Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:44:22 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] gingerbread

Have started re-reading "John Dough and the Cherub."

Some preliminary thoughts — the story is a long riff on the folktale of 
"The Gingerbread Man."

A couple of more recent riffs on the folktale — one of Avram Davidson's Dr. 
Esterhazy stories uses a giant gingerbread man as a terrifying bogey, 
claiming a long tradition of substitute human sacrifices accomplished by 
leaving gingerbread men in the place of sacrifice in a tradition going back 
to ancient Greece and its myths of human sacrifice. Not that ancient Greece 
is known to have had gingerbread, but the story supposes that the modern 
recipe is an adaptation of an older recipe using currants 
(raisins-of-Corinth). I suspect that Avram wrote this story around the cover 
artwork by George Barr  that accompanied it. It's not as obviously a 
cover-came-first story as another in the series, where the doctor builds a 
zeppelin, using a woman's red petticoats to make the silk bag, and the 
irrelevance of the color (well, mostly irrelevant — the story cleverly 
makes the color a sign of the character's free-and-easy flamboyance) shows 
pretty clearly that the artwork came first. More recent still. the 
serial-killer Gingerbread Man in Jasper fforde's "The Big Over Easy" and 
"The Fourth Bear." Baum lets the figure of the gingerbread man stay funny 
and vulnerable, without adding the horrific elements in these more recent 
comic works. And he goes for a happy ending, let John Dough overcome his 
vulnerability and hungry pursuers for royal safety (with the aid of the 
Cherub, who is almost literally his guardian angel).

The tradition of gathering folktales didn't begin until fairly recently —  
the 18th century French fairytale writers were creating more or less 
original stories based on oral tales. Early in the 19th century, though, the 
Grimms started gathering more or less accurate transcriptions of the tales 
they heard. ("More or less," in both cases, leaves room for a wide range of 
orginality/accuracy.) Some of these stories are known in medieval (written) 
versions and so must be at least that old. Jack Zipes, in his books on the 
Grimms, argues that the stories that begin with a discharged soldier coming 
home musket in hand from the war must reflect Napoleon's wars and may not be 
much older than the Grimms themselves. (I don't think there are comparable 
fairystories about a soldier, crossbow or longbow or club in hand, coming 
home.) The Grimms have a memorable gingerbread story in "Hansel and Gretel," 
but don't have a version of "The Gingerbread Man." Was it not in existence 
then? Anyhow, it didn't get into written versions until 1875, when "St. 
Nicholas Magazine" in America published it as an "old" story. More recent 
still is the British version collected by Joseph Jacobs, "The Runaway 
Pancake," in "English Fairy Tales" (1890), although you'd think that the 
pancake version must be earlier in origins, as surely storytellers who knew 
a version with a gingerbread boy runing ("You can't catch me!") would have 
preferred that to a story about a pancake that can only escape by rolling 
hoop-style away.

Baum has a minor glitch of continuity when John lands on the Isle of Phreex. 
and gets into conversation with one of the inventors there without stopping 
for them to exchange names, yet the inventor, soon after, addresses him as 
"John Dough." I wonder if there was an earlier version where they did 
introduce themselves (if I'm remembering correctly, we don't find out the 
name of this first inventor), and Baum decided it slowed down the action and 
cut it out.

It's fun to have a 4th-of-July rocket used as the means of getting John off 
into — whatever world that is that includes all those magic islands. (Baum 
made it part of the Oz world in "Road" two years later, and I suppose he 
could have been thinking from the start that it was, but he didn't say so in 
"John Dough," and it wasn't until the "Tik-Tok" map that he set out — with 
some difficulty — to fit John's islands onto it.)

Ruth Berman

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:35:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Hutchins <scottandrewhutchins at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] gingerbread

I find it interesting that John Dough was adapted not once but twice as a motion picture.
It must have been quite a popular book, since films in 1910 assumed an audience's knowledge
of the story in order to fill in the gaps necessitiated by the brief running times.
(I'm basing this notion on the work of film scholars like Charles Musser.)

Perhaps Ruth's idea that it is a riff on earlier gingerbread man stories might also explain
why it was a ripe candidate for film adaptation.  Alas, both versions are lost.  They were
both directed by Otis Turner, but probably not the same film.  Martin Scorsese has said he
wanted to direct at least one film in every genre, and when I read this (alas, not recently
for this discussion), I thought this would be ideal for his venture into fantasy film.  He's
such a fan of Powell and Pressburger's fantasy films that it might end up looking like one
of theirs, though.

Scott Andrew Hutchins

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:58:18 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] gingerbread

On Feb 13, 2008 11:44 AM, Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
> Baum has a minor glitch of continuity when John lands on the Isle of Phreex.
> and gets into conversation with one of the inventors there without stopping
> for them to exchange names, yet the inventor, soon after, addresses him as
> "John Dough." I wonder if there was an earlier version where they did
> introduce themselves (if I'm remembering correctly, we don't find out the
> name of this first inventor), and Baum decided it slowed down the action and
> cut it out.

That's possible.  Another glitch I've noticed is how, even though only
John can talk to Para Bruin during the episode on the Isle of Mifkets,
Para can communicate quite well with everybody on the pirate island
and Hiland/Loland.  We could perhaps assume that these areas, like Oz,
allow animals to speak, but this is never specifically stated.

> It's fun to have a 4th-of-July rocket used as the means of getting John off
> into — whatever world that is that includes all those magic islands. (Baum
> made it part of the Oz world in "Road" two years later, and I suppose he
> could have been thinking from the start that it was, but he didn't say so in
> "John Dough," and it wasn't until the "Tik-Tok" map that he set out — with
> some difficulty — to fit John's islands onto it.)

