] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, DECEMBER 1 - 3, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:31:04 -0500 From: "Lisa M. Mastroberte" X-Accept-Language: en Subject: oz Dave H. wrote: >Maybe Ozma meant to fill the tunnel with coal (Carbon-12), but the >weakened Magic Belt failed her and filled it instead with Beryllium-8 with >a half-life of one quadrillionth of a second, after which it decays into >Helium-4...(Any evidence that the Shaggy Man's and his companions' voices >got high and Munchkin-like within the tunnel??) Or maybe, they filled it with some sort of material that disintagrates. >Coupla digests ago I threw out the question of how Books of Wonder should >have handled the villainous Arab in WISHING HORSE. I've been reminded that >BoW has never issued an edition of this book; the Int'l Wizard of Oz Club >did. >Come to think of it, why *doesn't* BoW do an edition of _Wishing Horse_? It's PD... I have no clue. (Peter, can you answer?) Btw, what is a Zoop??? Is it like a Woozy?? Which book does it appear in? (I have a pretty short memory with Oz books.) Also, I like the book _DotWiz_. Probably mostly because Eureka the Cat is in it. I have a copy from Watermill Press. It doesn't have any pictures inside, but it has a nice cover. _Road_ is probably my least fave, it has alot of IE's in it. Off2Oz, Lisa "Ozma" "Scully" Mastroberte ----------------- * "The last thing I remember is walking through a forest and hearing a loud noise. Now here I am, flying through the air. What am I, anyway?" -The Gump, Return to Oz, 1985 ====================================================================== From: Ozisus@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 18:00:19 EST Subject: Oz 2000 presenters, topics? I'm speechless. Barbara Koelle tells me she's heard from anyone interested in presenting any "Life in the Land of Oz" topics at the centennial celebration. I thought you Digesters would be racing each other to get to her agenda first! Our other "track" chairmen are moving forward pretty steadily on coordinating a series of topical presentations. (Reminder fyi, the main tracks are: Baum's Life and Work, Literary Criticism/Comparative Literature, Oz Collecting, Oz on Stage and Screen and Life in the Land of Oz. Anything you'd like to present that doesn't fall neatly into one of those, tell me.) I can't believe that that those of you who so love to discuss the Oz material will let the characters, places and land of Oz itself be inadequately represented at this milestone event! OK, I'll agree that "what became of Miss Gulch" is little more than a fun dinner debate or late night exchange in the hospitality suite, and adult Oz books or "censorship" issues belong on Angelica Carpenters's agenda, but scan recent Digests and you'd see ... Oz Puns? Ozma's Castle? Education in Oz? Fashions in Oz? The Heads of Oz? Where is Oz? Technology in Oz? Romance in Oz? Feminism in Oz? Name That Witch? ANY favorite character? Seems to me like all someone has to do is poke half of you and out comes an Oz topic for which you have a clear passion. The centennial is your opportunity to share your love for Oz. And since the program will allow a multiple-choice format, it's a perfect venue for "smaller" topics unlikely to make the agenda at the usual conventions (where they'd be the ONLY thing on the agenda so broad appeal is necessary.) Grabbing others with similar or dissimilar ideas to form a panel discussion on a topic is a perfectly acceptable alternative. It's not too early to propose a topic. We'd rather confirm them now so we can describe them in promotional material. And you'll be disappointed if the entire weekend "fills up" before you get your shot at the podium. So go for it! Write Barbara Koelle at 244 Haverford Ave, Swarthmore, PA 19081. A past president of the Oz Club, Barbara has written extensively for the Bugle, presented at past conventions and is looking for people (you!) with interesting topics to make this convention a must-come event for people who love Oz books. This is the one to attend, folks, and as long as you're coming, why not get involved and present? Jane ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:21:38 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digests Digest of 11-25: Glad to hear some FF authors are still here . . . soon enough, though, it'll be NFF (non-FF) authors alone . . . much like the first three Doctors on Doctor Who are no more . . . and many of the scriptwriters too . . . Ding-a-derry: What bells do around cow pastures. How authors know: Instead of making hypotheses about how certain people let the authors know at certain times AFTER going to Oz BEFORE doing other things AND so on, isn't it more likely that Royal Historians are allowed to see the GBR so they can record the events as books? Or that Royal Historians are in fact the embodiments of the GBR in our physical world? No? Well, it makes sense to me . . . sort of. Digest of 11-30: PC Version of history: I'll spare you from all the clever puns I thought of here--for your sakes. Dave Hardenbrook: As an alternate title to the Digest, you could call it "Notes From Our Fearless Leader". >>The Ork is unfeathered?? Yes, nothing's holding it down. Until the next time you have to listen to (read) my superficial comments, 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: Ozmama@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:08:23 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-30-98 David Hulan<> John Bell:<< Nice young adults get to marry, and often to marry royalty; nasty people may be born royal, but they go to bed alone.>> Here's my $ .02: Beautiful fairy princesses in Oz who know that physical beauty is not all that important may grow up to look like Rosa Merry or Posy Pink. Beautiful fairy princesses who think physical beauty is teddibly important, are flawed and, as they gain years, those flaws show up--physically. John Bell: <> A character that is easily accessible is more difficult to sustain. It makes sense for an author to "drop" a character rather than to have to continue developing it and possibly muddling up new stories in an attempt to retain the old characters. Kabumpo, Jinnicky, and Sam'l are extraordinary. They are plot movers. Majors. They are distinct individuals. Grumpy is a variant on Kabumpo. One curmudgeon per series is enough. David Hulan:<> Why _Silver Princess_? The tone is lighter, except for that awful moment towards the end, but why do you rate it higher than _Yellow Knight_? Btw, _Speedy_ is my fave RPT. ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:14:08 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: The Wizard of Oz Oscar and Adolf: Aside from the Scalawagon/Volkswagen thing (transportation for the people), there are other striking parallels between the Wizard and der Fuhrer: * The Wizard was born outside Oz but became its ruler. Hitler was born outside Germany but became its ruler. * Both men held on to power by the use of deception and lies. * Both were fond of grandiose architecture (the Wizard built the EC). * The Wizard had a hot air balloon. Hitler was also full of hot air. * Both men had difficulties associated with their names (Schicklgruber/Pinhead). However, as far as I know, the Wizard was not anti-Semitic and had no ambitions to conquer the countries around Oz to provide Lebensraum for an expanding Oz population. (On the latter point, I'm afraid I can't say the same for Captain Salt.) He caused no wars and attempted to exterminate no race of people. *However,* I will never be able to get used to the fact that he treated Dorothy and her friends so shabbily in WWiz. After all, what kind of a guy would send a little girl into almost certain death just to get her out of his hair - er, get her to quit bothering him? Then there's the shady business in _Land_, which LFB and then RPT ended up having to explain away and reinterpret. Now all of a sudden in DotWiz, here he is Mr. Nice Guy. There are depths to this man's personality that have never been fully explored, I tell you! That's not to mention the rather strange ease with which everyone accepts his transformation, to the point where he becomes a popular figure, Glinda trusts him with her magic, and so on. I don't think _I_ would have been as forgiving or as willing to trust as Dorothy. Even assuming that the alleged wrongdoing in _Land_ is a series of witchy fabrications, there's still the business with Dorothy and her friends in WWiz. The guy must have terrific charisma! Talk about a Teflon president! The only truly upsetting thing about the Scalawagon/Vokswagen parallel is the haunting notion that JNR got the idea from Adolf, perhaps subliminally. Was the VW in the news then, or did we only find out about it after the war? Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman wrote: >Pardon my puzzlement, but just what is a zoop? Good question. The Lonesome Zoop appears in at least two of the three LFB Oz silent movies. It is actually a man in a very weird costume that includes a long tail with a ball of fluff on the end, but it is intended to be some sort of creature, perhaps the only one of its kind. Its behavior seems to center around its loneliness, which it apparently seeks to relieve by drawing attention to itself, which annoys or frightens its victim, who runs away, thus providing fodder for some prolonged chase sequences. However, all instances of the zoop's appearance are strictly IEs. Michael Turniansky wrote: >As far as "spam-like" postings, whose decrying seemed to coincide with >Ruth's comment directly against my posting of the top 5 list, let me just >say (in >case the former comments were also directed towards me) in my defense, that >the >list was on-topic ("Top 5 Surprises in the re-released Wizard of Oz"), and the >credits following it were merely in keeping the etiquette of giving credit >where >it is due. Sorry if I filled up your mailboxes :( Mike, your Top 5 list was the farthest thing from _my_ mind when I complained of spam. I was thinking more of flashy ads (or as flashy as they can get in this format), which, even if sort of on-topic, are still annoying. :) J. L. Bell wrote: >About Elmira Gulch, David Godwin wrote: ><fellow undisposed to cooperate with Almira's anti-canine activism.>> > >But Miss Gulch owns half the county! Not all sheriffs were like Andy >Taylor, alas. Whereupon Dave Hardenbrook wrote: >We must remember that it was the Sheriff who authorized Gulch to take Toto in the first place... My whole idea was centered upon Miss Gulch's saying, "That'll be for the sheriff to decide!" Assuming that she, as "owner of the half the county," was willing to let the sheriff decide anything, why not in favor of some measure of clemency toward this poor, persecuted pooch? Maybe she could pressure the sheriff into issuing an order allowing her to pick up Toto, but putting him to death might be a different matter. Besides, if she dominated the sheriff to that extent, why didn't she just send him to pick up the dog himself rather than risk getting nipped again? Maybe it was the sheriff who owned the _other_ half of the county! I picked up that spelling of "Almira" from CD liner notes to the soundtrack. "Elmira" looks more likely, though. I don't know what it is in the filmscript. Nome King's Tunnel: Of the various theories suggested as to how Ruggedo's tunnel became un-filled, those mentioning some limitation in the power of the Magic Belt make the most sense to me. Ozma no doubt knew that the tunnel would not _stay_ filled, but neglected to publicize the fact for obvious reasons. - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:37:36 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Mount Munch: According to Baum, the Hyup country is shaped like a saucer, "wide and deep", implying that their land slopes downward toward the central part of the community. It's a god thing, too. If the land was higher at the center, and sloped downward toward the edge, there may not be as many Hyups as there are today. John Bell: I don't think that Baum ever states that Oz is a part of our physical reality. He implies it, but he may not have fully understood the mechanics of travel to Oz. Oz as a part of our Universe is not really necessary to his stories. Of course, Oz as part of another Universe is not either, but in the absence of necessity, I'll side with the preponderance of evidence, in and out of Baum. David Godwin: Luckily, we've never had a major problem with posts such that Dave would have to engage in major editing. That's a good thing, too, since I just got involved in a pryamid marketing venture, and I'm sure you'll all want to send..... ########################### Your idea about Oz is much like the "real" Narnia. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== From: christopher99@mail.geocities.com X-Note: Latest version at http://EmuMail.com Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 9:04:00 GMT Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest Hi all. I'm here on foreign exchange in Ankara, Turkey. Does anyone know if The Wizard of Oz will come to theaters here? We get most American movies here (I'm going to There's Something about Mary after school today.) On the Niell Books and Ozoplanes: MOPPeT is that the Wizard really screwed up some sort of magic after making the Ozoplanes because things go downhill after that. The living houses, fire injuns (another racial slur), etc. could be effects of the screw up. The Wiz himself seems changed in Ozoplaning and the Neill books, putting on disguises, pretending he's a crazy old man. By the time Snow took over the pen the Wizard seemed more cautious with his magic. Also, Ozma seems to accumulate quite a lot of magic throughout the series, does anyone have a theory as to why she never uses any of it? Best of Luck Chris Straughn christopher99@geocities.com Harika Oz Büyücüsü [The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (in Turkish)] EMUmail - Web based E-mail for YOUR mail server. http://EmuMail.com ====================================================================== From: shiromal@eureka.lk Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 09:13:29 +1100 Subject: The land of the north does anyone know more about princess Gayalette,than mentioned in the book?What happend to her afterwards?Did she rule the Gilikin country before Locasta? and if Ugu stole magic from the wizard and Glinda and Ozma,why didnt he think of the adepts and the good witch of the north? and speaking of the good witch of the north(this one's for you Dave),does Ruth mention about Locasta's banishment in -Giant horse-?.or does she admit that the good witch of the north was princess Orin all along?