store things inside. I can handle Dorothy getting a cell phone before I do. Even the book's violence and faint hint of sex would be fine as long as the characters remain consistent. But many of Gardner's changes are so false to the personae we know that they stand out like fire hydrants on a water bed. It's clear he made these changes just to ease his plotting. That breaks my confidence in both his innovations and his plotting. For instance, Inga is said to have given Ozma the three pearls, and she passes them on to Dorothy--as if the Pingaree royalty is ever going to give up their most valuable treasures! Gardner says Dorothy goes out every morning to jog. Well, Dorothy may be 17, but even in this book she's still from turn-of-the-century Kansas, and therefore far less likely to jog than I am (which makes her chances nil). VISITORS brings into Oz the Greek gods (under their Roman names, oddly), the Wonderland and through the looking-glass worlds, and an ursine version of Sherlock Holmes--giving Gardner a chance to comment on these older legends. Unfortunately, his comments aren't interesting. The Wonderland creatures, for instance, have little to say beyond that Carroll depicted them falsely. Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Woodman also interact with several contemporary Americans, from Oprah to the Amazing Randi and Gina Kolata (the latter two being, I suspect, friends of Gardner). Only once (when Mayor Giuliani is deprived of a press conference) did I find those encounters surprising or witty or insightful. Most troubling is this book's reliance on ethnic stereotypes. A maid is named Sanchez; what does she do when she encounters the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman? She crosses herself, of course. Where does the villain find his hit men? At a club in Little Italy--and after being reformed, those goons end up in sanitation. An Arab pops up suddenly, and what is he doing? Hijacking a plane while shouting, "Allah Akbar!" This last example of stereotyping is especially unfortunate because it's not believable (unless you truly fear a random Wichita-to-New York flight will be diverted to the Mideast), it's not fresh (this set-up has been cliche for at least 20 years), it's not funny, and it's not necessary--the book's villain is already stalking Dorothy at this point in the plot, so there's plenty of menace available. What was Gardner trying to accomplish with VISITORS? One obvious goal is to bring new readers to Baum's books. He names and recommends those titles in several places. (He also recommends Michael Patrick Hearn's upcoming bio; I'm sure we'd all like to take him up on that endorsement.) Unfortunately, in two or three cases Gardner also gives away Oz books' endings in detail. Is Gardner trying to make Oz appeal to some hyped-up image of today's kids? Does he think they can't accept a story without violence? Is that why his Pink Pearl doesn't merely deflect bullets but seizes the gun and fires back? If so, Gardner goes about building kid-appeal wrong from the start. He doesn't give kids another kid to identify with. The protagonist we have in chapter 1, movie producer Samuel Gold, is an adult (he also vanishes for much of the book and never undergoes challenges and changes). Dorothy is 17 years old, out of some kids' identification range; she never gets a compelling goal for even as long as a full chapter, and is never in real danger, so it's hard to get caught up in her story, either. Those long visits to Wonderland, Olympus, etc. will be major turn-offs to new readers. So is Gardner writing for adults? If so, he can be much, *much* more clever than this. The form of an Oz novel seems to weigh him down. How I'd love to see those long expositions turned into witty and semi-fictional annotations! How fun it would be if Ballville were not merely a place where lost balls go to grow legs but an exercise in spherical mathematics! (Okay, that's an unusual idea of fun.) VISITORS seems to be caught between adults and young readers, between parody and straight narrative, without satisfying any side of those divides. I don't think St. Martin's served Gardner well. The firm doesn't have a good reputation for editing genre fiction carefully, and this book maintains that record with a typo as early as page 2. Gardner's placement of DOROTHY & WIZARD in time before OZMA looks like a simple lapse of memory rather than a well-thought-out pet theory; an editor should have caught that. Most important, the text seems not to have undergone basic editing to sharpen the story and story-telling. I suspect the publisher thought it would sell adequately based on Gardner's name and the word "Oz," and wanted Christmas sales in this budget year. The book would have been twice as enjoyable, even with the plot weaknesses I mention above, if Gardner and an editor had worked on it for another twelve months. I do like the chapter-opening illustration, which juxtaposes an Emerald City street and a New York City skyline. But for the bulk of VISITORS FROM OZ, I must go beyond Atticus's verdict that "I don't want to call it a bad book, but it's not what I consider a good Oz book." With profound disappointment, I do think it's a bad book. ***** END SPOILER ****** END SPOILER ***** J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 16:03:26 -0800 From: Peter Hanff Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-30-98 Cc: phanff@library.berkeley.edu Hi Dave, A couple of days ago I drafted comment on the original Baum manuscripts for The Tin Woodman of Oz, The Magic of Oz, and Glinda of Oz. Alas, the message sank into the miOzma when our network crashed. So I'll redraft: These are, alas, the only surviving manuscripts of Baum's Oz books. The former two are at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, as described by Atticus Gannaway recently, the last still held by the Baum family. All three are completely in L. Frank Baum's hand. Gauging from the shakiness of the hand-writing in Tin Woodman, it appears he wrote that one when he was quite ill. The handwriting is stronger in the other two. What is really surprising about all three manuscripts is how clean they are. There are almost no internal corrections, and one might almost think they were fair copies, but there are just sufficient emendations and differences between manuscript and printed book to make clear that there was an intermediate editorial step. Baum used a typewriter very early in the century, and his custom appears to have been to write a longhand text, then typewrite it, and then, we assume, read galley proofs. (Actually quite a few pages of one of the two Texas manuscripts are on the back of a sequence of pages from an early Mary Louise title). The relative rarity of change between the holograph manuscript and the printed book reveals, I believe, that there was very little editorial intervention. The lack of corrections in the manuscripts themselves suggested to Warren Hollister and me that Baum was an excellent natural writer, and that he could write out the full text, including the dialogue, almost in a continuous stream. Stylists can argue about the final outcome (clearly Baum's work could sometimes have used a second look), but his skill at story-telling is directly apparent from the manuscripts. I was fortunate to be able to read the two Texas manuscripts, line by line, against the printed versions of those books. Warren Hollister did much the same with the privately owned manuscript. The manuscript I have long wished could be examined is that for Queen Zixi of Ix. That work, published serially in St. Nicholas magazine from November 1904 through October 1905, is the most carefully wrought of all the Baum books, and I have often wondered if Baum didn't benefit from dialogue with Mary Mapes Dodge, the conductor of the magazine. Peter Hanff ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 20:25:10 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Neill's Oz I suppose that really this is apropos of nothing, but I've just this year begun re-reading Oz books and am still on the FF. I had never read any of the RPT books before, except _Royal Book_, of which I had the R&L edition when I was a kid (sigh). At that time, it just confused me. Now I am hung up on the Neill books, which I'm not enjoying as much. I feel that John R. Neill's books actually aren't so bad if you can forget that you ever read any other Oz book. They definitely have their good points, and in general their whimsical character reminds me very much of LFB's _Magical Monarch of Mo_. Such silliness carried on for more than 300 pages tends to get rather trying, though. Be that as it may, Neill's books make me question the meaning of "canonical." If the word just means "accepted" or "approved," that's one thing. Under that definition, all the R&L books are canonical simply because they were commissioned and published by LFB's publisher. But if "canonical," in this case, means something that is generally accepted as defining the history and customs of Oz (in line with the definition of a canon as "the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding"), then we have a problem. Even LFB's books contradict themselves quite a bit as his knowledge of Oz developed. But when we get to things such as fighting houses in the EC, scalawagons, and, yes, RPT's ozoplanes, we have IMHO gone completely beyond the pale. My idea of a nightmare is to be hung up in the scalawagon traffic on OZ 35E while trying to make an ozoplane flight to Ev from Emerald City International. I suppose it is ultimately up to the individual as to what belongs in Oz and what doesn't, unless someone sets up a sort of Ozzy tribunal to judge such matters. Speaking for myself, some things just do not fit at all into my concept of Oz, although others apparently find them acceptable. I am even uncomfortable with LFB's moderate introduction of technology, such as the telephone or wireless. If Oz has adopted "television sets, refrigerators, washing machines, cars, and airplanes," as Martin Gardner puts it in _Visitors_ (and home computers as well), then there is very little to make it different from or better than the modern-day U.S.A. High technology means heavy industry means pollution and corporate greed. That's the price we pay. But I cannot - or prefer not to - visualize an oil refinery on the banks of the Munchkin River. - dg ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 02:13:54 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-30-98 > Bear moaned: > > > Maybe there are some on the Digest who only read Oz books? That would be > about like living solely on "Twinkies!" There I said it. ARRGHHHHHHH, No > Glinda, NOOOOOOOOOO. > Shouldn't that be Winkies? :-) Our esteemed leader asked: > > > COPYRIGHT: > J.L. Bell wrote: > >LITTLE MEN ... coming into the public domain this year... > > Well, this just goes to show how much in the dark I *still* am > about this copyright law..._Little Men_ (and presumably her other > well-known works except _Little Women_) is still under copyright?? Read the begining of the sentence you excerpted, Dave! I mean, I know the digest is long, but.....He was saying that *his (Bell's)* book would likely be protected for 127 years due to the current law, and *IF* Alcott's book's had been protected that long, they would still be under copyright until just now.... but they were NOT! --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:16:27 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Content-Disposition: inline David Goodwin: That scene with Dorothy growing up so quickly has always bothered me. It leads to the question: If you are in Oz, and not aging, then where does your age "go"?: There are two possibilities: 1. The age is never generated in the first place. This is much like a lightswitch. If you turn it off for an hour, then turn it on again, the light does not glow twice as brightly for an hour. 2. The age is supressed, and then stored someplace if you ever leave. This is the case in many fairy stories. According to Aaron Adelman, the "MAgic Machine" keeps track of this. Part of the problem with assumption 2 is that it also requires us to assume that if you leave and then come back, the