His decision to attach Hiland and Loland to the mainland is a direct
contradiction to the text of JOHN DOUGH, which Haff and Martin tried
to remedy by putting a narrow strip of water around the sides (aside
from the eastern one, which they had border on the Nonestic Ocean).

It's interesting that the United States of JOHN DOUGH not only has the
Elixir of Life working, but also a witch who sells transportation
powders.  The Oz books have the occasional magical talisman (the Love
Magnet, for instance) operating in the Great Outside World, but I
don't think they place practicing magic-workers in civilized
countries.  As John Bell has pointed out, the picture painted of magic
in JOHN DOUGH lines up better with some of the American Fairy Tales
and other "urban comedies."
— 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:06:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Doherty <janitor_stage_two at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] gingerbread

The creation of John Dough particularly interested me. I think in that sense he's the most
interesting of Baum's constructed characters. With Jack, the Sawhorse, the Gump, Scraps,
and Bungle, the instrument of their creation was only needed for that initial spark, and
thereafter was completely forgotten. With John Dough, the elixir of life was a vital part
of his entire story, motivating the villains and aiding the allies as well as keeping John
Dough alive.

I think John Dough was the first of Baum's characters that I ever worried about. I did read
the Oz books (for the most part) in order, so I did come across the dangers of Dorothy and
her companions in the first book, and Jack's fragile head in the second book long before I
read that no one in Oz could die. However, it always seemed like everything could turn out
fine in the end. With John Dough, I wasn't so confident.

It's true that by the time I read _John Dough_, I already knew the titular character's fate
from _Road_. However, I wasn't all too confident about how he would get there. It wasn't
enough that he was made of fragile materials and was falling apart, like Jack Pumpkinhead—John
Dough was made out of something that was good to eat in its current form. Dorothy herself even
condoned the eating of similar creatures in _Emerald City_.

We've had characters faced with the prospect of being eaten before (the Scoodlers of _Road_
spring to mind) but _John Dough_ marks the first time that the main character was actually made
out of good food that even the reader might eat if it weren't alive. I have eaten gingerbread
men and thought nothing of it.

Chick the Cherub was the other character that interested me. He's described as an incubator baby,
a term which was unfamiliar to me when I read the book. Even Wikipedia has no entry. I imagine
it's just not spoken of as frequently as it was in Baum's time. But apparently in Baum's time it
was becoming a very popular kind of show.

The incubators in question were designed for children from premature births, and the doctors
quickly realized that they could make a lot of money by charging admission to look at them.
People would come the first time to look at the amazing new technology and return again and
again to watch the progress of a particular baby.

Chick is also notable in being a major character without a clear gender. This is an interesting
idea, but I think that Baum could have handled it better. There are ways to word sentences (in
English, at least) so that no gender words have to be used at all. I seem to recall seeing this
done before (although I can't recall where) so that I had read several pages about a character
before it even occurred to me that I didn't know the character's gender.

As for Chick, I tend to think of the cherub as a boy. I have no idea why. Perhaps because I
associate the name with Jack Chick, the fundamentalist writer.

Daniel

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:24:40 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] gingerbread

Ruth Berman wrote:
<<The Grimms have a memorable gingerbread story in "Hansel and Gretel,"
but don't have a version of "The Gingerbread Man." Was it not in existence
then? Anyhow, it didn't get into written versions until 1875, when "St.
Nicholas Magazine" in America published it as an "old" story. More recent
still is the British version collected by Joseph Jacobs, "The Runaway
Pancake," in "English Fairy Tales" (1890), although you'd think that the
pancake version must be earlier in origins, as surely storytellers who knew
a version with a gingerbread boy runing ("You can't catch me!") would have
preferred that to a story about a pancake that can only escape by rolling
hoop-style away.>>

I did some research on the genesis of the Gingerbread Man story in 
preparing an introduction to JOHN DOUGH for Hungry Tiger, the BAUM 
BUGLE's appreciation article, and a talk at Munchkins.

The 1875 ST. NICHOLAS story is indeed the first known in print about a 
runaway gingerbread figure. However, there was an earlier recorded 
version, first printed in Germany in the 1840s, about a runaway pancake. 
Other breadstuffs appear in other versions that follow the ST. NICHOLAS 
by a few years and are undoubtedly older.

I noticed that three of the earliest versions point to different morals. 
In that early German story, the pancake finally lets itself be eaten by 
a hungry child. In another version, a child is supposed to watch the 
pancake, and he lets it get away. And in a third, the couple who are 
baking the breadstuff are also wishing for a child, which apparently 
brings the gingerbread child to life. Thus, depending on the version one 
read, the story might be about:
* good things coming to those who need them most.
* losses from being careless.
* wishing too hard for what you can't have.

The real appeal of the story in any version, I suspect, was the 
breadstuff's refrain of "You can't catch me!" to an increasing list of 
pursuers. It was a fun experience, and different storytellers tried to 
attach different larger meanings to it. (Those are thoughts I couldn't 
fit into any of the outlets I listed above.)

<<Baum has a minor glitch of continuity when John lands on the Isle of Phreex
and gets into conversation with one of the inventors there without stopping
for them to exchange names, yet the inventor, soon after, addresses him as
"John Dough." I wonder if there was an earlier version where they did
introduce themselves (if I'm remembering correctly, we don't find out the
name of this first inventor), and Baum decided it slowed down the action 
and cut it out.>>

My theory is that Baum wrote the first four chapters on spec for LADIES' 
HOME JOURNAL, put the manuscript in a drawer when it was rejected, and 
went in a completely different direction when he took it out again. That 
first chapter on Phreex, which is much, much longer than the preceding 
chapters, feels like Baum casting around for a new direction.