(even when Dorothy met her in WOO)?.Baum doesnt mention anything about her afterwards does he?why? ====================================================================== From: shiromal@eureka.lk Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 09:13:28 +1100 Subject: DR.NIKIDIK AND THE POWDER OF LIFE Dave, Is it true that Dr.Nikidik faked his death?and he moved from the gilikin country to the munchkin country,and settled down there as Dr.pipt?becuse it just makes no scense. Baum says that Nikidik fell down a gulf and died.and in-patchwork-here he is again!so is my theory correct,or did Baum just make a mistake?for Ozma herself knows that Dr.pipt is alive,and she even talks about him in the presence of tinman(who told shaggy about his death)....which bring's up the other question. The tinman told shaggy the story of Ozma and Mombi and Tip,but in-patchwork-shaggy claims necer tohave heard the story... and speaking about the -powder of life-.Dyna accidently spills some of it on her bear and says:"i wish you were alive",and her wish is granted.but how could this happen if she has to say the magic words:"weah!Teah!peah!"?. Thankyou, Gehan ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:12:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-30-98 Aaron: The Zoop is a peculiar creature which is primarily simian, but with a strange forehead and four strange fluffy appendages by the shoulders. It does not, however, resemble a winged monkey. I don't think it was always Woodward playing him, but some other animal actor, particularly the scene in which Mewel (with four legs that Woodward had the skill of not going down on his knees to play, unlike Haruo Nakajima as Baragon or Baran; Koetsu Omiya or Hiroshi Sekita as Angirasu, but which Katsumi Tezuka did have, as Angirasu) is chased by the Zoop, as well as the scene in _The Magic Cloak_, in which Nikodemus rouns up all the forest animals to attack the robbers and then the Roly-Rogues. The animals included an elephant, a bull, the Woozy, the Cowardly Lion, the Hungry Tiger, a rabbit, an elephant, a kangaroo, and a crow. Queen Aubrey of the Quadling Elves particularly dislikes the Zoop, which once leaped onto her balcony. She threw it off. She also says that it (and a particular tree) are the reasons for the illusory wall around the Emerald City, and claims they are both so dumb that the could run into it even with their eyes closed. Sean: At the time I read "Much Ado About Kiki Aru," I liked it so much I wanted to consider iot official, but I haven't read it since middle school. I do notice that it is contradictory with _The Glass Cat of Oz_, which I still must admit I haven't read, and I'll reiterate this again, particularly if Melody (though she's not on the digest anymore) thought I was insulting her (never intentionally) that I don't buy you guys' books because I don't haver time to read anything not required for schoool at the present time. When I get to be Stephen's age, I'll have read everything Oz there is to read, and as much of everything else as I can. Mike: _The Wiz_ is similar to Volkov '56, and at least two of the Russian film versions (V. Popov and L. Smironov's stop motion miniseries and Pavel Arsenov's short (63 min) feature), only this time, it was the Wicked Witch, Gingemma, that brought the tornado. Minnesota Dave: Your idea with Peter sounds kind of like Rod Steiger's _Somewhere..._ project. 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 ====================================================================== From: SlvrSlprz@aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:46:45 EST Subject: I'm not on the Ozzy digest; please ship reply to me privately This is Rinny, Chris Dulabone's wife. Chris and I are curious about a story that was published in the 1997 issue of Oziana magazine. We do not know its title, but it was written by Frederick E. Otto. If anyone has access to a copy of it, we would very much appreciate if a synopsis were sent to us, including character names. ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 18:32:19 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: MAGIC OF OZ and *pyrzqxgl* Not shying from big questions, David Godwin wrote: <> I think they surely do, even though their creators were constrained by their upbringing from fully showing those qualities. I view the situation as I view America's founding. Jefferson and his colleagues started us off with a "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal"; yet it's evident most of those men didn't accept that truth in daily life. Lincoln's genius was to transform that claim into a "proposition," something the nation hadn't achieved but was dedicated to proving. (And activists like Matilda Gage made sure we read "men" as "people.") Similarly, I see Baum (and his successors to varying extents, Neill most of all) as setting out principles for Oz as a land where human and animal, metal and meat, young and old, immigrant Americans and blue-blood Munchkins--in short, the "queer" and the common--coexist with tolerance and respect. Self-segregated communities of Loons, cats, trapeze artists, books, and so on challenge that ideal, but often they're living warnings against self-absorption (and sometimes, in Baum's stories, lessons for our heroes about their own limited perspective). In the Emerald City and especially Ozma's palace everyone comes together--or should. When we look back at several Oz books--in fact, all of them, given their illustrations--the creators clearly haven't fulfilled that inclusive ideal. But the ideal can still inspire us, both in life and in creating new stories that move another inch toward proving Baum's proposition. Excellent point that <>. An African-American fan I met at work--she'd discovered Baum's books on her own in a public library--served as a reader for one of my manuscripts. In thanking me for including less melanin-deprived characters, she confirmed that aspect of the series had bothered her. Yet I know I can only go so far toward expanding Ozian society, not because of its limits but because of my own. David Godwin wrote: <> I don't think children yet have a strong enough sense of mortality to grasp what a boon immortality might be. More tempting for most kids reading the books, I suspect, is the autonomy and near invulnerability that children seem to enjoy in the Emerald City; imagining life on one's own is one of the prime impulses for most kids' stories, especially fantasy. As for returning to loved ones, some of Oz's visitors--Dorothy, Peter, perhaps Speedy--seem to feel special responsibility to return to the older, non-parental relatives with whom they live. That's another form of autonomy, being (at least partly) in charge. In contrast, the orphans with no one to look after--Bob, Robin, perhaps Betsy and Bucky--quickly choose to stay. Only after WW2 do children from nuclear families--Twink, Tom, Jam--reach Oz, and they all choose to return to that normalcy. The odd ones are folks like Trot and Button-Bright, who seem to forget their blood relatives entirely. About changes in sports-team names David Hulan wrote: <> I hope so, but I still see news stories about: a) fans resisting such changes (especially at the school level), and b) the Redskins, Braves, Celtics, and other ethnically-named teams, reported with no compunction about terminology. Lots of interesting semantic and societal issues surround such stories. Until we resolve those issues, I can't say our society has made the change. Those issues also surround David Godwin's original examples: should we treat the bare word "redskins" in SHAGGY MAN as we treat the racial caricatures drawn and described in, say, ROYAL BOOK? The former is a word with a history of pejorative use, but by itself isn't necessarily judgmental. The latter is a stereotype of both physiognomy and personality, yet it's not applied to any Americans or their ancestors, only to Silver Islanders. Peter Glassman seems to have focused on offensive illustrations. There's logic in his choice: a child can't escape seeing the drawings, and each is reportedly worth 1,000 "redskin"s. David Hulan wrote: <> You've no doubt read that the Shakespeare character quoted most often in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD is that nattering old counselor Polonius. Modern pols can quote whole sentences from his speech to Laertes and miss their context. Shakespeare's audience would have recognized most of those lines (e.g., "Neither a borrower nor a lender be") as trite chestnuts. Of Mr. Tinker's trip to the Moon, David Hulan wrote: <> Another possible reading is that Mr. Tinker simply *told* folks that he was heading to the Moon. The King of Ev was already mad, bad, and dangerous to know--beating his servants, about to sell his family into slavery. Tinker's partner had just drowned under mysterious circumstances. Seems like a wise time to declare you're going to the Moon--to gather stars for the king's crown, natch--and then skip out to Ix and open a VCR repair shop. Tik-Tok would repeat whatever story Tinker input into his memory--GIGO. I had noted, David, that you don't hold with the Oz reality being "accessible only by magic." It seems possible that no two fans have precisely the same idea about where/how Oz might be found. Sean Duffley wrote of his 1986 OZIANA story "Much Ado About Kiki Aru": <> Thanks for the reference, Sean, self-promoting or not. I neglected this OZIANA twelve years ago, so you gave me a reason to catch up a step. Like you, I suspect the Oblivious Kiki would retain his "somewhat sulky manner." Rather than send him back to Mount Munch, though, I've imagined him still living in the Emerald City, where he finally finds excitement enough to keep him only a little grumbly. He starts living as an ordinary Ozian, letting himself grow to manhood, starting a family. Eventually, I imagine, Ruggedo might achieve his goal of seizing control of the capital. He calls the young man to the palace and demands he become chamberlain. Kiki, under whatever name he's assumed, scowls and insists he's never met Ruggedo before. The Nome fumes: "Of course we've met! Don't try to fool me--the Water of Oblivion lasts only a few years! If you don't become my chamberlain, I'll--" And Kiki whispers *pyrzqxgl* and is off on the wings of a dove. I'm sure many other folks have wondered why, if *pyrzqxgl* is so powerful, the Wizard doesn't use it in later Oz books. Sean has one imaginative explanation. Another is that it's limited in important ways that MAGIC doesn't reveal to us. We see *pyrzqxgl* working only on nearby people. Does it transform people only into other living or once-living things, like nuts (Kiki threatens to turn Ruggedo into a stone [39], but never does so)? And how long do *pyrzqxgl* transformations last (at least a week or so, in the case of that nutty Ruggedo)? Speaking of *pyrzqxgl*, the attitude toward transformation shown in MAGIC seems to differ from that in TIN WOODMAN. After Mrs. Yoop's enchantments, we read seemingly endless complaints about how awful it is being a straw bear, a tin owl, and so on. In this book unexpected transformations are bewildering [142], but we read fewer complaints. Dorothy prefers being herself, not a lamb, but doesn't bleat about it [148]. Bru would prefer to stay a bear, but Loo enjoys being a man [94-7]. Though the forest wolf says, "I'm thankful I escaped with my own shape," he equates the Li-Mon-Eag's changing others with "making them all his slaves" [152]. Other animals actually "wanted to be transformed" [132]. One special case is Ruggedo, who's "dreadfully ashamed" of being turned into a goose who "might lay an egg!" [158] That implies he's a gender other than gander--quite a change. (As supporting evidence for that deduction, the Nome wasn't so upset about being another bird--an eagle [50].) Furthermore, in TIN WOODMAN the canary and the tin owl discovered their shapes naturally brought them knowledge of some bird language. As a monkey Woot instinctively flees through the forest from the jaguar. In contrast, Kiki deems his cry as a hawk to be "the funny sound this sort of bird makes" [25]. He doesn't know what hawks eat, and can't grasp sleeping the way hawks do [28]. Later we read of "the voice of Kiki, coming from the eagle" [50]. In sum, the *pyrzqxgl* spell doesn't seem to go as deep as Mrs. Yoop's yookoohoo magic; it changes the physical form of a person, but doesn't change that person's mind at all. Nor does Baum emphasize *pyrzqxgl* as a terrifying force that saps people of their identity. From the time Bini Aru discovers the word [19], it's presented as a tool, like the Magic Belt, no better or worse than the use to which it's put. David Hulan described one of the starting-points for his GLASS CAT OF OZ as <>. It thus seems fair to read his book as one learned interpretation of how that magic word works. [I'll avoid SPOILERS about plot points beyond the first chapters, for folks who haven't read this 1995 title yet.] Typical of David's smart approach to the series--smarter often than the characters within it--he starts by deducing that *pyrzqxgl* is actually disguised: "There is such a word, but it doesn't resemble *Pyrzqxgl*. If the author knew it at all, he deliberately misled his readers" [GC, 13]. In contrast, Baum solemnly warns us, " It might be well,...in reading this story aloud, to be careful not to pronounce *Pyrzqxgl* the proper way, and thus avoid all danger of the secret being able to work mischief" [20]. Early in GLASS CAT David's protagonists use *pyrzqxgl* to instantly change their clothes [GC, 16]. On rereading MAGIC, I see it indeed establishes the word can provide clothing: Kiki creates a giant soldier "dressed in a uniform and with a sharp sword" [164]. Nevertheless, David's scene originally got my knickers in a twist. That's because Kiki's spell was part of changing a monkey into a giant, while the children in GLASS CAT remain as they are *except* for their clothing. Furthermore, Baum implicitly tells us clothing is integral to a human: when Kiki is restored to "his natural form," he appears fully dressed as a Munchkin [259]. To Baum, born and raised a Victorian, natural and naked are incompatible. To Hulan, modern thinker that he is, a child can forget to put on underwear. On comparing the Wizard to Hitler, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> I began to suspect that after I started reading WICKED three days ago. Recommendations from you and others finally cued me to take this book off my shelf. Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <> Wait until January, Dave, when the new ZOOM debuts on PBS. [For us '70s kids, WGBH has issued a 30-minute video with clips from the original ZOOM and a small where-are-they-now paperback. I bought mine by searching the wgbh.org site for an 800 order number and asking the operator about this ~$35 set.] J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 02:06:35 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 11-30-98 J.L.: >David Hulan wrote: ><the extraordinary claim would be that a land like Oz could exist as part of >our physical universe.>> > >An extraordinary claim that certainly is, but it's the central claim made >by Baum. And, to get back to what I said a few Digests back, that's begging the question. Baum never said explicitly, "Oz is part of our physical universe." And a great many things happen in Baum's Oz books that are completely inconsistent with Oz being a part of our physical universe; I've cited some of them already, but could undoubtedly come up with more if I took more time on it. In the absence of an explicit statement from Baum that Oz is in our physical universe, I believe that we must consider the evidence of the books from both possible points of view, without prejudice. Yes, Oz is in some circumstances accessible from our physical universe without magical intervention; the Wizard on his first trips in and out, Dorothy on her first two trips in, Betsy on her trip in, Button-Bright on his first trip in, and maybe Trot and Cap'n Bill on their trip in, all did it. Going to the other Baum books tied in with Oz, John Dough and Dot and Tot made it in and the latter two back out (though their exit was probably facilitated by magic, since real rivers don't flow in circles.) No one else ever seems to have. These occurrences are therefore very rare, which is also inconsistent with Oz lying somewhere within our physical universe. >If we look outside his books for additional proof that Oz exists, >we indeed won't find it, But we're not talking about whether or not it exists, but whether or not it's accessible by some normal means - as are, say, New Zealand or Ceylon, or even Ellesmere Island. If Oz is not accessible by such means, and never has been, then saying it's nevertheless part of our physical universe is a distinction without a difference, and I'm willing to accept that. It's fully consistent with my opinion that when the Wizard rose to a certain altitude over Oz he suddenly found himself over the USA instead, for instance. I find this easier to understand when I call it a dimensional shift or something of the sort than an instantaneous spatial transition halfway around the globe from a place you can't get to intentionally except by magic, but if you prefer the latter then be my guest. >Other new characters Thompson brought to the >palace seem to stick around for only a title or two. She was more >successful at creating characters who lived elsewhere: Kabumpo, Jinnicky, >Captain Salt. True enough. Aside from the parade of characters in _Wishing Horse_, we never see most of Thompson's additions to the EC again, though her "external" characters - Peter, Speedy, Randy, Ato, and Roger in addition to the ones you mention - do appear in more than one book. The only exceptions I can think of are Sir Hokus, in most of the books that _Royal Book_ and _Yellow Knight_ bookend, and Camy in the first and last (though he's a relatively minor character in both). >Nifty suggestion, Ruth Berman, about the Glass Cat's personality >restoration (and how Eureka got <> as well). I like the part about the Glass Cat's personality restoration, but the Shaggy Man refers to Eureka as a Pink Kitten in PG when he first tells Bungle about her, so I don't think Eureka's pinkness can be placed after the restoration of Bungle's brain color. >["Mommy, >the Nome King's wandering around up here, and now he's really mad!" "Calm >down, dear. Let me tell you about vibrational planes."] I remember reading an SF story - I think by Bradbury, maybe in _The Illustrated Man_ - where some kids were dealing with an interdimensional invader and called him "Ruggedo" for very much that sort of reason. It was indeed odd that Baum transitioned from "it" to "she" as the pronoun for the Glass Cat in the middle of _Magic_; I've noticed that as well. In PG the cat was always "she"; I forget what the pronoun was in _Glinda_, which is the only other book where she had a speaking part. David G.: >I don't for a minute suggest bowdlerizing or >censoring the books, but it shouldn't be a mystery as to why the >demographics of Oz fans is (evidently) predominantly Caucasian, as I assume >it is. I've seen a fair number of Asian-Americans at Winkies, and there was one African-American family at Munchkins last year, but at least as regards Oz fans who are enthusiastic enough to come to the conventions, you're pretty much right. Speaking of which, I hope you'll consider coming to the Ozmopolitan next June. It's not too far for you (southern Wisconsin) and I'm sure you'd enjoy it. >Another thing about some of the Oz books that bothers me somewhat is that >all these numerous kids who end up there in one way or another have no >difficulty at all in choosing to be with their loved ones back in the >Outside World as opposed to staying in Oz and living forever. It always bothered me, too. I had a reasonably happy home life as a child - not idyllic, but pretty good - and I certainly loved my mother and brother and some of my other relatives, but if I'd been given the choice of staying in Oz (had I ever gotten there in the first place) I don't think I'd have had to think too hard about it. I'd certainly want to get the word back to my relatives if I could, and bringing them to Oz as well would have been even better, but even when I was a kid I could easily rate living forever higher than any family ties. Now it would be more painful - I love my wife more than I ever loved anyone back then - but at this point I know that I'll be fortunate to have another 20 years with her, and extremly fortunate to have much more; that's a modest amount of time to give up for living forever. Ruth: >David Hulan: You're right that it would be odd to accept destruction as >preferable to the pain of getting pulled up by the roots, but probably >it's meant to be assumed that Trot and Cap'n Bill are thinking in terms >of "Surely you can find a less painful treatment?" That would be my interpretation of their initial reactions, certainly, but it wouldn't explain their farewells on the last page of chapter 18, where Cap'n Bill says, "I guess, friends, it's all up with us this time," and Trot, after a somewhat lachrymose speech, ends it with, "...I hope, Dorothy, that none of you in the Emerald City will forget me - or dear ol' Cap'n Bill." To me, this clearly says that they've decided that it's better to be destroyed than to have the roots cut off; otherwise they'd be saying, "Are you _sure_ that cutting off the roots is the only way you could save us?" Dave: >Come to think of it, why *doesn't* BoW do an edition of _Wishing Horse_? >It's PD... I'm speculating, and I'm sure Peter will correct me if I'm wrong, but...all the other late PD books (or ones where BoW is publishing editions authorized by the copyright holders, as in the case of the Neill books and MGR) were originally published in black and white only. This is considerably less expensive than publishing editions with color plates. Since _Wishing Horse_ was originally published with color plates, it would have been more costly, and that would have been considerably more of a financial gamble for BoW than publishing the other late books was. The first book with color plates that BoW published on its own (as opposed to co-publishing with Morrow) was, I believe, _Royal Book_. I know that was about the time that Morrow started participating in the distribution of ECP and BoW books, even if they didn't co-publish them, which improved the prospects of sales considerably. I wouldn't be surprised to see a BoW edition of _Wishing Horse_ appear in the near future, actually, especially since the remaining Thompson books aren't going to go PD for another 20 years now. But in any case, I'm reasonably sure it was an economic decision and will continue to be. >My theory has Oz's parallel-Earth having *three* moons -- Luna (same as >our Earth), Planetty's world, and the moon Mr. Tinker visited. Doesn't sound unreasonable, although I don't know of any evidence for it in the FF. David Hulan ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 3 Dec 98 09:36:42 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: ozzy digest J.L. Bell: Documenting that racism was both pervasive and severe in the US c. 1938 seems an unozzy sort of activity, but since the context is to show that the kinds of racism in Thompson's (and Baum's) Oz books were no worse than average (if anything, less bad than average), I'll throw in as a nation-wide example the color bar in professional baseball, firmly in place until 1947 (Jackie Robinson). David Godwin: It may not be especially odd to suppose that children could easily decide to leave Oz and immortality in favor of home and family. Even being grownup (and dying all the more so) seems so far away, that it's all but eternity anyway. Giving up loved ones, in contrast, would be painful right away. As to whether a grown-up Peter or Zeb would be regretting the choice at the approach of death well, they might, but if they had found friends and got married and had children in the mortal world, they might well not have much in the way of regrets over coming home. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 03 Dec 98 10:27:42 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things CONVENTION 2000: Believe me, Jane, no one would like to present something at the centennial more than I, whether it's "Is Romance Ozzy?" or "A Salute to Jellia Jamb"; but for me it's a matter of "How the hippikaloric am I going to scrape up the $$$ to get up there???" SCANDALS IN OZ: David G. wrote: >After all, what kind of a guy >would send a little girl into almost certain death just to get her out of >his hair - er, get her to quit bothering him? I stand by my theory that the Wizard thought that on hearing his request to kill the witch, Dorothy &c. would just give up. He never believed they'd actually attempt it and risk their lives. His big crime here is severely underestimating human will. >Then there's the shady >business in _Land_, which LFB and then RPT ended up having to explain away >and reinterpret. Now all of a sudden in DotWiz, here he is Mr. Nice Guy. >There are depths to this man's personality that have never been fully >explored, I tell you! Have you ever read _Oz and the Three Witches_? In spite of the title, it's really about the Wizard and his motivations regarding "Ozmagate". >Ozma no doubt knew that the tunnel would not >_stay_ filled, but neglected to publicize the fact for obvious reasons. The question is, is this impeachable or should the Fairy-Congress merely censure her? :) TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: Chris wrote: >Also, Ozma seems to accumulate quite a lot of magic throughout the series, >does anyone have a theory as to why she never uses any of it? I asked Ozma, and she says that if she solved every problem in Oz with "a whispered command to the Magic Belt", everyone would then be dependant on her and would not learn to think for themselves...Also, she recognizes that if she solved every problem in Oz in two seconds, then the Oz authors would be out of business. LOCASTA: Gehan wrote: >and if Ugu stole magic from the wizard and Glinda and Ozma,why didnt he >think of the adepts and the good witch of the north? He probably never heard of the Adepts, and if he did he may have known they were fish at that time and so had no power to resist him. And as for the GWN, perhaps he regarded Tattypoo as harmless (I speculate that her powers were far less than Locasta's). >and speaking of the good witch of the north(this one's for you Dave),does >Ruth mention about Locasta's banishment in -Giant horse-?.or does she admit >that the good witch of the north was princess Orin all along? The banishment was unknown until I became an Oz Historian...As far as the Oz Canon is concerned, Tattypoo is the one and only Good Witch of the North. Only in my Oz sub-universe does she make a comeback as Locasta. -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave **************************************************************************** Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://people.delphi.com/DaveH47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, DECEMBER 4 - 8, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== From: sahutchi@iupui.edu Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:26:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 12-03-98 Chris: Have you seen _Aysecik ve Sihirli Cuceler Ruyalar Ulkesinde_ [please excuse--this program can only type in standard ASCII]--one of the most accurate film versions, despite the lack of credit for Baum. Unfortunately, my tape is missing about 12 minutes. J.L.: In _Oz Squad_, Smith and Tinker faked their deaths and are discovered playing a chess game. They are confronted about a new plot device: the internal clockwork morality spring. 