age is taken away from you again. In this case, I've taken the wimps way out: To preseve everything else the we know or have assumed, I have made the following assumption: WHen Dorothy made the wish, the magic controlling the wish must have assumed that she not only wanted to go back to America, she also wanted to see what it would be like if she never left, so the sand gave her age back. When she returned, she sand assumed she mean that she wanted to return just the way she was. A little forced, but if I push, I can just get it through the doors of plausibility :-) As for the statement in _Tin Woodman_, we can also assume that Baum meant the "same sweet little girl" as her attitude and demeanor. That is, she was just as good and kind as she always has been. IMHO, a boy of 10 (near Zeb's age) could easily be trusted to take a horse-and-buggy down to the train station, meet Dorothy, pick her up and take her back to the ranch. Many people that age (or older) could not do that today, but back then was a little different. I'd say that Baum got his early information from Dorothy. Note the large gap between publication dates for _Wizard_ and _LAnd_. He had to wait until Dorothy went back to get info for the second book. Keep staying wound up. Going over this stuff again is great. It keeps it in our minds and it always helps to have another viewpoint. Lisa: Dorothy might have been too young to be afraid of riding a lion, although five is a little young to be doing what she did. That's why I go with six. Not a lot of difference, but maybe just enough. John Bell: The President has 10 days to sign any bill. If, at the end of those ten days, Congres is still in session, it shall become law. If, at the end of those 10 days, Congress is not in session, it shall be vetoed and be dead. The pocket veto has lost power in recent decades, since Congress is in session nearly year-round. They are not in session now, but Clinton has signaled that he will sign it. If he does not (a slim-to-none possibility), it may be killed, since I can't see Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott calling Congress back over this. Don't keep your hopes up. The lobbying effort was powerful, and I believe that he will sign it, if he hasn't already. John Bell again: It's interesting that you noted that the Wicked Witch of the East did not seem to be thoroughly wicked all the time. In one of March Laumers books, Uncle Henry presses a Munchkin to give him specifics of the horrible things that the Witch did to them. The only real response was that she forced them to go to school and learn things! :-) David Hulan: If we assume normal progession, then there is a four year gap between Speedy's visits. 12 and 16 does not seem unreasonable. Your reference to Jeremy was actually a statement I made. In order to reconcile _Ozma_ and _Pirates_, it is possible that Peter comes from our own Earth and was sucked through a vortex. Any others have ideas? Nathan: David Huland has also mentioned the fact that Dorothy's non-aging would be commented on. At that time in a girl's life, even one year can make a fairly big difference. I see three possibilities: 1. Dorothy was extremely young at the time of _Wizard_, younger than we can account for her actions. 2. The first six Baum books must be squeezed in an extra year. 3. Henry and Em never really noticed. Perhaps Dorothy was unusually mature for her age and the un-aging balanced it out. Choice 3 is the easiest to accept. Dorothy simply cannot have been too young during _Wizard_, and I've squeezed the first six Baum books about as far as they'll go. I could get an extra year if there were not so many other non-FF books written at that time. If anybody has other ideas, I'd love to hear them. All I want is the best possible answer, and even my tremendous brain cannot generate perfection all the time :-) (cough cough ahem) Bear: Someday, I will re-read Wheel of Time and LOTR, but that will be many years down the road. Aaron: Glad to hear that the HI/RCC is finally on-line. Beware, though, I am planning to re-design the HACC so that it will accomodate anything that is accurate to the Baum 14. This will slightly break the single historical thread, but I have a plan for that, too. BTW, is there any update on your books? Ruth and John Bell: Piers Anthony always does his work on computer. He loves to go into detail about his journey from CP/M (now that's ancient!) to DOS and eventually Windows. In an interesting aside, he notes that fans get terribly offended when they find out that each novel does not spring into his head full-grown, or that he does not do a rough in longhand. Tyler: Yes, I talk to myself, on and off the Digest :-) An update on my web site. Primenet tells us that the high-speed internect connection will take one or maybe two weeks to install. From my experience in the real world, this translates into English as "One month". Therefore, it may be a while before my web site is active again. Names: So far, there's only one Tyler, which is good, since I'd rather not go by any of my old nicknames: Nate Lumpy Psycho Rohanassring (don't even ASK about this one!!!) Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 2 Nov 98 11:12:06 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Reply-To: Ruth A Berman Subject: ozzy digest J.L. Bell: Your summary makes the new copyright law sound a bit worse than it is. It's date-of-death+70 or publication-date+95 -- whichever is SHORTER. (Unlike the now-lapsing law, which is death+50 or publication+75, whichever is longer.) You wouldn't get more than 95 years of protection on a book, no matter how young you were when it was published or how long you lived after that. (Dave Hardenbrook: Nothing published in the 19th century is still under copyright, with the possible exception of the work of Mary Baker Eddy. I haven't heard if the new law extends her previous exemption from copyright expiration. For that matter, I hadn't heard if the 1978 law extended it.) If you published a book next year and lived another 96 years, you would even see the copyright expire in your lifetime, but presumably there are going to be few authors, if any, who publish early enough and live long enough to have that happen to them. David Hulan: I think the ms. J.L. mentioned is the Fragment of an Oz book that was among the papers of one of the Baum sons (published in the "Bugle" back in 1975). As a fragment, it probably wouldn't have been sent to Reilly&Lee at any time. There was an LP of the music from "Return to Oz" -- it was reviewed in the "Bugle" at the time, and I sent off for a copy of it then. I forget if that included a CD version as well, but suspect that it did. It's probably long since out of print, though, either way. I did find a copy of "Visitors" at Uncle Hugo's. I probably won't read it immediately, though, as I'm doing a lot of reading for some other projects. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:37:56 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: sahutchi@iupui.edu Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-30-98 Aaron: I don't think Ozma Gets Really Pissed Off or Invisible Inzi should be taken off the HACC. "The Flying Thief of Oz" is pretty consistent, with the exception of the statement (in dialogue) that there is no electricity in Oz. It has an unrecorded journey of Dorothy some time in-between _DotWiz_ and _EC_ (but with a Fuddle--a criminal Fuddle). There is no space on the shelf for _Visitord from Oz_ here, but I'll keep looking. Scott ============================================================================ ==== Scott Andrew Hutchins http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Frances: I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours. Freddy [the neighbor]: Mine was pretty boring, too. I've just got a knack for picking out the interesting bits. --David Williamson _Travelling North_ Act Two Scene Three ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:49:40 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: OZ: Copyright explained Since this just came over my e-desk, and it was topical, I forward it along (something Scraps (or perhaps Jeremy Steadman) would think up....) --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky > +--------------------------------------+ > [from Kitty's Daily Mews, by Shelley Herman] > > Copyright explained: > > When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you > write, if the copy is right. If however, your copy falls over, you > must right your copy. If you write religious services you write rite, > and have the right to copyright the rite you write. > > Very conservative people write right copy, and have the right to > copyright the right copy they write. A right wing cleric would write > right rite, and has the right to copyright the right rite he has the > right to write. His editor has the job of making the right rite copy > right before the copyright can be right. > > Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite, then Wright would write > right rite, which Wright has the right to copyright. Duplicating that > rite would copy Wright right rite, and violate copyright, which Wright > would have the right to right. > > Right? ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 22:33:44 -0500 From: David Levitan X-Accept-Language: en,ru Subject: Oz Question Hi, Can anybody help this oz fan. He sent me a message from my web page. Please respond to his e-mail address. Thank you very much, David Levitan > Name: Michael Davis > E-Mail: davismw@aol.com > Comment: > Neat site. Was wondering if you could help me recall the title of an > Oz book I read as a child. All I basically remember is that the kid at > the beginning of the book gets to Oz by building a giant kite. Any > ideas? > > Thanks, > > MWD ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 04 Nov 98 10:34:21 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things Okay, I take the point about reading posts more carefully... CP/M?? The OS Ruggedo invented! How about a week from next Monday to start _Magic_? -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 5 - 7, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 98 09:05:40 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Reply-To: Ruth A Berman Subject: ozzy digest ps It's quite a while since we were discussing "The kitchen took a slitch," and what "slitch" was meant to mean. I wrote to John Fricke, to ask if he had some thoughts. He confirms that the word is actually "slitch" (he has a photocopy of the M-G-M conductor's score), and commented: "Given what I know about Harburg and his background and approach to Munchkinland, I'm willing to bet that his use of "slitch" was primarily a mock-Germanese or mock-European (typical of its day) play-on-words -- combining slip, slide, pitch -- and meaning exactly what those three words imply: the kitchen was tossedf about, helter-skelter and at odds with itself." Ruth Berman ====================================================================== From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:00:07 -0700 Very non-Ozzy warning: > >>>>If you receive an e-mail titled "Win A Holiday" DO NOT open it. It > >>>>will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter out to > >>>>as many people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus and > >>>>not many people know about it. This information was announced > >>>>yesterday morning from Microsoft, please share it again pass this > along > to > >>>>everyone in your address book so that this may be stopped. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:47:37 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 10-30-98 >>Jeremy again: >>For myself, I now ascribe to Dave Hardenbrook's theory. This theory >>says that Oz IS on Earth, but not OUR Earth. It's on a parallel >>earth >that has magical lands, so that Dorothy is indeed from >>Kansas, just >not the one that we know. There may even be a >>Butterfield in that >Kansas. >How do you reconcile _Ozma_ and _Pirates_, then? Which ocean links >with the Nonestic? It really doesn't matter, as geography may be different there anyway. Dave Hardenbrook: What's wrong with a name like Cosmo Gremlin? In fact, what's in a name anyway? (A rose by any other would smell as sour . . .) Meeting my own quote-a, Jeremy Steadman, Royal Historian of Oz kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:42:30 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: MGM Oz The MGMWiz revival starts here Friday, so here's a pointless hypothetical question: There being no place like home notwithstanding, what happened to Miss Gulch after Dorothy's trip to (dream of) Oz? She was quite a problem beforehand. Now that Dorothy is back home, does Gulch go ahead and have Toto destroyed? (Hauntingly familiar terminology, in that no one in Oz can die; they can only be "destroyed.") If not, why not? Was she killed in the cyclone? (We saw her on her bike in the cyclone when Dorothy was being carried off to Oz, but that was part of Dorothy's dream.) Did she have a change of heart after she learned that the poor child had been knocked cold by a window frame? Did Aunt Em throw water on Gulch and melt her? It looks like anybody's guess, but the movie glosses over the fact that home still contains the same problems it did before Dorothy had her experience. One other trivial observation about the Garland movie: When talking to Glinda, she says that her name is Dorothy Gale. Her surname does not appear in WWiz at all, does it? We don't learn it until _Ozma_. I also noticed in looking at some past postings here that there was considerable puzzlement about the red-robed Munchkin shouting "Epiphany!" According to the closed captioning on my copy of the video (which is also the only way I was ever able to pick up the sulfur remark), what he says is, "If any!" Inasmuch as this remark follows the mayor's statement about "future generations of Munchkins," it almost makes sense. - dg ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:36:25 -0800 From: Bob Spark Reply-To: bspark@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 > How about a week from next Monday to start _Magic_? Okay by me. > There isn't an unknown island continent several hundred > miles across located somewhere in the South Pacific > How can you tell, if the island continent under discussion is unknown? > Earthquakes in general don't open fissures big enough for a > horse and buggy to drop into, in our world - even the > Really Big Ones. During or after the '06 earthquake in California a dead cow ended up in a fissure at Point Reyes. There is a controversy about whether the cow was "swallowed up" and killed, or whether the cow had died and the local folk found the fissure a convenient place to dispose of it. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:01:36 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Content-Disposition: inline David: I almost accept your chronology, but for all those pasky non-FF books. Early Baum is a very popular time to write in. Two reasons spring to mind: 1. The early Baum books and characters have, by definition, been Public Domain the longest. 2. These are the books people are most familiar with. David G: I had a similar situation when reading the FF. I had bene reading the Baum books for years when my Aunt found an old _Kabumpo_ in storage. It was very confusing, especially since the intro mentioned it as the "15th" Oz book. I wondered if _Royal Book_ really existed at all, but I decided that it must because of all the changes. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:51:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman" Subject: The HACC & the HI/RCC (for the Ozzy Digest) Tyler: Somehow I suspect the revised HACC is going to end up looking like the HI/RCC if Baum-14 consistency is the only requirement. Also: The Lurline's Machine project was put on hold for a while due to lack of proper Ozzy spirit resting upon the writers. Recently I've (slowly) resumed work on it. The result is turning out significantly different from the original version of the project, so you may consider all leaked information on it to be null and void. Aaron Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman adelmaas@musc.edu http://www.musc.edu/~adelmaas/ Pioneer Aviation ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:11:29 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz stuff The copyright question: Unfortunately, it's usually not the children or other relatives of a deceased author who benefit from copyright ownership, but rather some corporation or, with distressing frequency, some opportunistic, no-talent Ruggedo who got his hand in the pie at the right time. The concept of "intellectual property" becomes rather absurd in such a case. I decline to cite examples, but almost anyone can think of one or two non-Oz instances. More grist for the "Dorothy always stayed the same age as when she first came to Oz" mill: In Chap. 17 of _Scalawagons_, Dorothy is reminiscing about the cyclone, and Glinda says, "You are still the dear little girl you were then. You aren't any older!" Of course, Glinda really means that she just doesn't _seem_ any older; she's still the same sweet/dear little girl as always. That explanation seems a little forced to me, but, after all, there is no way that Dorothy could have failed to age at all between WWiz and ECoz unless she got younger once she was in Oz permanently, and there is never any mention of that. As for explaining the above passages, MHO is that the authors were striving (once again) for reader identification. If the text has to be accepted as gospel and explained, the elucidation offered is as good as any and better than most. Thank you, Tyler. OTOH, this is from a book by the guy who has Jack Pumpkinhead being a prisoner of Mombi for seven years (mentioned in _Lucky Bucky_). Say what? When did _that_ happen? Also, we learn from Mr. Neill that the Scarecrow rules over the Munchkins in the West. Okay, so Cheeriobad abdicated or got eaten by a dragon, and Bob Heinlein did a fair job of dealing with the East/West business in _The Number of the Beast_. Reconciling all the seeming contradictions and wild hairs in JNR's books is truly a challenge. At least the Holmes fans have the confusions of only _one_ canonical author to deal with! The one JNR contribution to the mythos that I do like is the idea of a "stop-growing age," which is different in every family and seems to be determined by choice. It deals neatly with the otherwise difficult problem, introduced by LFB himself in _Tin Woodman_, of some unfortunate parents being doomed to change diapers for eternity ("...all the babies lived in their cradles and were tenderly cared for and never grew up"). Never grew up _completely_, that is. Whew! - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:44:28 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: canonical Oz Content-Disposition: inline The University of Nebraska Press is offering 50% off the price of OUR LANDLADY, the collection of L. Frank Baum's newspaper tales edited by Nancy Tystad Koupal. Normally $40, the hardcover book costs $20 until 15 December. Shipping from Lincoln costs $4. To order, contact: University of Nebraska Press 312 North 14th Street Lincoln, NE 68588-0484 (800) 755-1105 fax: (800) 526-2617 The order code for OUR LANDLADY is BAUOUR. The code from ordering from the press's sale catalogue is WH8 12345. In my remarks on VISITORS FROM OZ, I misstated the title of one of the Martin Gardner books I greatly enjoyed. It was THE INCREDIBLE DR. MATRIX. All of that collection and more about this fictive numerological con man (including the much misquoted JFK/Lincoln assassination coincidences and the "discovery" of pyramid power) were reprinted in THE MAGIC NUMBERS OF DR. MATRIX. Good stuff! Steve Teller wrote: <> Until the breakup of the Soviet Union, there was one government office in Moscow for all international publishing rights. It would periodically send foreign publishers notes like, "Ve have published your imperialist corporation's book BRIDGES OV MADISON COUNTY in Russian, Latvian, and Ukrainian four years ago. Here is $400." Today the situation is more like in the West, with agents and publishers operating independently and directly with foreign publishers. Observing international copyright law is more common than in China, less so than in, say, France. I suspect the legal arrangement Volkov and Vladimirshy had with their original publisher is more important in governing reprints of their "Oz" books than the copyright laws. Ruth Berman wrote to me: <> Thank you, Ruth. You'd mentioned this change to "whichever is shorter" before, but I'd taken that in as affecting a different set of work. Mike Turniansky shared: <<. . . Should Jim Wright decide to write right rite. . . . >> Jim Wright--the only author to get in trouble for royalties that were too high?! That shows when this canny copyright guide started to circulate. Peter Hanff wrote: <> Verrrry interesting. Thanks for the description, Peter, html tags and all. I read the implication that Baum didn't type (or have typed) these last three Oz books until he'd completed writing the stories by hand. The Baum fragment I mentioned earlier was published in the Christmas 1965 issue of the BAUM BUGLE, then in BEST OF BUGLE 65-66. I believe it later became the seed for one of March Laumer's novels. It's described as "four and one-half typewritten pages, undated, with an attached note written by the author's son, Robert Stanton Baum: 'The start of the first chapter of an Oz book which Father never finished. No title had been decided on.'" I recall somehow that R. S. Baum had passed away by that time, and therefore could not give any further description of how he'd found the fragment or attributed it to his father, but perhaps I'm wrong. The fragment certainly doesn't show the storytelling facility Peter sees in Baum's completed manuscripts. David Frank Godwin wrote: <> The deepest root of "canon" is an ancient word for "measuring stick." That's one way we can understand the Reilly & Britton/Lee canon, or the Reilly & Britton/Lee authors/illustrators canon: these are the books by which we agree to measure our conceptions of Oz. That doesn't mean they have to be consistent with each other (which they aren't). Or that we have to accept every statement in every book. But they provide a common set of references for our thoughts and discussions. The way I read Neill's books is to imagine that, while Baum and Thompson were able to exchange messages with their contacts in the Emerald City, Neill had only a one-way visual connection, set up to let him draw Oz's citizens. He could see people, creatures, perhaps places in the Magic Picture, every so often a significant action if he knew it was going down. But when he faced the task of reporting stories from Oz, he was hobbled. He tried to connect what he'd seen into coherent plots--and largely failed. He got better, or was granted better access after his first coupla books, but never achieved the access Baum had. I thus read Neill's books as I read spotty historical records--with the pleasure of guessing what *actually* happened. At least, of course, according to my conception of Oz. Tyler Jones wrote: <> The horror, the horror! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 09:51:20 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 JOHN BELL: >But for the bulk of VISITORS FROM >OZ, I must go beyond Atticus's verdict that "I don't want to call it a bad >book, but it's not what I consider a good Oz book." With profound >disappointment, I do think it's a bad book. ***** END SPOILER ****** END >SPOILER ***** >J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com Thank God, someone who agrees with me. I was beginning to think either I had lost all perception as a literary critic or that, worse, I was going crazy. I don't see how anyone can think this is a good book, and though I said, "I don't want to call it a bad book," it *is*. No compelling plot, mindless and hurried (and largely unoriginal) IEs... And the ethnic stereotypes unsettled me, as well. I didn't want to mention them initially, though. I felt I'd already said enough. By the way, I hope to make it to the research center today to examine the TIN WOODMAN manuscript and answer the Sal Loon question. Atticus * * * "...