<<Baum made it part of the Oz world in "Road" two years later, and I suppose he
could have been thinking from the start that it was, but he didn't say so in
"John Dough,">>

The end of the book indicates that the events of JOHN DOUGH happened 
long ago, long enough that Chick has grown up and died and records of 
whether the Cherub was male or female have been lost. Yet the start of 
the book is clearly in an America that Baum's readers would have 
recognized as their own.

I suspect that disjuncture was another result of the new direction Baum 
took in chapter 5. He liked the "long, long ago" ending at that period: 
it shows up in SANTA, LAND, YEW, and IX as well.

Scott Hutchins wrote:
<
as a motion picture. It must have been quite a popular book, since 
films in 1910 assumed an audience's knowledge of the story in order to 
fill in the gaps necessitiated by the brief running times. (I'm basing 
this notion on the work of film scholars like Charles Musser.)>>

"The Gingerbread Man" had a simple premise, which JOHN DOUGH shared: 
gingerbread creature runs away from people and animals trying to eat it. 
That could have been familiar enough that moviegoers didn't need a lot 
more information to understand the movie. According to Martin Gardner's 
introduction to the Dover DOUGH, one movie version included a prophecy 
about the new kingdom of Hiland and Loland. When I was doing my 
research, I couldn't verify that, though.

(I took a course from Charles Musser back when I was in college, by the 
way.)

J. L. Bell                 JnoLBell at earthlink.net

    Musings about some of my favorite
    fantasy literature for young readers.
    http://ozandends.blogspot.com

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:59:46 +0000 (GMT)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Regalia] John Dough

Not a lot of Gaelic in John Dough. Mostly the usual English names, puns, wordplay
and such with just a tad of Frenchish. Grogrande being the equivalent of "fatty,
fatty, two by four"
   
  Ali Dubh - that's by way of being a Gaelic joke. It does look like an Arabic name
  but it isn't. The word "Dubh" means "Black" in Gaelic. It's a fairly common nickname
  given to Scots men named Alexander whose hair is black or very dark brown. It's
  approximately equivalent to "Black Alex".
   
  The kinglet cries "Now, by the royal Juggernaut of Jowl". Jowl, besides being alliterative
  with Juggernaut, appears to be Jowl - (devil)
     "Diabhal" //d''a:wl// - /d''a:ul/ (jowl) - "Diabhal" = "devil"
   
  Silver pig of Dagupan. Dagupan is a real city in the Philippines where pig roasts are
  common. I don't know about silver pigs though.
   
  Mifket - (bad hobgoblin)
  nicely descriptive
     "Miphucaid" //m'if*cat'// - /m'ifcat/ (mifket) - "Miphucaid" = "naughty hobgoblin"
    from "Mi-" //m'i// - /m'i/ (mi) - "Mi-" = "prefix meaning bad or mal-"
    combined with "Pucaid" //pu:cat'// - /pu:cat/ (pookut) - "Pucaid" = "hobgoblin"
    from "Puca" //pu:ca// - /pu:ca/ (pooka) - "Puca" = "goblin, sprite"
   
  Roi-tree - (surround-tree)
  bend it down, bring the leaves all around, and you have a house
     "Roimh" //ro:iww// - /ro:iw/ (roi) - "Roimh" = "around, before, beside"
   
  Jucklethub - (black vengeance)
  'What in the name of Jucklethub are you?' Seems like the name of the patron fairy of the Mifkets.
     "Dioghaldub" //d''a3ald:u:bb// - /d''a3al88ub/ (jukelthub) - "Dioghaldub" = "black vengeance"
    from "Dioghal" //d''a3al// - /d'a3al/ (jukel) - "Dioghal" = "vengeance"
    combined with "Dub" //du:b// - /du:b/ (doob) - "Dub" = "black"
   
  Black Ooboo - (overweening pride)
  Pride goeth before being tossed around by Mr Dough
     "Dubhuabbh" //du:wu:bu:// - /du:wu:bu:/ (doowooboo) - "Dubhuabbh" = "extreme pride"
    from "Dubh" //du:w// - /du:w/ (doo) - "Dubh" = "black, as a prefix means extreme"
    combined with "Uabbh" //u:bu:// - /u:bu:/ (ooboo) - "Uabbh" = "pride"
    nice combination of languages
   
  Rampsy - (treacherous braggart)
  Appears to be from a bit of political doggerel from the Tippecanoe era
  'Ripsy! Rampsy! Ripsy! Rumpsy! I, Dick Johnson, killed Tecumseh'!
  Pity that the word has gone out of use. I can think of any number of rampsies in our political scene.
   
  Booleywag - (magistrate) 
"I 'm going to be Head Booleywag," said Chick, "What's that?" asked John. 
  "It's the one that rules the ruler," said the smiling Cherub. " So just behave yourselves
  you and your Chief Counselor and you'll both find I know my business."- And now, in my
  opinion, we know whether Chick was a boy or a girl
    "Builebhag" //bu:l'iwac// - /bu:li:wac/ (booliwak) - "Builebhag" = "magistrate general, circuit judge" 
   from "Buile" //bu:l'i:// - /bu:li:/ (booly) - "Buile" = "villages, small cities" 
   from "Baile" //ba:l'i// - /ba:li:/ (bally) - "Baile" = "village, small city" 
   combined with "Bag" //ba:c// - /ba:c/ (bac) - "Bag" = "shepherd, pastor, guide" 
   from "Baghall" //ba:3all// - /ba:3al/ (bagal) - "Baghall" = "shepherd's crook, crozier"

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:33:37 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] john dough

"Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another glitch I've noticed is how, even though only John can talk to Para 
> Bruin during the episode on the Isle of Mifkets, Para can communicate 
> quite well with everybody on the pirate island and Hiland/Loland.  We 
> could perhaps assume that these areas, like Oz, allow animals to speak, 
> but this is never specifically stated. >

Sounds plausible.