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 ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:55:50 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 12-03-98 Reform of a Wizard: Ah, the wonders of Oz cure all ills! Why Ozma doesn't use much magic: Commonsense. Self-restraint. Tact. (I know, I know: who exercises those any more? Well, Ozma would! Dr. N/Dr, P: When he fell down the gulf, he didn't really die, perhaps, and some of his old creations found him and told him he was their creator? Just an idea. New arrival: Hi, Rinny! Are you and Chris getting back on the Digest? (this is in reference to her posting asking for the Ozania story) Kids don't understand immortality: Ah, but the adutls who read Oz books do . . . Until another day, 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: Fri, 4 Dec 98 11:23:01 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: ozzy digest Lisa M. Mastroberte: You might want to consider replacing your artless Windmill edition of "Dorothy/Wizard" sometime with the Books of Wonder reprint. It includes the color plates as well as all the b&w art. Gehan Shiromal: Gayelette doesn't get mentioned again after "Wizard." It's possible that Baum meant readers to assume that she was the same person as the Good Witch of the North (the name Locasta never appears in an Oz book, but comes from the 1902 stageplay of the "Wizard"). Or perhaps he expected readers to assume that flying monkeys live much longer than humans (Baum didn't decide on deathlessness in Oz until later), and Gayelette had died. It's also possible that Gayelette's "north" country is the northern part of the Winkie country, rather than a Gillikin territory, and perhaps the Wicked Witch destroyed her or took away her powers -- or perhaps Gayelette went into hiding and is still around somewhere. Baum mentions the Good Witch in "Land" and "Dorothy/Wizard," and mentions her as marching in the birthday parade in "Road." After that, there's no mention until Thompson's "Giant Horse." There is no consensus on whether Dr. Nikidik/Dr. Pipt is one magician with two names (sequentially, changing one for the other, or maybe both together as a full name of Nikidik Pipt) or two one-named magicians, and whether the Powder of Life mentioned in various contexts is the work of one magician (possibly with variations in the recipe over time producing variations in how it worked) or the work of different magicians using somewhat different recipes. It's been pointed out that any magician using a recipe that demanded a production method like Dr. Pipt's would presumably wind up being a Crooked Magician. Tyler Jones: Clever censorship bit -- enjoyed. J.L. Bell: Ruggedo's shame at being turned into a goose who might lay eggs may have more to do with Nomes' fear of eggs than with fear of losing his own sex. // Amusing adaptation of phrase in calling the King of Ev "mad, bad, and dangerous to know." David Hulan: You're right, it does sound as if Trot and Cap'n Bill are resigned to death rather than going through the pain of being pulled up by the roots. Maybe they forget about the radical alternative at that point in the subconscious hope that more emotional pressure on the Wizard will stimulate him to a less painful solution. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 12:50:55 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Oz Return to the Outside World: At least two of RPT's protagonists, Peter (twice) and David Perry in _Enchanted Island_, wish to go back home from Oz perhaps not so much because of loved ones left behind as because they are prominent figures on amateur sports teams and "can't let the guys down." It's almost like they're saying, "What's immortality and living in Ozma's palace compared to next Thursday's game?" On the surface, this seems pretty silly. But I think the message here is that they really don't have a choice. If they were the sort of people who would betray the trust of fellowship (e.g., by not showing up for the Big Game), then they would not be qualified to live in Oz. Brother/sisterhood and the bonds of fellowship used to be a lot more important to people than they are now (which may explain why the Freemasons are becoming extinct), and they certainly seem important in the EC. The Wizard: In reply to my comment that the Wizard was morally culpable to send Dorothy to her probable death in confronting the WWW, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: >I stand by my theory that the Wizard thought that on hearing his >request to kill the witch, Dorothy &c. would just give up. He never >believed they'd actually attempt it and risk their lives. OTOH, giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions, wasn't it a bit callous? Here's this six-year-old (?) kid wanting to get home and missing her beloved aunt and uncle, she's invested all her hopes in the Wizard, and now he crushes her entirely by telling her, in effect, "Ah, go play on the freeway, whippersnapper." Doesn't he consider what it will do to his reputation to have this little kid wandering around whining and crying because "Oz wouldn't send me home"? Except that Dorothy, being Dorothy, doesn't crush so easily. But he could have referred her to Glinda in the first place, thus passing the buck and getting rid of Dorothy & friends at least for a while, if not permanently (assuming that Glinda succeeded). Was he really that chary about admitting that his power had limitations? As for Glinda, assuming that she had the GBR at this period (and _Land_ seems to imply that she did), she must have known all along that Oscar was a humbug, yet she kept quiet about it (perhaps to help keep the wicked witches in line). She likewise must have known all along that Dorothy could get home anytime she wanted - yet she let the kid risk her life against the WWW, the fighting trees, the Hammerheads, etc. What was she thinking of? Was she trying to _mold character_ or something? And now these two, Glinda and the Wizard, are two of the only three people in Oz allowed to practice magic! Perhaps this has all already been dealt with by somebody (as in _Oz and the Three Witches_, which I haven't read). Otherwise, perhaps somebody could write _Ken Starr in Oz_. Startling Revelations: Until I read RPT's _Enchanted Island_ recently, I had assumed that the Startling Revelation was a phenomenon pecular to the books written by JRN. An SR, or "Neillism," can be defined as something introduced rather late in the series but which in the normal course of events we would have known about all along. An example would be that Jack Pumpkinhead was enslaved by Mombi for seven years (or thought he had been). Another would be that all the rivers in Oz had been rolled up. Imagine my surprise when reading the RPT book to find thatŠ *****SPOILER**** Nick Chopper's castle is adjacent to the "Tin Canyon," and apparently the canyon must be crossed to get from his castle to the EC, that citizens of Oz normally carry a "jumping stick," and that Nick has pockets! *****END SPOILER**** Since all the other RPT Oz books are more or less free of this sort of thing, I can only explain it by saying that _Enchanted Island_ was not originally written as an Oz book. - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:42:04 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Ozzy Feeling Dave H: I have only now discovered the controvery about _That Ozzy Feeling_ and have read your defense of the book on your web page. Of course, I have to offer my two cents worth. I don't know if this particular wrinkle has been explored, but I don't see any reference to it in your defense. Personally, my first reaction to the concept of Ozma getting married was to think of the folklore that a fairy who marries a mortal becomes mortal also - but it ain't necessarily so. As you say, this lore is not confirmed anywhere in the FF, although it is a tradition of long standing as opposed to a modern invention. Your defense seems more or less to say that Gilbert and Sullivan felt free to ignore this tradition, so you do too. However, upon reflection, I would like to offer a more substantial defense that does not rely on this "is too" "is not" "is too" argument. In the literature, the fairy becomes mortal only if she (it's always a she in these tales) marries the man in a Christian church and becomes at least a nominal Christian herself. The unstated theory seems to be that, if she accepts Christ and the sacrifice of Christ, then she has to accept mortality as part of the deal; otherwise the Crucifixion was for nothing. However, if the mortal man enters fairyland and the wedding takes place there (presumably according to pagan rites), then, so far from the fairy becoming mortal, the man becomes immortal - as is indeed the case in Oz, with or without marriage. Don't you feel that, regardless of the reasoning put forward, many of the objections to a love interest for Ozma arise from simple jealousy, the same unreasonable and crazy phenonenon as when young fans suffer heartache (and hatred of the Other person) when a popular movie star or rock star gets married? - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:39:10 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: oz news Munchkin recreates role in 'Wizard of Oz' LANCASTER, N.Y. (AP) - Margaret Pelligrini, one of the original munchkins in "The Wizard of Oz," is on the yellow brick road again, recreating her role for a stage production of the 60-year-old classic film. "I'm going back to Munchkinland. That's going to be real exciting to play the part I played 60 years ago. Oh, it's going to be wonderful," the 75-year-old said Thursday before a rehearsal at the Lancaster Opera House. She will perform in more than a week of shows beginning Firday. Though she has revived the role countless times over the years, the energetic actress took nothing for granted for this production, double checking her cues with director Thomas Kazmierczak and admitting to a few jitters. ### ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 00:17:59 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: oz on the bbc welll bbc1 is showing the oz cartoon now 7:40am The Wizard of Oz The Lion that Squeaked Animated magic from the land of Oz. The tricky Hyena, aided by the Wicked Witch, captures the Lion's roar ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 14:25:41 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: MAGIC OF OZ and reality MAGIC comments first this time. Thinking back to Ruth Berman's and David Hulan's comments about the Lonesome Duck, I was struck by how little Baum anthropomorphizes it [and I believe Baum does refer to the Duck consistently as "it"]. That increases its isolation from the book's heroines and readers. Baum's usual magic-working animals--King Dox, the fairy beavers, the Lavender Bear, and so on--wear at least some clothing, walk upright, and carry tools. Often their magic involves wands and human speech. The Lonesome Duck, in contrast, grows toadstools by "waddling" and "quacky muttering" [180-1]. It carried the diamonds for its palace "in my bill" [204]. It walks like a duck, it talks like a duck--it's a duck. A few weeks ago we were discussing what sort of creatures the island of the Magic Flower captured. Because the Lonesome Duck wasn't rooted there, and because Trot and Cap'n Bill quickly flew away as bees, David Hulan theorized that the Isle caught mammals but not birds and insects. During this reading I therefore kept an eye out for clues on that one way or the other. Unfortunately, MAGIC's statements about the Isle are shifty. To start with, the Glass Cat first describes it "in the north of the Munchkin Country" [62], but she leads Trot and Cap'n into Gillikin land [102]. The Cowardly Lion knows stories "about the Isle and how the Magic Flower was placed there to entrap strangers--men or beasts. . . . if any living thing ventures upon the Magic Isle,...that man or beast takes root in the soil" [198-9]. Cap'n Bill decides, "it's only flesh that gets caught" on the island [118]; "It's only a thing made of meat--like man an' beasts--that the magic can hold an' root to the ground" [222]. Thus, on the one hand we have "any living thing" and all "flesh," but on the other the repeated phrase "man and beasts." Does that term "beasts" exclude birds and insects? The Lonesome Duck complains, "Beasts and men are terribly clumsy" [202], but it feels just as sour about fellow birds as about mammals. Ruggedo says, "Let us mix the shapes of several beasts," and includes eagles among those [84-5]. Yet there are no birds among the "beasts" assembled in the Forest of Gugu [122]. Just as Baum uses "people" elastically in this book, the definition of "beasts" seems fuzzy. On top of that ambiguity, the Lion is passing on a legend and Cap'n Bill is working with limited evidence--neither authoritative statements. We do see the Lonesome Duck walk around the Isle with no problem. But we also know that bird uses magical powers "for my own needs" [180]. Therefore, I don't think its freedom on the island necessarily extends to other birds. In the end, however, I came away thinking that the birds/mammals issue isn't the key to Trot and Cap'n Bill's escape. Nor does their release involve a theory I put forward before--that *pyrzqxgl* changes people around their center of mass or their brains, so the bees started a coupla feet off the island. Rather, the crucial variable is how long one touches the Isle. At first Trot "ran up the bank"; only when the Flower's beauty makes her stand still does she take root [113]. The Wizard, wise in the ways of magic, quickly assumes that time matters: he suggests his axe "will chop those roots from your feet and you can run to the raft before they grow again" [214]. Thus, when the Wizard uses *pyrzqxgl* to transform Trot and Cap'n Bill (whose bodies now include their roots), "up from the place where they had been flew two bumble-bees" [219]. Given shapes with no roots and the ability to fly, they quickly stopped touching the Isle, and were thus free. Jane wrote: <> The "Life in the Land of Oz" panel struck me as the toughest to assemble. All the other areas have more solid moorings for discussion: they're rooted in either facts or, in the case of literary criticism, generally accepted methods. "Life in the Land of Oz" has to run a gauntlet between old news (statements from the books, which most folks have read) and pet theories (which defy conclusive study). Making that discussion interesting and authoritative might demand the sort of exhaustive analysis of canonical details that Melody Grandy did in her study of Ozma's palace and grounds. Gehan wrote: <> Locasta, as Dave Hardenbrook has said, is largely his creation; in the Baum/Thompson canon, the Good Witch of the North is Tattypoo, and she never really ruled the Gillikin Country the way the three other witches in WIZARD controlled their territories. Gayelette never reappears after WIZARD in the series, though she's a character in some non-canonical Oz books--most prominently, Roger S. Baum's stiff DOROTHY IN OZ. We know little about her: WIZARD doesn't tell us the extent of her realm, and we don't know if she and Quelala are still alive when Dorothy arrives in Oz. I imagine, based on her headstrong personality and her choice of a ruby castle in the Gillikin Country, that Gayelette's still living there with her chosen husband and still a sorceress, quietly defying Gillikin customs and Ozma's laws. Tyler Jones wrote: <> And David Hulan wrote: <> As I recall, Baum never said explicitly that Dorothy has two ears. But in the absence of a statement otherwise, readers should assume she does. Similarly, Baum would have said that Oz isn't part of our physical