[T]here is something else: the faith of those despised and endangered that they are not merely the sum of damages done to them." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:01:20 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 J.L.: > With the growth in literary collecting, authors have started to see their >typescripts as potentially valuable. Many book contracts now include a >clause saying the publisher will return the original typescript *if the >author asks for it.* Just in time for typescripts to lose a great deal of >value, given the ease of printing out multiple copies. The versions with >handwritten changes are what future collectors and scholars will treasure. And those are likely to be increasingly rare as the computer age progresses; who's going to bother with handwritten changes in an MS when it's as easy to just make the changes in the computer file? I know there's no MS of _Glass Cat_ with handwritten changes, at least by the author. (When I vetted a galley proof for final corrections I wrote up a 2-page letter of corrections rather than marking them on the proofs and sending the whole thing back. Why waste postage?) I can't disagree with any of the specifics of your critique of _Visitors_, but my overall reaction to the book was more positive than yours. Maybe this is because you haven't read many of the Really Bad Oz books that Buckethead has published? Several of those I was unable to finish; several others I finished only because they were so short. Most of this is due to the fact that Chris doesn't mind publishing work by people in grade school and junior high, but still... David G.: I think most people agree that the Neill books are the weakest of the original series, especially his first two. (I prefer _Lucky Bucky_ to _Cowardly Lion_, _Ozoplaning_, or _Hidden Valley_, but that's about it. And that may be largely due to the fact that it was one of the first Oz books I read - somewhere between third and fifth.) As for what's meant by "canonical," that probably varies from one individual reader to the next. There are a few who only accept _Wizard_ as representing the authentic Oz. A few others accept only _Wizard_ and _Land_. A fairly large number accept only Baum's books. I think the majority of active Oz fans probably accept Baum and Thompson as representing authentic Oz, but regard the later books as marginal and certainly not to be regarded as superseding Baum/Thompson information. Obviously there are minor contradictions even within Baum (such as the location of Ev; there's a clear contradiction between _Ozma_ and _Magic_), but those have to be explained away somehow; contradictions from later authors can just be ignored. It is, after all, no worse than the contradictory versions of Jesus's genealogy in Matthew and Luke - a good deal better, in fact, since there's no claim of infallibility imputed to the Oz authors... >High >technology means heavy industry means pollution and corporate greed. That's >the price we pay. Does it necessarily mean that when you also have magic available to help? I doubt it. Ozian high tech might be quite without heavy industry and its concomitants. Tyler: >IMHO, a boy of 10 (near Zeb's age) could easily be trusted to take a >horse-and-buggy down to the train station, meet Dorothy, pick her up and >take her back to the ranch. Many people that age (or older) could not do >that today, but back then was a little different. As I said last Digest, I don't think Zeb was that young. But I agree that a 10-year-old could be trusted to take a horse and buggy to the train station in those days. There would have been virtually no danger in normal circumstances. (Letting a 10-year-old stay up past midnight is another thing. I don't think that would have happened often, but maybe Bill Hugson didn't believe in letting Zeb sleep much.) The real problem with Dorothy's un-aging is the point I made last Digest: even if her physical maturing was delayed by her time in Oz, why would she think of herself as 11 if she'd had 12 birthdays? >Piers Anthony always does his work on computer. He loves to go into detail >about his journey from CP/M (now that's ancient!) to DOS and eventually >Windows. I once had a CP/M computer. But my computing experience goes way back before that; the first "computer" I had (well, I didn't own it, but I used it) was a Wang desktop device that I don't think had anything you could call an OS. It was much like today's programmable calculators, except that you had to write your program using a punch card that it would read. Your program was limited to 80 instructions max. Later we got time-sharing on a mainframe over a TTY, and I was able to write much longer programs using paper tape. Ah, the Good Old Days. (This goes back to about 1969.) Ruth: >J.L. Bell: Your summary makes the new copyright law sound a bit >worse than it is. It's date-of-death+70 or publication-date+95 -- >whichever is SHORTER. Ah. Then the Neill books will go PD before any more Thompsons will? (Death-plus-70 for Neill being 2012 or 2013, IIRC, but publication-plus-95 being 2018 for _Cowardly Lion_.) David L.: I've e-mailed Michael Davis with the information that the book he's thinking of is _The Hidden Valley of Oz_. Dave: A week from Monday to start _Magic_ sounds fine to me. I'm about halfway through a reread now. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:17:54 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz pop In ECOz, LFB gives detailed population figures for the EC (57,318, with 9,654 buildings) and Oz as a whole (more than half a million). RPT has a similar passage in one of her books (giving the population of the EC, at least), but I can't seem to locate it by browsing. Anyone know where this is? - David G ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 98 16:37:54 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Reply-To: Ruth A Berman Subject: ozzy digest Steve Teller: Multiheadedness in dragons is itself fairly traditional. There's a Grimms' story about a seven-headed dragon, I think. And the Chimera in some versions of the myth has three heads, with one of them a dragon-head. J.L. Bell: Interesting comments on Gardner's "Visitors." The Amazing Randi is a friend of Gardner's, but is also fairly well known as a professional stage-magician who makes a hobby of debunking various types of claims to psi powers by showing how the claimed effects can be achieved through sleight-of-hand. Peter Hanff: Interesting comments on the mss. Michael Turniansky: Enjoyed the well-wrought wrighting explanation. Dave Hardenbrook: Monday Nov. 16 start-date for "Magic" sounds fine. David Levitan: Probably others will answer Michael Davis's query, but I'll send a copy of this info to him. The Oz books he asks about is Rachel Cosgrove Payes' "Hidden Valley of Oz," which is currently available from the International Wizard of Oz Club. For info on price (and on the club's many other Oz-related publications), he could write International Wizard of Oz Club, P.O. Box 10117, Berkeley, CA 94709-5117, or E-Mail: iwoc@sam.neosoft.com Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 17:02:24 -0600 From: "R. M. Atticus Gannaway" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 MY FINDINGS AFTER PERUSING THE HANDWRITTEN "TIN WOODMAN" MANUSCRIPT: Well, at long last, I was able again to examine Baum's manuscript, and I now have an answer to the Til Loon/Sal Loon question! The answer is yes, in the handwritten manuscript the character is Sal Loon. I would like to note that in one spot Baum wrote "Sal Loon" and then crossed out the "Loon," as though the juxtaposition of the two words made his "illicit" pun too obvious. Atticus * * * "...[T]here is something else: the faith of those despised and endangered that they are not merely the sum of damages done to them." Visit my webpage at http://members.aol.com/atty993 ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:07:04 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Steadman Reply-To: kivel99@planetall.com Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 Canonicity: No, no discussion of the town where large artillery originated. Just wanted to say that I've always thought RPT's books to be less canonical than LFB's, and I continue to hold that view. Which is why my Oz books all are set between or follow from his and ignore RPT's work. Granted, some of LFB's work is not of the highest caliber, but I still think she lost some of the charm Oz held under Baum and added her own version. (Shameless plug follows, feel free to delete it, Dave): For a depiction of the result of leaving a age-suppressing country, you can see my own book, published by (then) Buckethead, now Tales of the Cowardly Lion and Friends. Thank you, Michael, for saying the passage about copying right and wrong was something I would have come up with; I'm flattered. > What? Another nome sequittor? Until next time, Jeremy Steadman, kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 [I considered putting a groaner of a pun here but decided to spare you this once.] ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-04-98 Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 17:57:10 PST J. L. Bell: >When Dorothy is on the wish way in LOST KING, she muses aloud, >"...and yet >I sometimes wish I were in America again, just to see--" Then she's >whisked >to Hollywood [128]. > The unspoken intention of Dorothy's wish, which the silver dust may >have >picked up, is probably "just to see what my life would be like if I'd >stayed there." That seems a more likely ending to her sentence than >"just >to see Hollywood," or "just to see Cousin Zeb," or other >possibilities. In >that case, Thompson may simply have misinterpreted Dorothy's growth >as a >natural result of her returning to America, rather than an unnatural >result >of her wish. > That ILTT theory at least makes it possible for Dorothy to go back >to >America in new books without being inconsistent with LOST KING and >without >ending up dead. I don't really see the idea of Dorothy's growing up being a natural result of the return to the United States as conflicting with other books. Before _Lost King_, no one really stayed in Oz for a significant amount of time (probably about a month at most). As for reconciling it with later books, the Wizard might have found a way to counteract aging when someone travels to the Outside World. After all, he is able to de-age Jenny in _Wonder City_, so he must have gained some control over aging. I'll also mention that, in Jeremy Steadman's _Emerald Ring_, Betsy, Trot, and Button-Bright regain their lost years when they travel back in time to pre-enchanted Oz. DG: >I suppose it is ultimately up to the individual as to what belongs in >Oz >and what doesn't, unless someone sets up a sort of Ozzy tribunal to >judge >such matters. Speaking for myself, some things just do not fit at all >into >my concept of Oz, although others apparently find them acceptable. I >am >even uncomfortable with LFB's moderate introduction of technology, >such as >the telephone or wireless. Indeed, it is up to each individual person. I don't think there was ever any real indication that Oz was at all anti-technological, though. It has electric lights as early on as _Wizard_ (in the Wizard's throne room). Besides, I would consider the Magic Picture and the Great Book of Records to be fairly technologically complex, even if they were run by magic, rather than machinery. Be this as it may, much of modern technology doesn't really fit into my view of Oz, either. I guess I don't see Oz as technologically inferior to the Outside World, just technologically different. -- May you live in interesting times, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:01:20 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Content-Disposition: inline David >I know this is a hobby-horse of yours, but you're misstating John's comments. That's OK, you are missing the thrust of mine. The point was not saving a few bucks but supporting our independent book sellers. I wasn't aware it was a "hobby-horse" of mine. I does seem to fit that you would be a supporter of big chains,...... just like big government. :) And JL >Much as I share the distrust of an unfettered free market evident in your