> [Baum's] decision to attach Hiland and Loland to the mainland [on the map] 
> is a direct contradiction to the text of JOHN DOUGH, which Haff and Martin 
> tried to remedy by putting a narrow strip of water around the sides (aside 
> from the eastern one, which they had border on the Nonestic Ocean). >

I like to think that the narrow strip of water is so narrow and so shallow 
for most of its length that it's there or not depending on whether the ocean 
is at high tide or low tide. A similar tidal arm might be useful to explain 
the presence of the Mifkets as mainland residents on the map — although the 
difference in name between Mifkets ("John Dough") and Mifkit ( in Neill's 
"Scalawagons" — Dick Martin's Jinx was a Mifket again) might signal that 
they are different groups. Jack Snow suggested ("Who's Who in Oz") that 
"Mifkets" on the map and Neill's head-throwing Mifkit were errors and should 
both have referred to the "Road" head-throwing Scoodlers, who are right next 
to the Mifkets on the map. The Martin/Haff map followed Snow's suggestion, 
marking "Scoodlers (Mifkits)" as one inland territory just south of the 
Deadly Desert, and the "Isle of Mifkets" in the ocean near the the coastal 
waters of Hiland/Loland. (I'm here basically repeating here the argument in 
my "Not to be Miff'd" article from the "John Dough" issue of the "Baum 
Bugle," Winter 2006.)

> It's interesting that the United States of JOHN DOUGH not only has the 
> Elixir of Life working, but also a witch who sells transportation powders. 
> The Oz books have the occasional magical talisman (the Love Magnet, for 
> instance) operating in the Great Outside World, but I don't think they 
> place practicing magic-workers in civilized countries.  As John Bell has 
> pointed out, the picture painted of magic in JOHN DOUGH lines up better 
> with some of the American Fairy Tales and other "urban comedies." <

To some extent, Baum may have been thinking of this-world magic workers as 
coming here from other-worlds. In the Oz books he says that magic talismans 
like the silver slippers and the magic belt would lose their powers if 
brought to this-world, but I suppose there's a possible reconciling factor 
of sorts if people like the $9.00 Witch or Ali Dubh's ancestors or the 
Arabian Knight who made Button Bright's umbrella ("Sky Island") came here 
from the Oz world and found themselves still able to create magic here, 
although they couldn't import magical goods (or bads?). (Maybe unlikely, as 
you'd think if it would be possible to keep working magic in the mind it 
would be also possible to keep it in imported stuffs. Still, maybe not —  
or, at any rate, it might be a lot more difficult.) J.L. Bell points out in 
his Appreciation of "John Dough" (also in the Winter 2006 "Bugle") that the 
king of the Mifkets thinks that Arabs are descended from Mifkets and thus 
implies that Ali Dubh's ancestors did indeed come from the Oz-world, 
explaining how they came by their magical knowledge. (Which might sound like 
a cultural advantage for Arabs, but as J.L. pointed out, since Baum portrays 
Mifkets as something less than human — implicitly in "John Dough" and 
explicitly in the evolutionary disenchantment sequence in "Rinkitink" —  
it's more an insult than an advantage.)

Daniel Doherty <janitor_stage_two at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The creation of John Dough particularly interested me. I think in that 
> sense he's the most interesting of Baum's constructed characters. With 
> Jack, the Sawhorse, the Gump, Scraps, and Bungle, the instrument of their 
> creation was only needed for that initial spark, and thereafter was 
> completely forgotten. With John Dough, the elixir of life was a vital part 
> of his entire story, motivating the villains and aiding the allies as well 
> as keeping John Dough alive. >

Interesting point.

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I did some research on the genesis of the Gingerbread Man story in 
> preparing an introduction to JOHN DOUGH for Hungry Tiger, the BAUM BUGLE's 
> appreciation article, and a talk at Munchkins. The 1875 ST. NICHOLAS story 
> is indeed the first known in print about a runaway gingerbread figure. 
> However, there was an earlier recorded version, first printed in Germany 
> in the 1840s, about a runaway pancake. <

I should have re-read the article before commenting on gingerman genesis —  
but enjoyed re-reading it now! I still wonder if the story was actually 
created post-Grimms (perhaps under the inspiration of the Grimms' 
collection), and that's why if the Grimms' didn't run across it to include 
it, or if it's just that it didn't happen to run across it. I suppose either 
is possible.

> I noticed that three of the earliest versions point to different morals. <

Interesting point.

Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>  Rampsy - (treacherous braggart)  Appears to be from a bit of political 
> doggerel from the Tippecanoe era 'Ripsy! Rampsy! Ripsy! Rumpsy! I, Dick 
> Johnson, killed Tecumseh'! Pity that the word has gone out of use. I can 
> think of any number of rampsies in our political scene. >

Baum used the term more positively the year before (1905), in the 
San-Diego-patriotic story of "Nelebel's Fairyland," where rampsies are 
described as the smallest of the immortals.

I said that we don't find out the name of the first of the Phreex John Dough 
meets. Actually, looking at the passage again, I see that he does introduce 
himself — by title rather than name — as the Fresh-Air Fiend.

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:34:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Regalia] John Dough

>Ruth Berman
  >Baum used the term more positively the year before (1905), in the 
>San-Diego-patriotic story of "Nelebel's Fairyland," where rampsies are 
>described as the smallest of the immortals.
   