universe if he'd wanted his young audience to make a leap beyond the world where he starts his stories. As I've pointed out before, a crucial part of Baum's inspiration was that his Oz stories don't take place "once upon a time" in the Old World or in a dream, as most earlier fairy tales did; they tell readers that Oz is part of the same world as electric lights and mortgages and radios and Philadelphia. That quality *is* "necessary to his stories"--not to their events, but to their literary originality and appeal. The crucial yardstick of what Baum meant to convey is verisimilitude for his original audience: turn-of-the-century children. They knew--indeed, we still know--that big storms do move small houses. That people go up in balloons and come down elsewhere. That shipwrecks leave people on foreign shores. And though we now know it's impossible for large objects to be swallowed by earthquake fissures and funnel-like whirlpools, those were considered natural phenomena in the early 1900s. By choosing such events as the route to his fairyland, in place of dreams and fairy visitations, Baum let his readers believe such journeys could happen within the world they knew. Some of Baum's representations are indeed "inconsistent with...our physical universe" as we now understand it. But only if we believe our understanding is complete does an extra-physical shift become necessary. Baum never said storms or earthquakes of the types that bring his heroines to Oz are common phenomena--they're indeed "very rare." But over and over he tells us there are things in our world we don't know about and can't see, that we have much more to discover. To conclude that because we haven't located Oz on the globe, even with satellite mapping, it must therefore not be on this Earth is to disregard that part of Baum's message. Stories earn their readers' suspension of disbelief through verisimilitude and entertainment. To break off that suspension, study the details, and demand more scientific consistency not only distorts the relationship through which authors and readers create a reality; it also creates demands that no fiction can withstand. Not Conan Doyle (there was no 21B Baker Street in London), not Fitzgerald (the army has no record of a Jay Gatsby), not the most autobiographical novelist on the planet. What happens when we apply to other books the same standards that would force Oz into another dimension? Six years before WIZARD appeared, Mark Twain wrote a story about a round-the-world balloon voyage: TOM SAWYER ABROAD. In that novel Tom, Huck, and Jim never enter a fairyland, but they do fly across the eastern U.S., the Atlantic, Africa, and beyond. If the Wizard's unprecedented balloon flights mean readers should infer he left our dimension, then by the same logic Twain was saying TOM SAWYER ABROAD didn't take place on our globe. And, since that book's a sequel to HUCK FINN, we'd have to further conclude that a top contender for the Great American Novel was never meant to be read as taking place in America. Robin Olderman wrote: <> I think Thompson's most successful characters are those who embody some irreconcilable contradiction that outlasts the conclusion of their books. Kabumpo isn't merely a curmudgeon, like Grumpy; he's curmudgeonly because his sense of righteousness keeps propelling him into situations that injure his equally elephantine sense of dignity. Jinnicky's a powerful wizard with the moods of a four-year-old. Samuel Salt is a naturalist who comes across as a buccaneer. And Sir Hokus was a knight who'd outlived his time; once he returned to Corumbia and youthful fitness, alas, he no longer faced that dilemma and faded from interest. Sometimes Thompson's happy endings wash out interesting contradictions in characters: Peg Amy, Notta Bit More, the Humpy/Pastoria pairing. Once these folks' needs are satisfied, they're no longer compelling; as Tolstoy argued, "All happy families are alike." (Of course, Thompson created plenty of other folks who were never rounded enough to hold our interest beyond the immediate crisis: Ozwald, Belfaygor, Percy Vere.) One character Thompson left in Ozma's palace whom I think has unexplored potential for fun is Benny, the Public Benefactor. On the one hand we see his granite gravitas, his sense that he should be doing something important and helpful; on the other, he's as ignorant as a newborn. And in thinking of her successful recurring characters, I realized, we've left out Pigasus. David Godwin wrote: <> The VW Beetle was conceived in 1933 at a meeting between Hitler and auto designer Ferdinand Porsche. By 1938 the dictator laid the cornerstone for an assembly plant designed as the world's largest. Versions of the civilian VW were used in North Africa and on the Russian front. So, yes, the original VW (called the "KdF" for the Nazi slogan "Strength through joy") was known when Neill wrote SCALAWAGONS. Neill wouldn't have needed overseas inspiration for his vehicles, however. Henry Ford had proclaimed the same goal of cars for the common man decades earlier; indeed, Ford was one of Porsche's heroes. A U of Chicago professor once coined the satirical term "ad Hitlerem" for the form of argument that says, "Hitler did it, so it must be bad." "It" could be gun control or gun training for kids, cheap cars or internment camps. Painting mediocre pictures didn't make Churchill into Hitler; erecting grandiose buildings doesn't do the same for the Wizard. But what about Ozma expelling gypsies from her country (in OJO)? Ruth Berman wrote: <> Yes, it's an un-Ozzy task and, I'd have thought, an unnecessary one. But we can never count out the selective failings of Richard Bauman's memory. He's desperate to believe he lived through a 1938 when there was no racial discrimination in, as you point out, professional sports. Or the US armed services. Or Hollywood movies. Or immigration law. Or laws governing marriage. Because discrimination in 1938 is undeniable, I didn't bother listing those examples and others. Alas, when general statements trouble Mr. Bauman, he yells that they contain no evidence. When evidence arrives to gnaw at him, he yells that it doesn't apply. And when folks prove he's wrong, he just yells, or goes underground for a couple of digests. [He never admits--have you noticed?--the tiniest mistake, no matter how obvious or inconsequential.] In an earlier digest I invited Mr. Bauman to offer any facts at all to refute my statement about 1938. He sent me an e-mail which said, in toto: <> So again he's ducked out of backing up his beliefs, with his usual lack of evidence, accuracy, and courtesy. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 18:04:34 -0800 From: Steve Teller Subject: Oz The current issue of MAD Magazine (December 1998, Number 376) contains a four page article "THE WIZARD OF OZ in a Chat Room." MAD issues with OZ articles have a tendency to become collectors' pieces, so I recommend anyone interested go to the store and get a copy (or two, one to read and one to keep in Mint condition to sell in fifty years). Steve T. ====================================================================== From: Ozisus@aol.com Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 22:15:36 EST "W. R. Wright" Subject: Fwd: EMERGENCY - New OZ Webcast Site -------------------------- Date: Sat, 05 Dec 98 17:45:52 PST From: Scott Essman Subject: EMERGENCY - New OZ Webcast Site wizardoz@westol.com, dgomes2478@aol.com EMERGENCY - Update! I have been having trouble getting onto STEINONLINE (my AOL browser is telling me that the address has been moved), SO... Please direct your readers and OZ enthusiasts to www.broadcast.com instead. Again, this is for Sat, Dec 12 at 10AM Pacific Time. Sorry about the confusion! See (hear) you at the TRIBUTE TO THE WIZARD OF OZ with Eliot Stein as host! Call in your questions as you'd like! --- Scott Essman (sessman@ibm.mtsac.edu) ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 22:23:01 -0500 From: Jill Moore Subject: Oz Shopping Hi and Merry Christmas! If you're looking for that perfect Oz gift for someone, visit my favorite Oz place, www.anniems.com where you can find anything Ozzy that you're looking for, and maybe even something you're not looking for! I'm looking forward to receiving a shipment of the Ozware Character Mugs, and they are so beautiful and well made! And the price couldn't be beat! Ann is a very nice lady to work with, and she accepts charge cards, so check it out and have fun!!! Also, she has a lot of items that are not on her website so if you don't see something you want be sure and ask! Happy Oz Shopping and Happy Holidays to all!!! Your friend in Oz always ~~~ Jill ====================================================================== Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 23:18:24 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz Chris Straughn: This topic has been discussed before on the Digest, and here it is again. :-) Yes, The Ozzites have ammased quit a bit of magical firepower over the years. Why does most of it sit unused? Looking at Oz-as-Literature and Oz-as-history, I can think of three reasons. 1. If all of Ozma's magical power was used to it's full extent, most of the stories would be over with before they begin. This is a catch-22 for critics like me. I moan about how much magic they have, yet when they don't use it, I get upset that they're not being rational. Nevertheless, the story needs to be fun and (somewhat) suspenseful, since we all know they'll win out in the end, but we want to read an exciting story about it, not have Ozma fly in with her magic belt and solve all problems in an instant (although this happens quite often). 2. By the time that Ozma's powers are almost infinite, there are quite a few characters in the Ozzy sacred circle, and there are a number of locales that they are always travelling back and forth from. If Dorothy were to have an adventure and get stuck, it may be nearly a week before Ozma notices that she's not there. Hence, lots of time for Dorothy to solve her own problem. 3. We have also speculated that Ozma wants her subjects to have fun on their own and take care of themselves. Therefore, she may watch them in their adventures, but not step in until it becomes absolutely necessary. Another chance for people to get out of their own situations. Gehan: A Buckethead book about Gaylette was written once, but I can't remember what it was about. Actually, Mombi ruled the Gilikins before the Good Witch of the North, after Pastoria was deposed. As to who ruled the north country before that, there is no real evidence that anybody did. In modern times, each quadrant has their own ruler, but this was not necessarily the case in the old days. Evidence shows that the Winkie country was split up two ways back then and the Munchkin Country was split up THREE ways. It's also been theorized that Gil of Gilkenny was the ruler of the north, but I don't believe that the Gilikins had an overall ruler prior to Mombi. MOPPeT is that up to the time that Pastoria took the throne, each small community ruled themselves and that there was no layer of government between them and the Big Guy. I'll leave the rest of your question for Dave, except to say that the Good Witch of the North made a brief appearance in _Road_. Your comment that the Tin Woodman told Shaggy the story of Ozma and Tip before _Patchwork Girl_ is interesting. I poked around, but could not find it. Could you be a little more specific and tell me in what book (and what chapter) this discussion takes place? You may have missed the DIgest a few weeks ago, because the powder of life was discussed pretty throughly at that time. I'll sum up. At this time, most of us believe that Pipt and Nikidik were separate people, who may have traded with each other. The most likely scenario is that Mombi got some powder from Pipt, and put it in the box that contained Nikidik's wishing pills. The differences in application of the powder could be due to progressive refinements in the process or different magic-workers making the stuff. In _Land_, the incantation is needed. Dyna needs only a wish. In _Patchwork Girl_, nothing extra is needed. Scott: I remember the feeling well. Oz will still be here when you graduate (although it may be hard to find some titles by then). In the meantime, read "Plato's Republic" and "War and Peace" over the weekend and write a 20-page report on each. :-) Rinny: The story is called _The Forbidden Cave of Grapelandia_. Let me know in a couple of days if nobody sends you a plot summary, and I'll give you one. Dave: If you could get to Phoenix on your own, we could carpool over there and back for Oz 2000. Be warned: I intend to take an extrememly "scenic" route there and back, since I want to add several states to my list of ones that I have alread visited. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== From: shiromal@eureka.lk Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 18:49:23 +1100 Subject: Oz books Here are a fewpoints i find rather un-fit in the Oz books: 1.The shimmering emeralds only dazed Dorothy and her friends in the Wizard of Oz and never anyone else.(Dorothy's friends were dazzled even after wearing glasses,but other folk (such as Jinjur,Ojo and Ozma's party guests)were not.And they didnt wear glasses.) 2.Tinman says Nimie Amee lived with an old woman who promised the witch of the east two sheep and one cow if she stopped the marriage,since she was lazy and didnt want the girl to marry.But he tells Woot,that she lived with the witch herself,and that he even told her to stop interfiering in their affair. 3.Polychrome has existed for thousands of years and she has only got lost thrice.(Once in 1908,1914 and in 1918).Notice how close all these years are.It was between those years that she ever got lost. And she admits in-road-that that was the first time she got lost. 4.Someone must have seen the Tin soldire standing in the forest.Specailly Dorothy since she was walking that way.He's been standing still in the forest for over two decades.Surely!Someone must have seen him! 5.From where did princess Langwidere get her heads? 6.The cowardly lion seems to be more scared than he has ever been in any of the books in-lost princess-.Even more than in the Wizard of oz. 7.I think Nimee-Amee is terribly wicked.She says she'll have a happy time if she marries tinman because tinman isnt like other husbands.