statement, Bear Whoops. I don't distrust "an unfettered free market" I welcome one. "Free" is the operative word. I guess I was not very clear. If we don't support diversity we are going to get what I suggested. So, I will continue to support my small local bookseller, even if it costs me a little extra. Actually, my favorite, "Future Fantasy" in Palo Alto gives you $10 off every time you spend $100 which moves the price of their books close to those of the chains. Economically, Bear (:<) ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 20:09:18 -0800 From: MALCOLM D BARKER Reply-To: mbarker@primenet.com Subject: Oz Movie! Hooray, I will finally get to see The Wizard of Oz in the theatre starting tomorrow. I have always wondered why we can't get it in a widescreen version. My lazerdisc has trailer that proclaims it "Now better than ever in Widescreen". I assure you I will be looking for the STORK FLAPPING IT'S WINGS (hanging man, hehe). OK, it's been so long since I read the original books, can someone tell me please which book the Flutterbudgets first appeared in? Thanks, Malcolm ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:56:53 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: OZ NEWS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08:05 AM ET 11/06/98 WB banks on 'Wiz' bang with broad release By Andrew Hindes HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - Will families flock to the nearest megaplex to see the adventures of Dorothy and Toto this weekend? Or will they decide ``there's no place like home'' when it comes to viewing ``The Wizard of Oz?'' By releasing the restored 1939 MGM classic on close to 1,900 screens Friday, Warner Bros. is betting big that baby boomers and their kids will jump at the rare chance to see ``Oz'' on the bigscreen. ``This is the most popular family movie of all time,'' Warner Bros. president of distribution Barry Reardon said. Reardon estimates that, when adjusted for inflation, the picture has grossed about $220 million over its lifetime. But while the musical's lasting appeal is undeniable, the question on many industry lips is whether audiences will go out -- and shell out -- to see a film they can watch on TV for free, and which they probably already own on video. ``Wizard'' first appeared on television (CBS) in 1956 and aired a total of 38 times over the next 42 years. It concluded its most recent CBS run last May and will begin to appear on Ted Turner's TBS Superstation beginning in November 1999. With the exception of Disney animated features and the recent ``Star Wars'' trilogy reissue, re-releases of classic films typically open on fewer than 100 screens. Reardon acknowledges the wide opening is a risk, but believes that it will pay off. ``There's no comparison between seeing this movie on TV and seeing it in the theater.'' Others apparently agree. The media have lined up behind the reissue, which has been featured on talk shows and major print outlets. Advanced audience screenings have been hugely successful. The picture's $2 million restoration included digitally remastering the soundtrack, and cleaning up both the black-and-white and color sequences. (``Oz'' originally cost about $2.7 million to produce, making it an extremely expensive movie for its time.) While Warners' investment in the negative was relatively small, the studio is spending a substantial amount on TV spots to advertise the film to kids and parents. Distribution prints will add nearly $4 million to the release cost. In order to break even on domestic theatrical revenue alone, the reissue will probably have to gross more than $30 million. The last time it was reissued, in 1989, ``The Wizard of Oz'' grossed $612,300, according to ACNielsen EDI. In fact, only nine reissues in the last eight years have grossed more than $25 million in North America. The ``Star Wars'' trilogy and Disney animation reissues accounted for eight of them. (Last year's ``Star Wars: Special Edition'' was the highest grossing re-release ever, at $138.3 million.) Paramount's 20th anniversary release of ``Grease,'' earlier this year grossed $28.4 million, and the recent reissue of ``Gone With the Wind,'' another wildly popular MGM classic, took in $6.7 million. Of course, domestic theatrical ticket sales are only part of the potential revenue stream for ``Oz.'' The reissue is likely to spur video and DVD sales, and Warner Bros. will be marketing ``Wizard of Oz'' merchandise and T-shirts at its stores around Christmas. The studio already knows there's a market for it. Three weeks ago, home shopping channel QVC sold about $1.6 million worth of ``Oz'' paraphernalia in about two hours, according to Reardon. ``Oz's'' early November release date gives it two weeks to establish itself before a trio of high-profile children's pictures -- ``The Rugrats Movie,'' ``Babe: Pig in the City'' and ``A Bug's Life'' -- open in close succession. Still, ``Oz'' is bowing on one of the most crowded weekends of the fall movie season. Weekend newcomers include Disney's Adam Sandler comedy ``The Waterboy,'' Fox's ``The Siege,'' Artisan's ``Belly'' (which opened Wednesday) and the 1,000-screen expansion of New Line's ``Living Out Loud.'' Reardon himself spearheaded the restoration of ``The Wizard of Oz,'' a labor of love that took about two years to complete. ``The minute we merged with Turner, I realized there were a couple of movies in the library that were really special,'' the distribution veteran said. In addition to ``Oz'' and ``Gone with the Wind,'' which sister company New Line released, Reardon said Warner Bros. hopes to reissue Stanley Kubrick's groundbreaking ``2001: A Space Odyssey.'' But for Reardon, ``Oz'' is a horse of a different color. ``Of all the things I've done, this is one of the things I'm most proud of. It's just such a magnificent picture to see on the big screen.'' Reuters/Variety ^REUTERS@ ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:22:24 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: more oz stuff some of these i didn t know Curiously, Garland, forever to be identified with the wide-eyed Dorothy, was not the first choice for the part; both Shirley Temple and Deanna Durbin were considered for the role. Had Jean Harlow not died, ending the loan-out deal to exchange her for IN OLD CHICAGO with Temple for OZ, we'd be watching Temple's forthright moppet, instead of Garland's tender waif. The mind boggles. We could regale you for hours on end with behind the scenes trivia on OZ. Books have been written on nothing but, and they're not hard to find. But we'll toss you a few: Frank Morgan spent half his time on set drunk. Clara Blandick (Auntie Em) was just as unhappy as she appears; she ended up a recluse who eventually took her own life. Harlow's third and last husband, Harold Rosson, did OZ's cinematography and King Vidor did some uncredited directorial work. L.B. Mayer's nickname for Garland was his "little humpback." The original Wizard was to have been W.C. Fields, the original Tin Man Buddy Ebsen (who fell ill from all the makeup preparation) and the original Wicked Witch was to have been played as an evil siren by Gale Sondergaard. Bolger, Haley, Lahr, and Morgan were not the kindly uncles you might think. All were grizzled showbiz vets not about to give Garland an inch of scene-stealing capacity onscreen; when she takes a scene, it's not because anyone let her. See if you can hear the female Munchkin who runs forward to Garland and shouts "Judy" instead of "Dorothy" after Hamilton's first exit. And watch for inconsistencies in Garland's hairstyles during the time she is beautified in OZ. ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 8 - 11, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== From: Ozmama@aol.com Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 18:31:01 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-98 David Frank Godwin:<> Dunno. Someone write a story about it for Oziana '99 (assuming that I can finally get '98 out and start working on '99!) ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 19:02:10 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-98 Nathan: Thanks for observing that my book also contained an example of deaging; now I feel crummy for having mentioned it myself in the last post . . . Crummily yours, Jeremy Steadman, kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 20:00:41 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Whitcomb" Subject: For Ozzy Digest David Godwin: Thanks for your post! It may have been a bit "hypothetical", but not pointless. I have often wondered about "whatever happened to Miss Gulch" myself. (don't confuse this with "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" LOL!!! just kidding). I can only suggest the following and I should say this is how I "rational" this particular part of the film for myself so this is strictly personal opinion: Dorothy was obviously hit in the head and knocked unconscious when the window went flying off its hinges, thus the dream sequence and journey to Oz. However, nowhere at the end of the movie does it allude to the fact that she suffered from amnesia. Folks who suffer from head trauma many times suppress bad or stressful situations at the conscious level upon awakening. In this case, the impending return of Miss Gulch to "take Toto to the sheriff to make sure he's destroyed" falls by the wayside. So, this presents an interesting question. Was Dorothy suffering from amnesia???, or, could Dorothy's dream have been so "traumatic" for her that it overshadowed the impending return of Miss Gulch??? Or, or did Miss Gulch get destroyed by the twister??? MGM never gave us closure re: this issue, so it's up for personal opinion. What do other folks think??? Another "controversial" clip in the film occurs when Dorothy is up inside the cyclone and watches Miss Gulch transform into a witch. I have "always" thought that this was the Wicked Witch of the East. And, I could swear I see her wearing a pair of Ruby Slippers. When I saw the re-release on the big screen yesterday, I am convinced more than ever that the witch that Dorothy saw up inside the cyclone was wearing a pair of Ruby Slippers. It only makes sense that this would have been the WWE since Dorothy hadn't yet been to Oz and met the WWW. It always makes sense to me that it was the WWE flying by, that is why Dorothy's house fell on her. Or, this transformation of Miss Gulch into "a witch" could have been a foreshadowing of her presence in Oz as the WWW, similar to how MGM did the foreshadowing for the farm hands. Any comments??? Ruth: Thanks for that definition of "slitch". Whenever I heard Dorothy sing that lyric I envisioned an action equal to what a violent movement might cause, i.e. everything in the kitchen went rolling from one end of the room to the other. Jim. ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 22:11:48 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Content-Disposition: inline Bob: A premise of the 1976 remake of "King Kong" is an island that has constant cloud cover, so it had never been discovered until someone noticed the same cloud in the same place in satellite pictures taken years apart. Notwithstanding, I'lm pretty sure there is not a large continent somewhere in the pacific. Remember also that in _Tik-Tok_, our friends journey to the other side of the world and find another magical land. Further, in _Captain Salt_, we see that Ozamaland is still another large continent. We now have three sizeable land masses that are widely distributed. If one's here, then they're all here. I doubt that three continents could be hiding here. David G: Remember, too, in the John R. Neill books, Ojo has been relocated back ti the Emerald City and given the title of "Elephant Boy", who looks after Kabumpo in his stall at the zoo. Sir Hokus has been re-enchanted as well. Neill's books are, to say the least, out there. Many of these references are completely contradictory with everything else in the series and the only way to explain them is to damage the rest of the system. I just chalk it up to authorial error and let it go at that. David Hulan: The point about Dorothy being 11 yet having 12 birthdays is a valid one. Since I'm trying to shoehorn all of those non-FF books into that time period, I should be able to come up with a clever explanation. The only one I can come up with is that maybe Uncle Henry and Aunt Em didn't celebrate birthdays or maybe during that time when Dorothy went to live with them, one slipped past. A little lame, but that's the best I can come up with. Dave's start date for _Magic_: Nov. 16 is fine for me. I'll re-read it when I visit Tucson to see grandma. --Tyler Jones ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 23:46:01 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: Oz judgments Content-Disposition: inline About TIN WOODMAN, Atticus Gannaway wrote: <> Fascinating! Thanks very much for confirming a hunch of some years' standing. Now I can start focusing on my new hunch about Baum family typewriters. DAVID Hulan wrote: <> The term Ruth Berman described applies to the copyright of new works, or works that have been in their initial term since 1976. For copyrighted works that had been renewed at that time, there's a transitional term of protection which doesn't depend on the author's life span. And that's what governs Neill's books and Thompson's R&L titles. David Godwin wrote: <> Yes, the full name Dorothy Gale appeared first in the stage musical Baum worked on between WIZARD and LAND. David Godwin wrote: <> Through Number Nine and his family Neill shows us more of the life of "ordinary" Ozians than any other author, I think. Baum and Thompson had some heroes and heroines who were non-titled citizens, but they were facing crises (Tip, Ojo, Snip) or were outcasts (Woot, Kiki Aru, Randy). [And often they ended up titled, anyway.] In WONDER CITY, Neill showed us an Ozian boy facing ordinary life challenges: finding a good job, falling in love, leaving his large family to make a place for himself in the big city, rounding up wild animals. [Okay, maybe the last task is out of the ordinary.] It's significant that Neill doesn't bring heroes like Number Nine and Bucky into Ozma's palace, but lets them continue living and *working* around the busy Emerald City. About locating Oz, Bob Spark wrote: <> Indeed. The "proofs" that Oz doesn't exist on our planet Earth may simply be proof of imaginations not up to the challenge of believing that it does. Not that I can manage that intellectual conjuration myself! I simply prefer not to give up the image of Oz on this Earth that Baum imparted to us. About Martin Gardner's VISITORS FROM OZ, Ruth Berman wrote: <> Yes, James Randi is one of my favorite Americans. When his name came up in VISITORS, I thought about a scene of him recreating the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman through stage magic, and those visitors' reactions. And when the page turned without further mention of him, I sighed and thought about another opportunity lost. David Hulan wrote: <> I've read only two Buckethead titles, DINA-MONSTER (as a historic curiosity) and DISENCHANTED PRINCESS (as a treat). I haven't served as an Oz convention fiction judge, as you have, and had to finish all the submissions. Nor have I even delved deeply into the Emerald City Press catalogue. So, yes, I have been able to keep away from most Really Bad Oz fiction, except what has come from my own pen. I give more slack to Buckethead/Cowardly Lion or even Emerald City Press titles than I gave to VISITORS. As a book from a smart and talented professional author and a major fiction publisher, it should have been better. Nathan DeHoff wrote: <> Yes, indeed. Our view of Oz as technologically old-fashioned reflects how we now view Baum's time as technologically old-fashioned. [In the same way, the Amish weren't perceived as having quaint lifestyles until this century; in 1850 most or all of their neighbors also farmed with horses, dressed simply, left school in early teens, and had no electric lights or telephones at home.] A note I wrote to Dave Hardenbrook a while back prompted me to conclude that it's not new technology that we see as changing Oz, but mass production of that technology. From looking at our own country we know that widespread ownership of machines changes society much more than the simple invention of those machines. The self-propelling vehicles in Thi in LOST PRINCESS don't bother us; a factory's worth of scalawagons do strike many people as un-Ozzy. In TIK-TOK Ozma and the Shaggy Man communicate through a sort of portable telephone or radio; in VISITORS, Martin Gardner says, many people in Oz have similar portable phones, and that forces a new dynamic on how characters interrelate. Richard Bauman wrote: <> And here I thought the model of the free market depended on sellers using every advantage they had to outsell their competitors, buyers seeking the best values among those competitors, and nobody complaining if finances caused one competitor to fail. Today's newspapers bring the news that Barnes & Noble, North America's largest [but not best] bookstore chain, is trying to buy Ingram, the largest U.S. book wholesaler. This would be an earthquake in book retailing. Smaller, independent bookstores depend heavily on Ingram for quick reorders and consolidating shipments from many publishers. They don't trust B&N at all. Look for anti-trust complaints from your favorite neighborhood bookstore! J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 10:48:45 -0600 From: Gordon Birrell Subject: Ozzy Digest Before we leave _Tin Woodman_ I have some comments on Nimmie Amee's name. In the Fall 1996 Baum Bugle, Martin Gardner notes that scholars have detected the presence of the Latin words "amour" [sic] ("love"), and "nimmie" [also sic] ("too much"). I.e.: Nimmie Amee is the girl who is loved, or who loves, too much. Understandably unimpressed by this etymology, Gardner adds that he himself sees the name simply as Minnie with the n's and m's reversed plus an alternate spelling of Amy. I think there is another possibility. Amee is close enough to the French aimee to suggest "loved" (with the feminine ending), and Nimmie, with its double m, is more remote from the Latin "nimius" than from the German "nimmer," which means "never" or "nevermore." Going by this interpretation, Nimmie Amee is not the girl who was loved too much but on the contrary the girl who was never loved--which is surely the way she sees herself, having apparently been abandoned for no good reason by two lovers in succession. Since 75% of American schoolchildren learned German up until 1918, it seems likely that Baum's readers would have been in a position to catch this allusion if they thought about it a little. What is more, it ties in with the truly horrifying image of a loveless marriage with which the book concludes: Nimmie Amee and the surly, churlish, inert Chopfyte, who reminds her of the two men who deserted her and otherwise has the function of a dutiful servant who (under threat of verbal and physical punishment) tends the garden, brings in the wood, and dusts the furniture. All of this in a remote cottage on Mount Munch, behind an impassible though invisible barrier that insures that the couple will live in utter solitude forever. Rereading this passage I couldn't help thinking of Sartre's _No Exit_. In general, all three marriages that are depicted in the book have elements of solitude. Jinjur is married, but her husband doesn't appear and there is no mention whatsoever of him (from _Ozma of Oz_, though, we know that Jinjur, like Nimmie, beats up on her husband if he disobeys her); Mrs. Yoop lives in isolation "in my own private castle in this secluded Valley," fearful of leaving home and effectively as imprisoned in her castle as her distant husband is in his barred cave in the mountains. Set against these rather dismal images of marriage is the theme of friendship that J.L. identified. In fact, the friendship of the Tin Woodman and the Scarecrow, while platonic, is as close and loving and comfortable as that of an old married couple. The book begins and ends with the Tin Woodman and "his chosen comrade" joined in happy memories of their mutual adventures, sharing so much that they scarcely even need to speak: "they found themselves contented in merely being together, speaking now and then a brief sentence to prove they were wide awake and attentive." I'm not sure what to make of all this, but it seems likely that even very young readers would come away from the book with the idea that true friendship is a happier state than marriage. Dave: In your closing quotation, you attribute "After all, what is reality anyway? Nothin' but a collective hunch" to Lily Tomlin. Giving credit where credit is due, the author of that line is not Tomlin but her friend Jane Wagner. It's from Wagner's play _The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe_, and admittedly Tomlin is the one who delivered the line and made it famous. --Gordon Birrell ====================================================================== From: JOdel@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:45:31 EST Subject: Non-Ozzy nonsense Oh Christ. For the 99th time -- 1. It is NOT POSSIBLE to activate a virus by reading your e-mail. 2. It is NOT POSSIBLE to imbed a virus in an e-mail message. 3. Viruses are NOT random strings of text. They most particularly are not random strings of text in human-readable form that show up in messages. Viruses are software PROGRAMS. (And there are thousands more of them for the PC...) 4. IF someone has sent you an ATTACHMENT to their message, and that something is a PROGRAM, and you try to LAUNCH it, then, YES, that attachment MIGHT be a virus and you might infect your system. But you will not launch an atachment by opening its covering message. 5. If someone sends you an e-mail message with a subject line of WIN A HOLIDAY, delete it immediately. It is not a virus. It is SPAM. Something reoccured to me recently. Ths is related to some pretty old discussions, nameley the Dr Pipt/Dr Nikidick controversy. There is nothing whatsoever to say that these were not two separate people. And a great deal of reason to believe they were. Mombi's comment of having gotten the powder of life from "a crooked magician" notwithstanding. In fact, Mombi's comment could probably have been taken as coroborative evidence for the powder's authenticity alone. For, we learn in Patchwork Girl, that Dr Pipt is crooked BECAUSE he has (twice) undertaken to produce the powder of life. We might very well draw the conclusion that its production will similarly cripple ANY magic user (who does not have three servants to stir the other three cauldrons) who undertakes this challenge. And, that, in fact, there might at one time have been any number of crooked magicians in Oz who had become so from having decided that they would undertake this particular task. I will admit that this seems a little unlikely, given even a magic user's basic sense of self- preservation, and that the probablility of the effect of the powder's production upon its maker's being widely known accounts for its rarity. ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-98 Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 11:41:34 PST Tyler: >> >>>>If you receive an e-mail titled "Win A Holiday" DO NOT open it. >> >>>>It >> >>>>will erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter >> >>>>out >> >>>>to >> >>>>as many people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus >> >>>>and >> >>>>not many people know about it. This information was announced >> >>>>yesterday morning from Microsoft, please share it again pass >> >>>>this >> along >> to >> >>>>everyone in your address book so that this may be stopped. I'm fairly sure you can't get a computer virus from simply LOOKING at an e-mail message. You would have to open an attachment, or download something. David Godwin: >One other trivial observation about the Garland movie: When talking >to >Glinda, she says that her name is Dorothy Gale. Her surname does not >appear >in WWiz at all, does it? We don't learn it until _Ozma_. Quite true. Actually, I believe that Dorothy's last name was first mentioned in the original play of _Wizard_. In the book of _Wizard_, she says that her name is "just Dorothy," and she knows that she lives in Kansas, but does not seem to know where Kansas is. Dorothy probably learned these things in school. As for when she started attending school, it would have to have been before _Ozma_. She mentions a schoolmistress in _Dorothy and the Wizard_, and there would have been no time for her to have started school in between _Ozma_ and _DotWiz_, since she was on vacation during that period. >OTOH, this is from a book by the guy who has Jack Pumpkinhead being a >prisoner of Mombi for seven years (mentioned in _Lucky Bucky_). Say >what? >When did _that_ happen? I first read _Lucky Bucky_ before I had seen most of Thompson's output, so I originally assumed that this had happened during her years as Royal Historian. Later, I learned that this could not have happened, and that Neill clearly made a mistake. Or perhaps Jack is receiving memories from another dimension, in which Tip did not take Jack with him when fleeing from Mombi. >Also, we learn from Mr. Neill that the Scarecrow >rules over the Munchkins in the West. Okay, so Cheeriobad abdicated >or got >eaten by a dragon, and Bob Heinlein did a fair job of dealing with >the >East/West business in _The Number of the Beast_. I prefer to think that Cheeriobed was just on vacation. >In ECOz, LFB gives detailed population figures for the EC (57,318, >with >9,654 buildings) and Oz as a whole (more than half a million). RPT >has a >similar passage in one of her books (giving the population of the EC, >at >least), but I can't seem to locate it by browsing. Anyone know where >this >is? It was near the beginning of _Gnome King_ (Chapter 2, maybe?), and it gave the same number for the population of the city as Baum had in _Emerald City_. -- May you live in interesting times, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ====================================================================== From: XJayZ98@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:55:25 EST Subject: Re: Wizard of Oz question... Thanks for clearing that up ! :-) ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 16:49:18 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-07-98 First, I just wanted to clarify that *I* am not the originator of the "copyright" piece. There seemed to be come mild confusion. David Hulan: > Jeremy Steadman: > >How do you reconcile _Ozma_ and _Pirates_, then? Which ocean links > >with the Nonestic? > > It really doesn't matter, as geography may be different there anyway. don't you mean Geozzify? David Godwin: Good point about Miss Gulch. One other trivial observation about the Garland movie: When talking to > Glinda, she says that her name is Dorothy Gale. Her surname does not appear > in WWiz at all, does it? We don't learn it until _Ozma_. > That's correct. As was discussed previously in Ozzy Digest, it apparently first was called "Gale" in the (1909???) stage production of WWiz > I also noticed in looking at some past postings here that there was > considerable puzzlement about the red-robed Munchkin shouting "Epiphany!" > According to the closed captioning on my copy of the video (which is also > the only way I was ever able to pick up the sulfur remark), what he says > is, "If any!" Inasmuch as this remark follows the mayor's statement about > "future generations of Munchkins," it almost makes sense. > Yes, that's been covered as well. I never heard it is as anything but "if any" ("kitchen took a SLITCH", OTOH.....) > Aaron Adelman: > Also: The Lurline's Machine project was put on hold for a while due tolack of > proper Ozzy spirit resting upon the writers. Ain ruach Utz alecha? David Hulan: > > > I once had a CP/M computer. But my computing experience goes way back > before that; the first "computer" I had (well, I didn't own it, but I used > it) was a Wang desktop device that I don't think had anything you could > call an OS. It was much like today's programmable calculators, except that > you had to write your program using a punch card that it would read. Your > program was limited to 80 instructions max. Later we got time-sharing on a > mainframe over a TTY, and I was able to write much longer programs using > paper tape. Ah, the Good Old Days. (This goes back to about 1969.) > Well, ya beat me. I only go back as far as TTY/paper tape (although on a minicomputer, not a mainframe with a screaming 4K of core storage). ---- Heard on the radio the other day people's reaction to Wizard on the big screen. Most calls seemed to have negative memories of the movie (being scared by the flying monkeys, for example), or bad things to say about the re-release (it's trite and old-fashioned, for example). Only a few believed it was a great movie. OTOH, not a single caller called up to say "did you know there are over 40 books in Oz series?" Had I not been in my car.... --Mike "Shaggy Man" Turniansky ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 17:25:37 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz tech Stumbled upon a strange and interesting interpretation of WWiz on a web site called "Wizard Realm," http://www.iglobal.net/psman/wizardrealm/fantasy.html. Says Dorothy was the real wizard because only she actually accomplished any wonders or transformations. Of course, one can have a lot of fun with the sort of analysis one sees on this site. For example, one could say that Toto was a representation of the Egyptian dog-headed god Anubis, guide of the dead, and was in charge all along. After all, who was it who delayed Dorothy in getting to the storm cellar and caused her to be blown to Oz in the first place? Who caused her to miss the balloon, forcing her to discover her own unknown powers (the silver slippers)? Who was it who "rent the veil" and revealed the Wiz as a humbug? Aha! :) David H. & Nathan: I agree that technology isn't such a no-no for Oz if it's largely magical in nature, and I like the idea that heavy industry and its concomitant ills might well be unnecessary if technology were magic-based. I've never had any trouble with the Magic Picture, but there are no rabbit ears and no wires (or cable). There's a parallel with Orwell, I suppose, but in Oz the people watching are benevolent. Nevertheless, I confess that I am somewhat of an Ozzy Luddite. All the time I was reading _Ozoplaning_, I thought I was watching a _Star Trek_ episode. If you want to fly somewhere, ride on the back of some flying creature or use a gump or a swan-drawn chariot, not a DC-3. I don't even like the idea of such things as lawnmowers and vacuum cleaners in Oz. I'm sure there are magical devices and/or creatures who fulfill those functions without the racket and waste. As for the electric lights in the EC palace. I'd feel better if they were magical. Maybe they are. I don't recall any mention of generators. Of course, the dichotomy between magic and technology did not exist to the degree in LFB's mind that it does in ours. It was _all_ magic to him;look at _The Magic Key_ for example. If one wishes to accept _Ozoplaning_ as part of the revealed/communicated canon, one could say that Ozma in her wisdom, foreseeing the problems they might cause, grounded ozoplanes after the events of this book. Indeed, one year later we find Jack Pumpkinhead _living_ in one (in _Wonder City_). J. L. Bell: Your theory of why Neill got so far off the track in his books seems reasonable, but the simplest explanation is that there was no more contact at all after RPT and that JNR was writing strictly from his (somewhat overwrought) imagination. Fortunately, he is remembered primarily for his thousands of wonderful illustrations. - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 20:08:00 -0500 From: Richard Bauman Subject: Today's Oz Growls Content-Disposition: inline >>High technology means heavy industry means pollution and corporate greed. >>That's the price we pay. >Does it necessarily mean that when you also have magic available to help? I >doubt it. Ozian high tech might be quite without heavy industry and its >concomitants. David, you neglected to give credit for the first comment above. If people are going to say such things on the Digest they should be given full credit. I think this is a wonderful example of analytical thinking. We need to watch out for those "concomitants." On to Magic. Bear (:<) ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:23:35 EST Subject: re ozzy virus? Tyler: According to a good and long-time friend of mine, a computer expert (he can solve almost all my problems), a virus _cannot_ get into your computer upon opening an email message. One _can_, however, get a virus by opening an attachment that contains a virus. I hope you don't mind my telling you this; I thought the good I can do by imparting that information more important than the resentment I hope you don't feel toward me after I imparted it. If anyone needs more information, contact me and I'll send it to you directly. Until later, Jeremy Steadman, Royal Historian of Oz kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 22:27:23 EST Subject: Ozzy addendum Well, as I soon discovered, my statement about emails and viruses, which was correct when my friend told me about it in 1996, is no longer completely accurate. The following is a corrected version: < Subject: RE: and virus other problems... Date sent: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 20:38:04 -0500 Now there *are* bugs in e-mail programs which can cause security problems... Outlook Express has had one discovered recently. But this is a function of the e-mail program, not the message. And there's another thing out there, from what I've heard... a Word Macro virus, actually. Uses the ability of Word to interact with MS e-mail programs to send out (without your control) messages with attached documents.... documents which contain, of course, the Macro that is the Virus. I would recommend browsing around the various Virus Information pages linked to Yahoo. There are pages documenting actual threats, and other pages debunking myths. And there are pages which deal with the fine line between the two. Though in my book, any e-mail saying 'win a free holiday' would be nothing but junk mail... and worthy of deletion anyway. ;) Later, Danny>> Jeremy Steadman, kivel99@planetall.com http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/9619 ICQ# 19222665, AOL Inst Mssgr name kiex or kiex2 "A good example of a parasite? Hmmm, let me think... How about the Eiffel tower?" ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 09:28:15 -0800 From: "Peter E. Hanff" Subject: Wizard of Oz Puzzle Hi Dave, Thought this appeal might be of interest to readers of the Ozzy Digest. Peter Hanff >From: Labbydor@aol.com >Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 23:03:06 EST >To: membership@ozclub.org >Subject: Wizard of Oz Puzzle >X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226 >X-Status: > >Dear Wizard of Oz Club, > >Please help, I'm on a crusade. The Hallmark Company won't reproduce the >vitage Wizard of Oz puzzle that they have discontinued unless they receive >enough responses. The puzzle is a 2,000 piece collage of wonderfully detailed >photographs. Please join me in requesting that they "Reproduce the Wizard of >Oz". Please e-mail Carla@Hallmark.com and tell Jan Scott in Consumer Affairs >that We Want OZ!! > >Thank you, >Kalif & Anne > > ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 14:21:47 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things TYLER: Sir Hokus is an enchantment?? *Please* don't me he's "really" a handsome, dashing Leonardo Di-what's-his-face clone??!! Locasta: This looks like the work of the "switcheroo" spell... GORDON: I stand correct on my sig quote...It's sometimes difficult to know whether to attribute a quote to who actually wrote it or who is famous for saying it... -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@delphi.