  Pretty much what happened to Dick Johnson. He started out as a Gigan and turned into a Rampsy.

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:00:41 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] JOHN DOUGH mysteries

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> Another glitch I've noticed is how, even though only
> John can talk to Para Bruin during the episode on the Isle of Mifkets,
> Para can communicate quite well with everybody on the pirate island
> and Hiland/Loland.  We could perhaps assume that these areas, like Oz,
> allow animals to speak, but this is never specifically stated.

Yes, it seems odd that after spending so much space in JOHN DOUGH on
language barriers that Baum simply dropped the issue.

The earliest chapters have ethnic types: the French bakers, the Arabs.
And of course they have distinctive languages. Later Baum lets us know
that the Arabic language is supposed to be like the Mifkets'. John
translates among the animals on that island for Chick's sake.

There is, on the other hand, apparently only one language for all the
people in this part of the world. The courtiers in the Palace of
Romance, the Princess and her parents, the pirates, and the people of
Hiland and Loland all speak Chick's language.

Another possible Oz-and-borderland-as-history explanation is that Chick
spent some time teaching Para how to speak that language, too.

> It's interesting that the United States of JOHN DOUGH not only has the
> Elixir of Life working, but also a witch who sells transportation
> powders.  The Oz books have the occasional magical talisman (the Love
> Magnet, for instance) operating in the Great Outside World, but I
> don't think they place practicing magic-workers in civilized
> countries.  As John Bell has pointed out, the picture painted of magic
> in JOHN DOUGH lines up better with some of the American Fairy Tales
> and other "urban comedies."

I use the term "urban fairy tales," but the point is the same. In this
case, that approach to magic seems most obvious in the first chapters,
and I think it connects with how Baum initially envisioned this book for
the LADIES' HOME JOURNAL audience rather than primarily kids.

Ruth Berman wrote:
<
Dough meets. Actually, looking at the passage again, I see that he does 
introduce himself — by title rather than name — as the Fresh-Air Fiend.>>

One Phreex mystery that's never resolved involves the Failings. Baum 
describes a couple of those men with enough detail to match them to a 
figures in Neill's art. But Neill never draws all seven, and Baum 
doesn't help by apparently referring to one as both the Bad-Tempered and 
the Disagreeable.

J. L. Bell                 JnoLBell at earthlink.net

    Musings about some of my favorite
    fantasy literature for young readers.
    http://ozandends.blogspot.com

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:23:55 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] JOHN DOUGH characters

Daniel Doherty wrote:
<<With John Dough, the elixir of life was a vital part of his entire 
story, motivating the villains and aiding the allies as well as keeping 
John Dough alive.

I think John Dough was the first of Baum's characters that I ever 
worried about. I did read the Oz books (for the most part) in order, so 
I did come across the dangers of Dorothy and her companions in the first 
book, and Jack's fragile head in the second book long before I read that 
no one in Oz could die. However, it always seemed like everything could 
turn out fine in the end. With John Dough, I wasn't so confident.>>

Of all Baum's animated grotesques, John indeed feels the greatest sense 
of mortality. The Scarecrow worries about fire, but not all the time. 
Jack Pumpkinhead worries about spoiling, but he's a comic character and 
he eventually finds a way to replenish his supply of heads.

John worries about being eaten or dissolved in water almost constantly 
until the end of the book. He chooses his traveling companions because 
he knows they won't eat him: Chick is too worried about indigestion, and 
Para only looks carnivorous.

Ironically, of all Baum's animated grotesques, John has the most powers. 
Like others, he doesn't need to sleep or eat, and he can be taken apart 
and put back together. But he also has speed, great strength (halfway 
through the book—I suspect Baum hadn't thought of that initially), 
knowledge of many languages and other ancient lore, and the ability to heal.

Over the course of the book, John has to learn the Spider-Man dictum: 
with great powers come great responsibilities. With great prodding from 
Para and Chick, John lets part of his hand be eaten to save the 
Princess.  He learns to stop worrying just about himself and think about 
how he can help someone else. At that time, things start to turn around 
for him, and he ends up a king.

<<Chick the Cherub was the other character that interested me. He's 
described as an incubator baby, a term which was unfamiliar to me when I 
read the book. Even Wikipedia has no entry. I imagine it's just not 
spoken of as frequently as it was in Baum's time. But apparently in 
Baum's time it was becoming a very popular kind of show.

The incubators in question were designed for children from premature 
births, and the doctors quickly realized that they could make a lot of 
money by charging admission to look at them. People would come the first 
time to look at the amazing new technology and return again and again to 
watch the progress of a particular baby.>>

The website neonatology.org has some great resources on early incubator 
babies in its "Classics" section, including images of those wards at 
public fairs. A century ago, few babies were born in hospitals, so they 
didn't have newborn units. Exhibiting the incubators with infants inside 
them was a way for the incubator operators to fund and publicize that 
sort of treatment. At the same time, some people worried about that 
approach, as in "The Danger of Making a Public Show of Incubators for 
Babies," THE LANCET, 1898.
<http://www.neonatology.org/classics/lancet.dangers.html>

I got the impression that around 1900 the term "incubator baby" had the 
same sort of wondrous and scary resonance that "test tube baby" had 
twenty years ago, and such possibilities as cloning and genetic 
engineering have today. Incubators were the latest technology, changing 
a natural process, bringing some good effects and some worries.