(No loosing temper,no need to cook,she says)She's happy to see tinman and tinsoldire leave,which shows that she doesnt love them in the least.she's been wicked to chopfyt.I'd give her a good telling off if I were tinman.Really,I think she's worse than all the wicked witches put together. --Gehan ====================================================================== From: shiromal@eureka.lk Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 18:49:25 +1100 Subject: Toto You know,if it hadnt been for Toto,none of the ozzy adventures would have taken place.Dorothy went in search of Toto,which was why she couldnt get into the storm-cellar.I mean,if Toto didnt get lost,she wouldnt have looked for him, and she would have gone into the cellar, and been safe,and not been blown away to Oz.And if not,the Wizard would still not have been exposed as a humbug.Tip would have runaway all right,but he wouldnt have met scarecrow or tinman ,who helped him to discover his true identity.In that case,Ozma may still not be discovered. But just suppose Dorothy was ship-wrecked and taken to the Land of Ev later.She would be still locked up in princess Langwidere's dungeon. Betsy would have been put to death in the rose kingdom. And King Krewl may have put Trot and Cap'n Bill to death too. Tinman may still be rusted in the forest.And Tinsoldire too. The nome king may still hold the Royal family of Ev prisoners. So I beleive,it was Toto,who was the real hero of the story. --Gehan ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 08 Dec 98 12:29:03 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things POWDER OF LIFE: Gehan wrote: >and speaking about the -powder of life-.Dyna accidently spills some of it on >her bear and says:"i wish you were alive",and her wish is granted.but how >could this happen if she has to say the magic words:"weah!Teah!peah!"?. As I've said in the past, I speculate that the "Weah! Teah! Peah!" was only required for Powder of Life 3.1 -- Powder of Life 95 works instantly. Audah: Powder of Life 98 has a major bug that causes it to make things only "undead" (Time to call Buffy!)... Aurah: BTW, if only Glinda, Ozma, and Wizard can practice magic, then does that mean we're wanted by the police??? CHRIS AND RINNY: Jeremy wrote: >Hi, Rinny! Are you and Chris getting back on the Digest? No. CHARLIE BROWN IN OZ: Ozma: Now that your adventures are at an end, would you like me to send you home now? I heard you say you had a "Big Game" coming up? Charlie Brown: No, I want to stay in Oz forever! As Lucy always says to me, I can't let my team down by showing up! MY PAGE: I just wanted to let everyone know that my web page has now officially moved to: http://www.mindspring.net/~daveh47/home.html I also now have a new version of the Ozzy Digest FAQ up. Here are the major revisions: -- My E-mail links now correctly point to my new Mindspring address -- Section 2.11 now gives the correct E-mails for Books of Wonder and Tails of the Cowardly Lion and Friends -- The links to Tyler's and Chris Dulabone's pages are now correct. -- There is now a link (In section 4.2) to Aaron's "Historically Inaccurate/Rejected Chronology Chain". -- Section 4.3, which discussed "Bastinda" and "Gingemma" has now been generalized to "Do the Witches of Oz have names?" -- Dave ====================================================================== -- Dave Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://www.mindspring.net/~daveh47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, DECEMBER 9 - 10, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:01:22 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Subject: oz news update CAST: Munchkin Margaret Pelligrini, 75, one of the original small people in "The Wizard of Oz," to recreate her role for a stage production of the classic film at the Lancaster (PA) Opera House. Pelligrini is being joined by two of her movie co-stars, Karl Slover, a munchkin trumpeter, and Jerry Maren, a Lollipop Kid. ====================================================================== From: Ozmama@aol.com Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 19:57:42 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 12-08-98 John Bell wrote: <> MopPet on that is that these characters survive one or two books because they satisfy a kind of wish fulfillment for the reader who identifies with them. Kabumpo gets away with being cranky. He does precisely what he wants to do most of the time and gets away with that, too. He's big and strong and darned near fearless. He is beloved. Jinnicky has lots of power and can afford to exercise his sense of whimsy and capriciousness. He is also beloved. Sam'l gets to wander in and out of the world (I presume he can sail our seas, since Polacky could) and has the adventures of a pirate with all the derring-do and none of the nastiness, although he does successfully face deliciously exciting danger...as do all of these characters. Sir Hokus was a knight with all the Arthurian romance attached to that image, albeit he is not young and handsome. He comes across, as do the others, as a father type who helps and protects but who also needs help from the child figure(s) he shelters. That's irresistible to a kid. Kabumpo qualifies here in a similar way, since the child reader often knows his/her own judgment is better than Kabumpo's. It's no trick at all for a juvenile reader to both identify with and feel superior to a character, and I think that's what we find here with these particularly attractive Ozzies. Oh, Pigasus has the freedom of flight and many Kabumpan (Oy, what an adjective!) attributes. --Robin ====================================================================== From: Ozmama@aol.com Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 20:18:24 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 12-08-98:"SPAM" I know there's been some discussion about Spamming on the _Digest_. In general, I see nothing wrong with a fast notice about the availability of an Ozzy item, etc., but I'm having a bit of trouble with this kind of post: "Hi and Merry Christmas! If you're looking for that perfect Oz gift for someone, visit my favorite Oz place...." While I'm sure that the url provided will lead to a legitimately Ozzy site, and I'm dead-on certain that the poster is a terrific person, I can't help but feel that this post is an ad, pure and simple. Thus, it's spam. I'd like to see even more discussion on what is and what is not spam, please. Where do you feel the _Digest_ should draw the line? I have lots more to say about this, but I'd rather listen to y'all first.--R. ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 22:11:59 -0500 From: Tyler Jones Subject: Oz David Godwin: It has also been theorized that the Wizard recognized the Silver Shoes on Dorothy's feet and figured that the Wicked Witch could not hurt her. At best they would have a standoff. As for the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman and the Cowardly Lion, the Wizard may not have cared about their fates. At that time in Oz history, the idea of odd celebrities and animals as equals may not have been as important as it is now. Glinda may not have known about Dorothy's mission to kill the Witch. The Record book has shown itself to be remarkably random and inconsistent about the information it gives. Concerning Dorothy's mission, it could have said "Dorothy went to the Emerald City. Is interested in magic". This is a slight spoiler, but _Oz and the Three Witches_ dealt primarily with the Wizard and his dealings with the Wicked Witches and Ozma, and didn't have anything to do with Dorothy. John Bell: I'll concede that in Oz-as-literature, Oz probably was meant to be in our world. From an Oz-as-History perspective, though, you're assuming that Baum fully understood the nature of Oz. He may not have understood the mechanics of space-time, nor would Dorothy. As far as they may have known, Dorothy never left this world. Tyler Jones ====================================================================== From: shiromal@eureka.lk Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 12:49:13 +1100 Subject: Re:Ozzy facts and questions Tyler:Look in chapter 17 in-Road-(The Royal Chariot Arrives).Tinman tells Shaggy man all about Tip's adventures and the magic powder of life,and it was certainly a better explanation than what Ozma gave in-Patchwork girl-.But the question is,Tinman told Shaggy the story,and he claims never to have heard of it in-patchwork girl-. Dave Godwin-Well,the Wizard may have been dead scared of being exposed as a humbug,and so he hoped that Dorothy would just give up.Besides,he may have thought ,she'd have a very happy life in Oz,even though she told him:"I dont like your country,even though it's beautiful."And as for Glinda,it's very unlikely that she had the GBR before.For she admits that she had spies ,in-Land-.Still,even if she had the GBR ,she may have waited untill the correct time.(I mean,the wizard was proclaimed king of Oz,and it's one's custom to obey and serve the king.She may have waited untill the correct time came,so that the wizard may be exposed,but without upseting any of his subjects.After all,he crowned Scarecrow king and then left,without dissapointing his subjects,or creating comotion).And Glinda may have known that Dorothy was a brave,clever girl,and was intellegent.She may have known that she had the kiss of the GWN as well,and that nothing could harm her.Also,as in the movie,she may have wanted Dorothy to realise that there is no place like home. And besides,I think the WWW had the least power out of the witches.She is afraid of the dark,alergic to water,scared of the cowardly lion,and doesnt seem to have any super-natural powers,or magical creations.The WWE had more power,it seems to me,and so did Mombi.(I think she is much weaker than Singra or Blinkie or Coo-ee-eh). --Gehan R.C.A ====================================================================== From: "Jeremy Steadman" Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 18:15:04 EST Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 12-08-98 Use of magic: To me it's far easier, rather than explain why magic isn't used (and rather than not explaining at all), to explain how magic stops working altogether. I've used that in both of my completed Oz books, both the one that is published and the one that's unpublished. Cheating, perhaps? Well, it works! Melody's page: I realize that she is no longer keeping up her page, and I must have seen it in the past, but when I looked at it just then, I remarked how similar it is to a Zork story, or any of Infocom's computer games. Does anyone know what I mean? 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: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 09:45:33 -0500 From: Lisa Mastroberte X-Accept-Language: en Subject: Ozzy Digest What happens to a person who dies in Oz? I know the Wicked Witch of the East was so old she turned to dust, but Baum said in TIN WOODMAN, IIRC, that *nobody* can die. Leo in Oz??? Is it true that Leoardo DiCaprio is going to play Prince Pompa in a new version of KABUMPO? Ack! Off2Oz, Lisa ----------------------- "No-one is born with any kind of 'talent', and therefore, every skill must be acquired." -Ayn Rand ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 9 Dec 98 11:11:25 CST From: "Ruth Berman" Subject: ozzy digest David Godwin: Interesting comment on loyalty to (even small) obligations to friends as both a way to show characters are worthy to stay in Oz and to stop them from choosing to. // You're right in thinking that RPT's "Enchanted Island" started out as a non-Oz story. Mark Anthony Donajkowski: Must be an odd feeling to go back to Munchkinland after so many years. It seems odd that no one has tracked down any of the extras who played residents of the Emerald City -- seems likely enough that some are still around. But perhaps the Munchkins have been easier to locate because there's a network of communication among little people that isn't there for film-extras in general. J.L. Bell: Interesting comment on the Lonesome Duck's duckishness. Jill Moore: Your comment on the general availability of Oz doodads reminds me of John Lahr's comment in his recent "New Yorker" article about his father that in some moods he objects to the commercialization, but in other moods he finds it comforting to be able to see his father around all the time. Gehan Shiromal: Interesting set of questions-for-comment. On why the dazzling emeralds dazzled Dorothy & co. in "Wizard" and not others (and sunglassless) later -- could be several variables at work, including suggestibility in observer, brightness/cloudiness of weather, janitorial schedule for emerald-polishing. The discrepancies between the Tin Woodman's accounts of Nimmee Aimee's employer -- I commented on that when "Tin Woodman" was topic of discussion in October, and suggested that Nick might originally not have known that the employer was the same person as the Witch (the detailed report about their deal might have been guessworking gossip, or the Witch might even have been maintaining a Secret Identity (possibly to spy on her subjects), and Nick might have found out later about it. Polychrome's quick succession of times to get lost seems fairly plausible as is, because she discovered the first time it happened that it's kind of fun. (It's possible also that she hadn't been rainbow- dancing all that long before the first time she got stranded -- there may be other stages of life to being a Rainbow's Daughter.) The Tin Soldier -- you meant Tin Woodman, I think. As to why other travelers before Dorothy didn't notice him in his rusted state -- perhaps the angles from which he was visible were so small that the chance of being spotted were small, too. Or perhaps the other travelers were all Munchkins who knew or guessed that the Witch was responsible and were afraid of getting in trouble themselves if they did anything. Langwidere's source of heads came up for discussion when "Ozma" was the focus book. I suggested that she might have started with artificial heads (such as those used in for the "Magical Monarch" in Mo or for Fumbo in RPT's "Grampa") and pressured people to accept trades. Wickedness of Nimmie Aimee to Chopfyte -- she bosses him around a lot, but before deciding that that's more wicked than the Wicked Witches or even wicked at all, you'd probably need to ask Chopfyte for an opinion. He doesn't seem to mind it. Dave Hardenbrook: Enjoyed the version of Charlie Brown's choice re: loyalty to the team compared to staying in Oz. Isn't it about time to set a day to start "Glinda" discussion? "Magic" comments seem to be winding down. Ruth Berman ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:45:58 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Anthony Donajkowski Cc: Tracy Dusenbury Subject: OZ TREATS VITAFORT subsidiary HOLLYWOOD PARTNERS has begun shipping its THE WIZARD OF OZ brand marshmallows to South East retail chain HARRIS TEETER. Gradually spreading across the country, these OZ marshmallows are the first of four WB-related products in HOLLYWOOD's AVENUE OF THE STARS brand, with packaging featuring the likenesses of Dorothy, The Scarecrow, The Cowardly Lion, The Tin Man, and Toto, and flavored marshmallows in the shapes of twisters and rainbows and such. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:29:43 -0600 From: d.godwin@minn.net (David Frank Godwin) Subject: Toto & fish in Oz Gehan wrote: >You know,if it hadnt been for Toto,none of the ozzy adventures would have >taken place.Dorothy went in search of Toto,which was why she couldnt get >into the storm-cellar In my post of 10/7, I mentioned this along with the fact that Toto caused Dorothy to miss her balloon flight (thus forcing her to rely on her own resources, which turned out to be the silver shoes) and exposed the wizard by tipping over a screen (or pulling back a curtain, in the movie). He is also responsible for Dorothy and friends coming to an understanding with the Cowardly Lion, because his cowardice was revealed only when Dorothy smacked him for attacking Toto. Bearing in mind that Toto could talk during all this yet chose not to, there's a lot more to this dog than meets the eye. If Neill's illustrations are to be trusted, he also did a certain amount of shapeshifting from breed to breed between one book and another. I've always thought of him as a cairn terrier, but in _Road_ he looks more like a boxer or something. Dave H: Loved your bit about Charlie Brown in Oz. Having more or less supported you in re _That Ozzy Feeling_, now I will traitorously whirl on you and make the point that there are strong and perhaps even legitimate feminist objections to Ozma having a love interest. As several people have pointed out, LFB envisioned Oz as a matriarchy ruled by Ozma and Glinda (and Princess Dorothy), with the Wizard having a minor assistant's role. Getting the girls involved with suitors dilutes the purity of their feminine power. You seem to be saying that no woman is complete without a man. This is incredibly chauvinist and flies in the face of the feminist doctrine that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." (However, if a fish ever did need a bicycle, it would be in Oz or the nearby Nonestic Ocean.) - David G. ====================================================================== Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:09:48 -0500 From: "J. L. Bell" Subject: MAGIC OF OZ and timing Of Thompson's heroes, David Godwin wrote: <> I've wondered, given the high jock quotient of Peter, Speedy, and David, what Ruth Plumly Thompson's own experience with competitive sports was. Was she a fervid athlete or sports fan herself, or was she trying to reflect what a "real boy" should be? About a previously unreported yet hard to miss detail about Oz, David Godwin wrote: <> The stitching does show where Thompson added David's visit to Nick Chopper to make ENCHANTED ISLAND an Oz book. Another seam is that as soon as David arrives at Rupert's castle he feels "more than embarrassed to be barefoot in the presence of royalty," yet he showed no such discomfort meeting the Emperor of the Winkies. David Godwin wrote: <> I also suspect Glinda had the Great Book of Records since the beginning of the series (other folks disagree). But I think the books show us three good reasons why Glinda didn't, and doesn't, intervene as much as some expect. 1) There are hints the Book's not as helpful as its hype would have us believe. The few entries we read are quite spare. Several times we see Glinda have to puzzle out meaning. The Wizard's command over technology and success in building his city and holding the witch(es) at bay may have cast doubt on whatever hints of humbuggery she'd read. I think Glinda's show of knowing everything (especially in LAND and EMERALD CITY) is largely true, but partly how she wants to present herself. 2) We know from SCARECROW that Glinda and Ozma are selective about when they intervene in injustices. They know about Krewl's reign of terror and the witches in Jinxland. Neither does anything about those problems, nor do they tell close associates like the Scarecrow and Dorothy, until Trot and her friends are in danger. 3) Oz is set up with most of the information-gathering and decision-making at the very top of society. There's probably too much data for even Ozma and Glinda to keep ahead of. The Book of Records' entries must pour over Glinda each day; there's no indication she has, or allows, any help in monitoring it. Seeing a useful fact and acting on it quickly, as in her intervention against the Oogaboo army, is probably an exceptional event, not the norm. Similarly, if Ozma were to ask the Magic Picture to show her every friend who might be lost and every potential trouble spot, she might never have a chance to do anything else. Gehan Shiromal pointed out seven contradictions or unanswered questions raised by the Oz books. My replies: 1. WIZARD, chap. 15, reveals the real reason for green glasses. I think the dazzlement in chap. 11 is psychological, not physical. 2. Yes. 3. Polychrome seems to grow up a lot between ROAD and her next appearance in SKY ISLAND. After TIN WOODMAN she probably grows out of getting lost. Polychrome is immortal, but does that mean she's always existed? In ROAD she describes herself as "the Rainbow's daughter." Not until SKY ISLAND and TIK-TOK does Baum tell us she has sisters (though Neill did picture them in the earlier book), so perhaps they were created after her, in which case she needn't be very old in ROAD. 4. Why wouldn't a quiet tin statue in a thick, Kalidah-infested forest be missed for many years? (Less than twenty, given that Nick says he stood rusted for one year.) 5. Don't ask. 6. In OZMA the Cowardly Lion assures Dorothy he's "as cowardly as ever." Without his cowardice, Baum must have realized, the Lion wouldn't be a very interesting character. 7. Nimmie Amee wicked? Not on a Wicked-Witch scale, surely. But just the sort of person we're happy to leave in a remote corner of Oz, yes. Turning to MAGIC, Ruth Berman wrote: <> I'm sure it does, and that fear of eggs makes Ruggedo's reaction to being transformed different from others'. It also means, unless he's amazingly ignorant of where eggs come from, that he's *also* become a female. Baum, old poultry expert that he was, well knew the difference between a goose and a gander. Still more MAGIC remarks: Bru the bear's name clearly derives from the word bruin. Rango comes from orang, a point underscored on page 188 when Baum has a character call, "O Rango!" [Like the multiple appearances of "O Ak!" in SANTA CLAUS.] Do folks see similar puns in the names of the other denizens of the Forest of Gugu: Loo [82], Chipo, Arx, Tirrip [87], Ebu, Peeker [184-5], and Gugu himself? I recall being intrigued by the gifts different folks were making for Ozma early in MAGIC, but on this reading I realized I'd missed a lot about those. The Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman continue their habit of thinking each is made of the best of all possible material [68-9]. The Scarecrow has ordered some "straw foot-decorations" (a long reach for a pun on "strawfoot"). The tin man has made "a lovely girdle set with beautiful tin nuggets." When I first read MAGIC in the early 1970s, I knew girdles only as undergarments, not belts, and I remember thinking, "Wouldn't Ozma hurt herself wearing that?" With a few more years under my girdle, I can also appreciate the mythic resonance of Glinda overseeing fifty young maidens weaving a gown made of emeralds [74]. In myths weaving and other fabric work are often associated with female power: Penelope in the ODYSSEY, the Fates, the princess in "Rumpelstiltsken." Finally, one comment about Trot's gift makes me suspect Button-Bright was away from the palace until shortly before Ozma's party. "Trot...allowed no one in her room to see the beautiful blossoms except her friends, Betsy Bobbin and Dorothy" [238]. I can't imagine Trot excluding Button-Bright from her room when she lets in Betsy. Neill's illustrations for MAGIC follow the same pattern as in TIN WOODMAN, including half-page illustrations within the chapters. I checked the color plates in the Dover edition of MAGIC, and was underwhelmed. Many of them have empty colored backgrounds, and seem to show hasty draftsmanship. They don't set the book's mood as well as those two-page drawings of the Forest of Gugu. page 13, the drawing atop the Table of Contents: Any truth to the rumor that in the first edition you can see the opening of CORIOLANUS on the typewriter paper? 17: The vertical lines in the chapter-opening frame are obviously hand-drawn, in contrast to what I think are machine-made lines Neill used for shading from TIK-TOK to LOST PRINCESS. 155, 203: Twice Neill uses sunflowers with facial expressions commenting on the action. 209: The Wizard's tripod and bowl here also appears on the cover, though why Neill drew a crowned monkey there escapes me. Finally, this seems a fine time to discuss the timing of MAGIC. David Hulan wrote: <> I noticed how Baum was careful to add the Frogman and Tin Soldier on opposite sides of the dinner table, preserving its symmetry. I continue to be puzzled about (a) why, if Baum had MAGIC and GLINDA nearly ready to publish, he instead worked on RINKITINK, LOST PRINCESS, and/or TIN WOODMAN; and (b) when he would have found the time to write those two held-back manuscripts. At the end of SCARECROW Baum promised a story about Dorothy, Trot, and Betsy together--the story that became LOST PRINCESS. He was almost apologetic about giving readers RINKITINK instead. Eviscerating the end of KING RINKITINK to make it an Oz book implies that Baum hadn't completed the book he wanted, was up against a deadline, and saw no better solution. But if he'd written MAGIC (with plots for Dorothy and Trot) or GLINDA (in which Betsy, Trot, and Button-Bright all leave the capital to rescue Dorothy) before LOST PRINCESS, either of those would have fulfilled his promise better than Inga's story. One possible scenario: Baum got bogged down in LOST PRINCESS, noodled around with MAGIC and GLINDA as alternatives, and finally realized he had to adapt RINKITINK to make his deadline. All that work gave him a head start for the next year, and the failure of the Oz Film Company gave him more time. He finished MAGIC, GLINDA, and LOST PRINCESS by his next deadline, and chose to polish and publish LOST PRINCESS first since it was what he'd promised readers. That composition would make the three stories oddly contemporaneous, not sequential; i.e., any one of them could have "taken place first." Peter Hanff reported how the handwriting on the TIN WOODMAN manuscript looks much shakier than on MAGIC and GLINDA. Baum was clearly feeling the effects of ill health [which I think is reflected in the book itself]. With MAGIC and GLINDA complete, or nearly so, he could have slowed the writing of TIN WOODMAN. That he didn't implies he felt a powerful need to finish that book--maybe because it addressed a loose end about one of his oldest and most popular Oz characters, maybe because the book had crucial things to say about Oz's origins, maybe because its themes spoke to him, or maybe because he needed to accomplish one more big project in his lifetime. J. L. Bell JnoLBell@compuserve.com ====================================================================== From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 12-08-98 Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:14:43 PST David Godwin: >As for Glinda, assuming that she had the GBR at this period (and >_Land_ >seems to imply that she did), she must have known all along that >Oscar was >a humbug, yet she kept quiet about it (perhaps to help keep the >wicked >witches in line). She likewise must have known all along that Dorothy >could >get home anytime she wanted - yet she let the kid risk her life >against the >WWW, the fighting trees, the Hammerheads, etc. What was she thinking >of? >Was she trying to _mold character_ or something? Well, for one thing, the Great Book of Records doesn't always give details. Therefore, Glinda did not necessarily know that Dorothy was on her way to the Quadling Country. Also, Glinda's power seems to have been more limited back in the time of _Wizard_. To give one example, in _Tik-Tok_, Glinda transports Tik-Tok to Ev, presumably without much trouble. In _Wizard_, on the other hand, Glinda needs the Golden Cap just to send the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and Lion to other parts of Oz. In addition, the Sorceress lives in isolation at the time of _Wizard_, only interfering when absolutely necessary. Glinda's character, as well as her amount of power, changes quite a bit after Ozma takes the throne. >Imagine my surprise when reading the >RPT book to find that=8A >*****SPOILER**** >Nick Chopper's castle is adjacent to the "Tin Canyon," and apparently >the >canyon must be crossed to get from his castle to the EC, that >citizens of >Oz normally carry a "jumping stick," and that Nick has pockets! Well, these might have been recent developments. A tinsmith could easily have given Nick pockets, and the jumping sticks might have been invented by the Wizard (or someone like that) shortly before the start of the story. I don't know about the canyon, though. >*****END SPOILER**** >Since all the other RPT Oz books are more or less free of this sort >of >thing, I can only explain it by saying that _Enchanted Island_ was >not >originally written as an Oz book. True, although its original incarnation probably did not contain Nick Chopper or his castle at all. J. L. Bell: > What happens when we apply to other books the same standards that >would >force Oz into another dimension? Six years before WIZARD appeared, >Mark >Twain wrote a story about a round-the-world balloon voyage: TOM >SAWYER >ABROAD. In that novel Tom, Huck, and Jim never enter a fairyland, but >they >do fly across the eastern U.S., the Atlantic, Africa, and beyond. If >the >Wizard's unprecedented balloon flights mean readers should infer he >left >our dimension, then by the same logic Twain was saying TOM SAWYER >ABROAD >didn't take place on our globe. And, since that book's a sequel to >HUCK >FINN, we'd have to further conclude that a top contender