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, NOVEMBER 12 - 17, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 17:50:20 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Reply-To: Ruth A Berman Subject: ozzy digest David Godwin: On what happened to Miss Gulch -- well, depending on how far she had to bike to get home, she may well have been out in the storm and may well be dead. Otherwise -- maybe Dorothy, summoning up heart and brain and nerve, might put more effort into getting her to accept an apology, and/or convincing the sheriff that if he'll undo the warrant and give Toto another chance, she'll see to it that the the dog stays away from Miss Gulch and her garden. J.L. Bell: You're probably right about which James Wright the copywriter wrought, but James Wright was also the name of a fine poet. David Hulan: You asked if the shift from death+50 or publication+75 whichever-is-longer to death+70 or publication+95 whichever-is- shorter means that Neill's Oz books will be coming into public domain sooner than the remaining Thompsons. No, unless the new law was made more retroactive than the newspaper reports indicated. The 1978 law, setting up the death-or-publication distinction, applied it only to the copyrights registered after it went into effect. For works registered before 1978, the copyrights expired at publication+75, no matter when the author died, and the extension for those pre-1978 works now simply changes that to publication+95. (If this sounds confusing -- that's because it is.) Atticus: So Til Loon really was Sal Loon originally? That's amusing to know. Bear: Regarding supporting local booksellers -- the NY "Times" announced a couple of days ago that the Ingram Distribution company (the distributor that is the main supplier of independent booksellers) has been bought by Barnes & Noble. The independent booksellers, through their association, are protesting the sale as monopolistic (for example, they might in future find themselves unable to get copies of big-sellers-in-short-supply), and possibly their protest will succeed in putting some restraint on this particular example of free trade. I haven't so far seen any announcement of what steps ordinary book buyers might take to support the independents in this matter -- anyone here know? Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 18:03:50 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Reply-To: Ruth A Berman Subject: ozzy digest ps At various times in the past we've had discussion of the purple strip of mainland opposite the island of Loland/Hiland on the Haff-Martin map, and I've commented that it comes from their desire to keep the general lines of the "Tik-Tok" map (which shows Loland/Hiland as part of the mainland), while snaking an arm of ocean in by Loland to match up with the "John Dough" description of L/H as an island. In terms of Oz-as-if- real, it's hard to explain why the island was attached to the mainland at the time Professor Wogglebug did his map, but an island both before for "John Dough," and after for the later map. The possibility of a double seaquake was suggested as a possible explanation. A simpler explanation occurred to me recently: maybe the channel is so shallow that Loland/Hiland is an island at high tide and attached to the mainland at low tide. (Possibly the Hilanders prefer to identify it as an island and the Lolanders as part of the continent as a matter of politics?) Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:02:01 -0500 From: Michael Turniansky Subject: [Fwd: Top5 - 11/10/98 - Changes in the New "Wizard of Oz"] -------------- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 9:40:15 Subject: Top5 - 11/10/98 - Changes in the New "Wizard of Oz" From: "The Top 5 List" [WARNING: THIS LIST CONTAINS MATERIAL THAT SOME OZ FANS MAY FIND OFFENSIVE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. -- Dave] ================================================================ T H E T O P F I V E L I S T I love you. Lay down with me. Can I read you my list? ================================================================ ** A SPECIAL OFFER for the Readers of THE TOP 5 LIST ** DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION & WEB HOSTING Get on the Web with your own "dot com" address! REGISTER YOUR OWN DOMAIN NAME - ONLY $30 (plus Internic fees) HOST YOUR WEB SITE - ONLY $18.95/mo. *based upon an annual prepayment CALL: Advanced Web Creations, Inc. Toll Free 1-800-248-0151 VISIT: http://www.awc.net/ --or-- E-MAIL:info@awc.net ================================================================ November 10, 1998 BACKGROUND: The classic movie "The Wizard of Oz" has recently been re-released here in the U.S. The Top 13 Changes in the New "Wizard of Oz" 13> Newly-restored scene shows the Munchkins asking the Wizard for testicles. 12> Scarecrow, Tinman and Cowardly Lion now referred to as the "PETA-Approved Crow-Frightening Person of Straw", the "Non Gender Specific Recycled Metallic American", and the "Assertiveness-Challenged Feline." 11> "Wicked Witch of the West" replaced by "Misguided Independent Counsel of the Beltway" 10> Restored scene in which Jabba the Hutt advises Dorothy not to dump the ruby slippers at the first sign of monkey bat attack. 9> Dorothy clicks her heels and says, "There's no place like the mall." 8> Victim of a careless oversight in 1939, Bob Dole is finally credited for his role as "Elderly Farm Hand #2." 7> "Come with us to the Emerald City! I'm sure the Wizard can help you find the real killers!" 6> Dorothy wakes up in rehab and swears she'll lay off the stuff forever. 5> Through the magic of special effects, all munchkins now played by Danny DeVito, Gary Coleman and Michael J. Fox. 4> Then: "Poppies! Poppies! Poppies!" Now: "Dude, I can't find a vein!" 3> Vanilla Dot and little T-Dogg barely survive the drive-by from the Munchkrips. 2> "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THAT INTERN!!!" and Top5's Number 1 Change in the New "Wizard of Oz"... 1> Tin Man axes Toto after hearing "Yo quiero Taco Bell" for the zillionth time. [ This list copyright 1998 by Chris White ] [ The Top 5 List top5@gmbweb.com http://www.topfive.com ] [ To forward or repost, please include this section. ] [ You like to receive credit for your work, and so do we. ] Selected from 121 submissions from 40 contributors. Today's Top Five List authors are: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Woo, Encinitas, CA -- 1 (8th #1 / O.G. / HOF) Mark Weiss, Austin, TX -- 1, 5 (5th #1) Michael Wolf, Brookline, MA -- 2, 7 Mark Schmidt, Santa Cruz, CA -- 3 Alexander Clemens, San Francisco, CA -- 4 Bill Muse, Seattle, WA -- 5, 12 (Hall of Famer) Dave Henry, Slidell, LA -- 5, Banner Tag Ed Brooksbank, Sacramento, CA -- 6 Larry G. Hollister, Concord, CA -- 8, Runner Up list name Lisa Oliver, London, England -- 9, 12 Jonathan D. Colan, Miami, FL -- 10 Perry Friedman, Menlo Park, CA -- 11 JB Leibovitch, Oakland, CA -- 11 M.J. Finan, Cleveland, OH -- 13 Peg Warner, Exeter, NH -- Topic Chris White, New York, NY -- List owner/editor Ozzy Osbourne (who else?!?) -- Ambience ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Groaners & Stinkers & Duds - Oh My!" The Runners Up and Honorable Mention submissions for today's list can be found at: http://www.topfive.com ================================================================ Ruminations & Ponderances A few years back, I saw a young child stuck in a tree. Nowadays, when I find myself in a troubling situation, I look back and wonder if that kid saw me take that chocolate bar from his backpack on the ground. (Thanks to Tom Wigington) ================================================================ I M P O R T A N T C R A P ! --- --- --- --- --- --- To bitch at the owner: Send mail to top5@gmbweb.com You are subscribed to Top5 as: [turnip@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us] Subscribe? Send a blank message to: join-top5@lists.lyris.net Unsubscribe? Send a blank message to: leave-top5-304517P@lists.lyris.net --- --- --- --- --- --- This delivery powered by Lyris! http://www.lyris.net ================================================================ ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:06:24 -0500 From: Lisa Mastroberte X-Accept-Language: en Subject: Non-Ozzy Nonsense! Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1,331: 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light bulb has been changed. 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs. 53 to flame the spell checkers. 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list. 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames. 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb 203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped. 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail list. 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty. 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs. 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list. 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversey. 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three." 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ. 1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup. 47 to say this is just what alt.physics.cold_fusion was meant for, leave it there. 143 votes for alt.lite.bulb. Hehe, just wanted to share this with everybody. ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-11-98 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:31:43 PST Jim: >Another "controversial" clip in the film occurs when Dorothy is up >inside >the cyclone and watches Miss Gulch transform into a witch. I have >"always" >thought that this was the Wicked Witch of the East. When describing the event to the Munchkins, Dorothy sings: "Just then, the witch, to satisfy an itch, was flying on her broomstick." This would seem to me to indicate that the witch flying by the window was the WWE. The idea that the two witches were sisters might have been an attempt by the writers to explain why they BOTH looked like Miss Gulch; there was never any indication in the book that the two were related. (In Payes's _Wicked Witch_, it is stated that Singra is a cousin of both the WWE and the WWW, but she was probably influenced by the movie. David Godwin: >As for the electric >lights in the EC palace. I'd feel better if they were magical. Maybe >they >are. I don't recall any mention of generators. In _Lost King_, Dorothy uses a "radio button" to turn on the lights (after Mombi sinks the palace). Could this be an indication that the lights are activated by radio waves? (Of course, that still doesn't explain where the power comes from.) >If one wishes to accept _Ozoplaning_ as part of the >revealed/communicated >canon, one could say that Ozma in her wisdom, foreseeing the problems >they >might cause, grounded ozoplanes after the events of this book. Quite possibly. That's what I like to think about the Scalawagons. Dave: >Sir Hokus is an enchantment?? *Please* don't me he's "really" a >handsome, >dashing Leonardo Di-what's-his-face clone??!! I take it that you haven't read _Yellow Knight_ yet. I won't say anything else about the change in Hokus right now, other than to say that even Thompson herself might have come to dislike the change, since she refers to the Knight as "Sir Hokus" in _Yankee_. -- May you live in interesting times, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:37:06 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Content-Disposition: inline Gordon: You forgot one more marriage in _Tin Woodman_. Professor and Mrs. Swyne were married, and they seemed fairly isolated, yet their marriage was a peaceful and content one, unlike the others. You mentioned that the book started by celebrating the close friendship of the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman, but it also ends in the same way,. The final paragraph has the two comrades return to the castle where "they found their greatest amusement in conversation". Joyce (and many, many others, on and of the Digest): Forgive me. It was a knee-jerk reaction to send that thing out (also to over 200 other people). Yes, I know the only way to do damage with a e-mail message is to launch an EXE from an attachment. Sorry about that, everybody. I'll watch myself next time. I really lost it with this one. I must have been tired. On to other matters, still with Joyce: One theory that has been kicked around is that Dr. Nikidik, who made the wishing pills, got the Powder of Life from Pipt and then traded that in Turn to Mombi. Of course, one might ask why a magician who can make wishing pills would need a