In the same year Baum wrote about Chick, another popular American 
writer, Ellis Parker Butler, published a novel called THE INCUBATOR 
BABY. Both men were reflecting widespread interest and concerns.
<http://www.ellisparkerbutler.info/>

<<Chick is also notable in being a major character without a clear gender.>>

Which, the book implies, is a result of having been brought up by an 
incubator. Chick is as genderless as a machine (though, to be sure, 
Tik-Tok is a machine with a gender). In the debate about whether gender 
is a matter of nature or nurture, Baum's example implies it's all nurture.

J. L. Bell                 JnoLBell at earthlink.net

    Musings about some of my favorite
    fantasy literature for young readers.
    http://ozandends.blogspot.com

L. Frank Baum, John R. Neill

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:14:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Hungry Tiger Press <hungrytigerpress at pacbell.net>
Subject: [Regalia] John Dough - the Musical

Since we are now discussing JOHN DOUGH the book I thought it might be worthwhile
to say a few words and open a discussion of the 1905 musical THE GINGERBREAD MAN.

In print and advertisements Baum referred to John Dough as "the original gingerbread
man." This no doubt referencing the Broadway musical THE GINGERBREAD MAN, whose
title character was even named John Dough, which opened in New York in late 1905.

It seems very likely to me that there is SOME connection between the musical and Baum's
book - thought exactly what it is is most likely lost to history.

Many elements in JOHN DOUGH AND THE CHERUB point toward Baum's desire to turn JOHN DOUGH
into another musical extravaganza like the 1903 WIZARD OF OZ. John Dough himself as a
comic lead, Chick as a cross-dressing "trouser role" for some pretty young actress, Para
Bruin for the animal impersonator, and a chorus if Pirates et al to round it all out.

But as I mention above, the 1905 GINGERBREAD MAN musical dashed all hopes of putting
Baum's JOHN DOUGH on Broadway.

Was it purely coincidence that while Baum was completing his manuscript someone else
just happened to have the idea of creating a musical about a live human-sized gingerbread
man named John Dough? Hmmmm...

Here's where it gets interesting. THE GINGERBREAD MAN musical was composed by A. Baldwin
Sloane. Sloane was also credited (along with Paul Tietjens) as the composer of the 1903
WIZARD OF OZ musical. There is even some evidence that Sloane wrote music to some of Baum's
lyrics in WIZARD. So it seems that in 1903 Baum and Tietjens were working together in some
fashion, and two years later Baum is writing JOHN DOUGH the book and Sloane is composing
GINGERBREAD MAN the musical.

No script for GINGERBREAD MAN is know to survive. The playbills don't show any other overt
similarity to JOHN DOUGH's plot. The musical seem's to be mainly set in Santa Claus land
and an all-edible kingdom that closely mirros Baum's Bunbury in EMERALD CITY. No archive of
Sloane material is know to survive and so there is litle in the way of correspondence,
contracts, etc. to show any direct contact Baum and Sloane might have had.

One other oddity is that when W. W. Denslow wanted to duplicate the success of the WIZARD
stageplay he created THE PEARL AND THE PUMPKIN as both a kid's novel and a fairly successful
1905 musical. In the musical there is a song called "Who makes the finest Gingerbread?"
which was sung by character named John Dough. Might Baum and Denslow and Sloane ALL have
been talking about this idea back in 1903 and each took it and ran in a different direction?
Who knows.

On the freebie section of Hungry Tiger Press I have a page devoted to the GINGERBREAD MAN
musical where you can see a few photos, download or examine two playbills. Link to GINGERBREAD
MAN page

You can also listen to the hit song from the show called "John Dough" about the musicals live
Gingerbread Man. Click to listen to the song

It must have really rankled Baum to have Denslow using a Gingerbread song sung by a character
named John Dough in THE PEARL AND THE PUMPKIN and then REALLY rankled him when the WIZARD OF OZ
composer put out a musical about a human-sized Gingerbread Man named John Dough - and both the
year before his book, JOHN DOUGH AND THE CHERUB, was published.

Anyone have any thoughts? 

David Maxine

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:02:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Hutchins <scottandrewhutchins at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] John Dough - the Musical

One thing, and I added this on Wikipedia, is that the John Dough of the play, based on the lyrics
of the song, seems to have no qualms about eaten, since he talks nonchalantly about going down
a kid's throat.

Scott Andrew Hutchins

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:34:18 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] chick the cherub

Hungry Tiger Press (David Maxine) <hungrytigerpress at pacbell.net> wrote about 
the John Dough/Gingerbread of A. Baldwin Sloane's play 1905 GINGERBREAD MAN 
and the 1905 play-version of Denslow's THE PEARL AND THE PUMPKIN and 
speculated that they and Baum at some point during the run of the stage 
WIZARD might all have chatted about gingerbread (and the John Dough pun) as 
possible materials.

Sounds plausible. It occurs to me that one reason Baum decided he wanted 
Chick in his 1906 "John Dough" might have been that the new character made 
for a sharper distinction between his treatment and theirs. Initially (known 
from a 1912 letter Baum wrote to Britton, quoted in one of David Greene's 
early "Bugle" articles, and again by J.L. in his "Bugle" article on "John 
Dough"), Baum was writing the story thinking it would make a good serial for 
"Ladies' Home Journal," but the editor thought he ought to write in a child 
character, "and I either had a grouch or the big-head and refused to alter 
the text." When Baum decided to take the editor's advice after all (but at 
that point he seems to have been thinking of it as a full-length book, and 
doesn't seem to have offered it again for serialization), Chick wound up 
becoming a memorable character.

While we're mentioning gingerbreadmen, there's also Ruth Plumly Thompson's 
"The Gingerbread Man," one of her 1923 clever tales in verse written as ads 
for Royal Baking Powder. She went for alliteration rather than the pun 
(maybe she thought the pun was a bit — er — stale by then?), and called 
him Johnny Gingerbread instead.