for the >Great >American Novel was never meant to be read as taking place in America. I think that a large part of this is the fact that people want there to be a way for Oz to exist. Thinking that Oz is an actual place is a comforting thought for Oz fans. I doubt that the same holds true fro _Huckleberry Finn_. >And in thinking >of [Thomspon's] successful recurring characters, I realized, we've >left out Pigasus. True, although Pigasus changes quite a bit between _Pirates_ and _Wishing Horse_. In the latter, he employs a good deal of Kabumpo-esque sarcasm. > A U of Chicago professor once coined the satirical term "ad >Hitlerem" for >the form of argument that says, "Hitler did it, so it must be bad." >"It" >could be gun control or gun training for kids, cheap cars or >internment >camps. Painting mediocre pictures didn't make Churchill into Hitler; >erecting grandiose buildings doesn't do the same for the Wizard. But >what >about Ozma expelling gypsies from her country (in OJO)? Well, it wasn't stated that Ozma expelled ALL gypsies from her country, just one particular band that was known to contain kidnappers and thieves. -- 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, 09 Dec 1998 17:06:19 +1100 From: shiromal@eureka.lk Subject: Dr.pipt According to Bill Wright(Author of the piglet press site),Dr.Nikidik faked his death ,and moved from the gilikin country to the munchkin country.He did this to prevent punishment,for he illegally practised magic.I accept this satement,for as Bill wright says,no-one can really die in Oz,espesailly a magicain.I also think that he may have pretended to die,because everyone will then think him dead,and he can yet,secretly indulge in sorcery and continue his magical inventions. I doubt the fact that Nikidik and Pipt are two different people ,and yet,there is proof........... In -Patchwork girl-... *.Margollotte says:"My husband foolishly gave away,all our magic powder to Old mombi the witch." *.And Ozma says:"It was Dr.Pipt's powder of life which enabled me to become queen." So perhaps Ozma later found out that Dr.NIkidik was still living,and forgave him,yet he continued practising magic.It could be that he settled down in the Munchkin country,and became popular as Dr.Pipt,and was later found out by Glinda and Ozma.SO it's quite possible that Dr.Nikidik and Pipt are the same person.(Only Nikidik faked his death) --Gehan C.A ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 10 Dec 98 16:56:39 (PST) From: Dave Hardenbrook Subject: Ozzy Things GLINDA: Ruth wrote: >Isn't it about time to set a day to start "Glinda" discussion? >"Magic" comments seem to be winding down. How about a week from Monday? "A REAL, TRULY LIVE PLACE"?: Nathan wrote: >I think that a large part of this is the fact that people want there to >be a way for Oz to exist. Thinking that Oz is an actual place is a >comforting thought for Oz fans. I doubt that the same holds true fro >_Huckleberry Finn_. We can't blame ourselves for wanting Oz to be real...The danger I think comes from deciding Oz is real and then trying to censure certain Oz authors by pointing to their work and saying, "That's not the *real* Oz!" God bless the _Red Dwarf_ universe, which is designed to accommodate discrete "parallel realities". But Stephen Hawking at least is convinced that all possible realities -- including ones that include Oz -- play out their existance in other universes... >Well, it wasn't stated that Ozma expelled ALL gypsies from her country, >just one particular band that was known to contain kidnappers and >thieves. More evidence that Ozma is all too human... (See below) "YOU ARE IN AN OPEN FIELD WEST OF A WHITE HOUSE WITH A BOARDED FRONT DOOR": Jeremy wrote: >I realize that she is no longer keeping up her page, and I must have >seen it in the past, but when I looked at it just then, I remarked >how similar it is to a Zork story, or any of Infocom's computer >games. Does anyone know what I mean? Yes, I do, and I'm sure that I regard those old text adventures with the same nostalgia and these modern 3D wide-screen 16-track dolby stereo computer games with the same revulsion that our grandparents must have felt about their great works of literature versus that modern "wasteland" known as television. "HAVING IT ALL" IN OZ: David Godwin wrote: >Getting the girls involved with suitors dilutes the >purity of their feminine power. You seem to be saying that no woman is >complete without a man. This is incredibly chauvinist and flies in the face >of the feminist doctrine that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a >bicycle." I consider myself generally sympathetic to women's fight for their rights, but this is the same "either-or" doctrine that cause so many to regard "feminist" as a dirty word... This idea that either a woman has a fullfilling career (and recognizes that "*ALL* men are bums!") or is a subservient housewife and baby-maker has plagued us and threatened to undermine the women's movement at least since Louisa May Alcott (who for all her feminism made all her heroines end up either fairly conventional housewives or spinster career girls). Of *course* a woman can be complete without a man...But I believe that a woman can have a man and *still* be complete! Indeed I see *that* as the *ultimate* feminist statement that even many so-called "feminists" don't have the guts to make. There's nothing inherently evil about us men! Some of us are decent chaps... There are even a few of us who don't even *like* football! :) As Tyler has said much better than I can, "Relationships and marriage are about two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. It is a union of equals, a true partnership forged in love, not in need or desparation. The man needs the woman as much as she needs him. If this isn't the case, then there is a problem with the people involved, not in the concept of marriage itself." So how does this relate to Oz? David Godwin first claims that I assert that Ozma et al. "need" men. No, they can get on just fine without them; 40+ Oz books have proven that. I'm just suggesting that the Oz ladies are capable of having their lives further enhanced by a loving, sharing relationship. Second, David asserts that I'm trying to undermine Ozma et. al.'s "feminine power". I'm trying to do no such thing... I am merely exhibting the (heterodox) view that the powerful females of Oz are people too with the same desire for human comapanionship most of us feel, even if our lives are happy and complete otherwise; for as Lou Grant says in one episode of _The Mary Tyler Moore Show_, "I guess it's our blessing -- and our affliction -- that people need people." I know some in the Oz community are going to say, as they have in the past, that Ozma "ain't 'people'", that Ozma is "a shimmering, glowing star in the fairyland fermeemint!" (apologies to Jean Hagen and the writers of _Singin' In the Rain_), but who says that Ozma, Glinda, etc. "ain't people"? They seem to exhibit other human emotions -- happiness, sorrow, fear, compassion, and yes, sometimes even foolishness and arrogance. Why has the desire for companionship have to be excluded. Why is it assumed that companionship can only come at the expense of everything else that makes someone good and great? I just don't see how having a love interest "weakens" a person or fairy. Indeed, I will go out on a limb and challenge anyone on this digest to find any passage in the Oz Canon that positively indicates that romantic love would indeed undermine the Oz girls' power. If someone can find that, I will throw _That Ozzy Feeling_ in the fire and that will be the end of it... But I don't think they'll find such an entry, because I don't think the Canonical authors really considered romance either way regarding Baum's powerful ladies, except RPT with Ozma, and her objection was based on her conviction that "Ozma is a little girl" (I still say she can mature and be "just the same Ozma"), and not on any belief that love in itself would somehow be harmful to the Oz ladies. -- Dave P.S. If topics are still needed for "Life in Oz" for Convention 2000, I'd like to take this opportunity to come out in favor of this volatile issue of romance in Oz treated as an Oxford-style debate. P.P.S. Jellia reports that the Fish Footman of Wonderland visited the Emerald City recently. He came by bike. :) ====================================================================== -- Dave Dave Hardenbrook, DaveH47@mindspring.com, http://www.mindspring.net/~daveh47/ "What is Reality anyway...? Nothin' but a collective *hunch*!" -- Lily Tomlin ] c/ \ /___\ *** THE OZZY DIGEST, DECEMBER 11 - 13, 1998 *** |@ @| | V | \\\ |\_/| | ;;; \-/ \ ;/ >< ] ====================================================================== Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 23:51:58 GMT From: David Hulan Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 12-03-98 I've been lazy and busy and so have two Digests to respond to again. 12/3: Lisa: I like Eureka in _DotWiz_, but not much else about the book. It's one I didn't even like much when I was a kid, which was unusual for me - I liked several of them then (including _Road_) that I now think are weak. Some I read then I have little memory of my reaction to - _Glinda_, _Grampa_, _Gnome King_, _Jack Pumpkinhead_, _Purple Prince_ - but I remember relatively negative reactions to _DotWiz_, _Kabumpo_, and _Ozoplaning_. _Road_, _Tik-Tok_, _Cowardly Lion_, _Giant Horse_, and _Lucky Bucky_ pleased me more as a child than they do now. For the record, I didn't read _Captain Salt_, _Handy Mandy_, _Wonder City_, _Scalawagons_, _Shaggy Man_, _Hidden Valley_, or _Merry-Go-Round_ as a child, the latter three because I was at least a teen when they were published. Jane: >I'm speechless. Barbara Koelle tells me she's heard from anyone interested in >presenting any "Life in the Land of Oz" topics at the centennial celebration. I assume you mean "hasn't heard." _Au contraire_, she's heard from me, with an offer of a paper on Aging and Death in Oz and a suggestion that there be some panel discussions on "Life in Oz" topics - something that's easier to arrange than formal papers, which take a good deal of time to put together. I may have been the only one she's heard from, though, and it was several months ago I wrote her. Jeremy: >How authors know: >Instead of making hypotheses about how certain people let the authors >know at certain times AFTER going to Oz BEFORE doing other things AND >so on, isn't it more likely that Royal Historians are allowed to see >the GBR so they can record the events as books? Or that Royal >Historians are in fact the embodiments of the GBR in our physical >world? Not a bad idea. Considering how cryptic most of the references in the GBR are (based on the few that we see in their entirety), it's no wonder that in fleshing out those references the authors occasionally put something in that contradicts something he/she/another author said in similarly fleshing out a bare outline. Robin: >Why _Silver Princess_? The tone is lighter, except for that awful >moment towards the end, but why do you rate it higher than >_Yellow Knight_? Btw, _Speedy_ is my fave RPT. Nothing I can put my finger on; it's just my overall reaction to the two books. It may well be no more than that I've owned a copy of SP since I was nine years old, but didn't acquire one of YK until I was in my 40s (though I read it when I was 8 or 9 - but only once, whereas I reread SP many times as a kid). Owning a book as a kid doesn't guarantee a high rating - I got a copy of _Ozoplaning_ at the same time I got SP, and I rate it RPT's worst - but between closely matched books that I like it probably helps. _Speedy_ is my second favorite RPT, but _Wishing Horse_ is not only my favorite of hers, but my favorite Oz book period. (It was also the second one I ever read.) Chris Straughn: >Also, Ozma seems to accumulate quite a lot of magic throughout the series, >does anyone have a theory as to why she never uses any of it? This probably has a similar but not identical explanation whether we use the Oz-as-Literature or Oz-as-History mode for looking at it - something like the difference between the Strong and Weak Anthropic Principles in cosmology. >From the History standpoint, the probability is that Ozma does use her magic quite often - but when she does, the problem is solved as soon as she becomes aware of it, and if she becomes aware of it early on then there's no story worth recording. The problem is indeed resolved as shoon as she becomes aware of it in quite a few of the books: _Kabumpo_ (the Glegg/Peg problem, not the Ruggedo/palace one), _Cowardly Lion_, _Grampa_, _Giant Horse_, _Yellow Knight_, _Purple Prince_, _Ojo_, and _Speedy_ at least. It's true that Ozma doesn't actually intervene (personally or through the Wizard) in PP and _Speedy_, but if Jinnicky and Waddy hadn't beaten her to the punch she would have; once she knew about the problem it was in effect solved. >From the Literature standpoint, there wouldn't be a saleable story if Ozma used her magic to eliminate the problem early, so one of the tasks for the writer is to think of a reason why Ozma doesn't find out about the problem until there's been a satisfactory adventure for someone. Sometimes this is explicit, as in Ozma having to leave to stop a war in _Royal Book_, or Sir Hokus hiding the Magic Picture in _Yellow Knight_; sometimes, especially when the protagonist isn't anyone close to her, it's just implicit that she'd have no reason to check on that person. And sometimes she's taken by surprise and doesn't have a chance to use her magic; apparently she needs some kind of equipment, at least her wand, to do anything, and she doesn't always have it on her person. Gehan: >and if Ugu stole magic from the wizard and Glinda and Ozma,why didnt he >think of the adepts and the good witch of the north? Ugu learned about various magical items in Oz through books that had belonged to an ancestor (though how books more than 10 years old or so would know about the Wizard's black bag isn't clear); probably that ancestor didn't know about the Adepts (Glinda and Ozma didn't seem to before meeting them in _Glinda_). The GWN might not have had anything worth stealing; what little we know about her magic in pre-Dorothean times doesn't indicate that it was based strongly on equipment. J.L.: > The odd ones >are folks like Trot and Button-Bright, who seem to forget their blood >relatives entirely. I think Button-Bright's case is easily explained; his parents don't seem to have much concern for him, or