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:44:02 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] john dough

On Feb 14, 2008 11:33 AM, Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
> I like to think that the narrow strip of water is so narrow and so shallow
> for most of its length that it's there or not depending on whether the ocean
> is at high tide or low tide. A similar tidal arm might be useful to explain
> the presence of the Mifkets as mainland residents on the map — although the
> difference in name between Mifkets ("John Dough") and Mifkit ( in Neill's
> "Scalawagons" — Dick Martin's Jinx was a Mifket again) might signal that
> they are different groups. Jack Snow suggested ("Who's Who in Oz") that
> "Mifkets" on the map and Neill's head-throwing Mifkit were errors and should
> both have referred to the "Road" head-throwing Scoodlers, who are right next
> to the Mifkets on the map.

One idea I had was that the Mifkits were a cross-breed between Mifkets
and Scoodlers (explaining why they looked like Mifkets, but could
throw their heads), but they seem to be a lot smaller than both.  I
guess there isn't any particular reason why Mifkets couldn't live in
different places, or perhaps some of the inhabitants of the island
colonized the mainland near the Scoodlers' territory.

> To some extent, Baum may have been thinking of this-world magic workers as
> coming here from other-worlds. In the Oz books he says that magic talismans
> like the silver slippers and the magic belt would lose their powers if
> brought to this-world, but I suppose there's a possible reconciling factor
> of sorts if people like the $9.00 Witch or Ali Dubh's ancestors or the
> Arabian Knight who made Button Bright's umbrella ("Sky Island") came here
> from the Oz world and found themselves still able to create magic here,
> although they couldn't import magical goods (or bads?).

While Button-Bright does say that his Arabian knightly ancestor used
to own the umbrella, is there any real indication that he made it?
Considering that it seems to be powered by fairies, perhaps it was a
gift from them in the first place.
— 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:54:22 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] JOHN DOUGH mysteries

On Feb 14, 2008 3:00 PM, J. L. Bell <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> > Another glitch I've noticed is how, even though only
> > John can talk to Para Bruin during the episode on the Isle of Mifkets,
> > Para can communicate quite well with everybody on the pirate island
> > and Hiland/Loland.  We could perhaps assume that these areas, like Oz,
> > allow animals to speak, but this is never specifically stated.
>
> Yes, it seems odd that after spending so much space in JOHN DOUGH on
> language barriers that Baum simply dropped the issue.

There's also an occasion at the beginning of Chapter 13 where Pittypat
claims that he heard and understood John's talk with Ali Dubh, despite
the fact that they wouldn't have been conversing in the rabbit
language.
— 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:19:03 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] gingerbread

2008/2/13 Daniel Doherty <janitor_stage_two at yahoo.com>:
> It's true that by the time I read _John Dough_, I already knew the titular
> character's fate from _Road_. However, I wasn't all too confident about how
> he would get there. It wasn't enough that he was made of fragile materials
> and was falling apart, like Jack Pumpkinhead—John Dough was made out of
> something that was good to eat in its current form. Dorothy herself even
> condoned the eating of similar creatures in _Emerald City_.

Since John has to drink the magic liquid given to him by the King of
the Fairy Beavers to make his repairs at the end of the book
permanent, it doesn't seem like his parts are quite as easily replaced
as Jack's or the Sawhorse's.  This could imply that he won't last as
long as the Ozites of fragile construction.  On the other hand, it's
possible that he could call in some help from the Fairy Beavers or
from Oz whenever he needs repairs, and hence last much longer than a
gingerbread man generally would.

> Chick is also notable in being a major character without a clear gender.
> This is an interesting idea, but I think that Baum could have handled it
> better. There are ways to word sentences (in English, at least) so that no
> gender words have to be used at all. I seem to recall seeing this done
> before (although I can't recall where) so that I had read several pages
> about a character before it even occurred to me that I didn't know the
> character's gender.

Martin Gardner's introduction to the Dover edition points out how
awkward it is when Baum refers to Chick as "it."

> As for Chick, I tend to think of the cherub as a boy. I have no idea why.

The Dover edition has a promotional picture drawn by Neill in which
Chick is dressed in both boy's and girl's clothes, and I must say that
the boy's clothes suit him/her better.  That doesn't necessarily mean
anything, though.

Another thing to note about Chick is that his/her speech patterns seem
more slangy than those of a lot of Baum's other characters.
— 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:00:09 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] gingerbread

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> Since John has to drink the magic liquid given to him by the King of
> the Fairy Beavers to make his repairs at the end of the book
> permanent, it doesn't seem like his parts are quite as easily replaced
> as Jack's or the Sawhorse's.  This could imply that he won't last as
> long as the Ozites of fragile construction. 

Jack and the Sawhorse are wood, and other artificial people in Oz are 
made of tin and cloth. Those substances are all more durable to begin 
with than gingerbread. Jack might fall apart in an accident, but he 
won't disintegrate like John. The Scarecrow gets soggy in the rain and 
the tin men rust, but they don't crumble to bits as John would.

It seems like the Fairy Beaver King's potion causes John's pieces to 
stick together, or the new bits to stick to the old bits and become 
imbued with the Elixir of Life. Again, that's different from how new 
pieces are added to the cloth, metal, and wood creatures, and the 
difference seems inherent in the soft, spongy nature of gingerbread.

Perhaps a sticky frosting glue could have produced the same result. But 
it wouldn't look as good—and John wouldn't like that.

> Another thing to note about Chick is that his/her speech patterns seem
> more slangy than those of a lot of Baum's other characters.

Yes, John remarks on Chick's modern mode of speaking. It's another way 
that Baum drew a contrast between his two heroes: ancient wisdom versus 
contemporary common sense.

On the one hand, the slang underscores how Chick is the most modern of 
children, raised by the latest technology. But there's also the hint, 
made explicit by the kinglet, that being reared by an incubator has left 
Chick a bit rude.

J. L. Bell                 JnoLBell at earthlink.net

    Musings about some of my favorite
    fantasy literature for young readers.
    http://ozandends.blogspot.com

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:13:09 EST
From: WCam60 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Regalia] gingerbread

Just a note - as gingerbread ages, it can become remarkably hard and sturdy. 
Possibly, after the adventures of the book, John Dough improved with age - the 
longer he survived, the less chance there was of destruction. Of course, 
there's always the fear of being eaten, but stale gingerbread is no treat!
Bill Campbell

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:55:36 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] dough details

"Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com> wrote:
> While Button-Bright does say that his Arabian knightly ancestor used to 
> own the umbrella, is there any real indication that he made it? 
> Considering that it seems to be powered by fairies, perhaps it was a gift 
> from them in the first place. <

Hmm, yes, probably so.

> There's also an occasion at the beginning of Chapter 13 where Pittypat 
> claims that he heard and understood John's talk with Ali Dubh, despite the 
> fact that they wouldn't have been conversing in the rabbit language. <

Perhaps all the difficulties these animals have understanding humans are 
akin to Jack Pumpkinhead's theory that he wouldn't be able to understand the 
Scarecrow?

> Martin Gardner's introduction to the Dover edition points out how awkward 
> it is when Baum refers to Chick as "it." <

At the time, it wasn't as awakward as it seems now. It was fairly common to 
refer to a baby as "it," and although it was less common to refer to a child 
so, it was still done. E. Nesbit's books, for instance, in places where she 
refers to what each of a group of children did, usually have something like 
"When each had finished its task..."

In connection with Sir Pryze Bocks' rant about the bad design of umbrellas 
and how poorly they keep off the rain — it's interesting to see that the 
Feb. 11/18 "New Yorker" has an article, "Onward and Upward with the Arts/ 
Eerily Composed/ Nico Muhly, Generation Y maestro" by Rebecca Mead about an 
artist and inventor whose recent inventions include an umbrella intended to 
be more effective at keeping the rain from dripping down your neck and at 
standing up to the wind without turning inside out. No Repulsion Tube, 
though — it has an aerodynamic sort of shape that slides the rain to the 
back and drops it off a point at the back that sticks out further to the 
back than a round umbrella does. Muhly has also been thinking about 
designing some sort of signaller so that the umbrella would let you know 
when you set it down somewhere and start to walk off without it. That's a 
feature that would have pleased Ruth Plumly Thompson, who had her 
Supposyville inventor invent a "loseless" umbrella (and a couple of other 
times in her Philadelphia "Public Ledger" writings had poems about how nice 
it would be to have such a thing).

Ruth Berman

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:24:29 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] imar's airplane

Thinking about Imar's bird-winged airplane — I suppose airplanes were much 
in the news when Baum was working on "John Dough" (a website I looked at 
says the Wright brothers' 1st 3 airplanes were 1903, 1904, 1905, although 
the first one that made a convincing flight demonstration was the year after 
"John Dough," 1907). Baum researched airplanes pretty carefully a few years 
later, when he was doing his "Flying Girl" pair of books, but I don't know 
how much he would have known about them at this stage. Did he make Imar's 
airplane one with wings that flapped like a bird to distinguish its magical 
nature from the non-magical fixed wings of the airplanes actually being 
developed, or did he not know that the airplanes under development were 
fixed-wing types and just thought airplanes would have to be bird-like? 
Also — Imar's plane is powered by electricity, not gas. Is Baum likely to 
have been thinking of batteries that compact and powerful as evidence of 
magic, or (similar idea, but not quite the same) as futuristic science ahead 
of what was going on with gas-powered flight and the sort of thing Imar 
might have invented in advance of US inventors? Or maybe he was still enough 
interested in electricity after "The Master Key" (1901) — and his son Rob 
was probably still fascinated enough by electricity around the Baum 
household — to like the idea of magical electricity, in any case, whether 
he considered the specific case of electrical airplanes likely or not? (And. 
of course, he went on to make Electricity one of the fairies serving the 
Queen of Light in "Tik-Tok.")

Ruth Berman

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:06:43 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Imar's airplane and other inventions

Ruth Berman wrote:
<<Thinking about Imar's bird-winged airplane — I suppose airplanes were 
much in the news when Baum was working on "John Dough" (a website I 
looked at says the Wright brothers' 1st 3 airplanes were 1903, 1904, 
1905, although the first one that made a convincing flight demonstration 
was the year after "John Dough," 1907).>>

The Wrights were so protective of their ideas that they didn't go public 
for years after that famous first flight. Thus, no one—particularly no 
one outside the field—could be certain that fixed-wing aircraft were 
the only way to fly in 1905-06, when Baum wrote JOHN DOUGH.

Certainly other inventors were trying to create a working airplane then. 
But I don't know how much press they were getting, and thus whether Baum 
would have seen it.

Baum seems to depict the inventions on Phreex as scientific, not 
magical—just a very advanced science. So I suspect he did think that an 
aircraft built just like a bird made scientific sense.

Baum calls Imar the only successful inventor on Phreex, but other men 
have also succeeded at doing what they set out to do: repel gravity, 
make diamonds. Those other men are "failures" only because their 
inventions don't work perfectly or bring bad unintended consequences. 
Imar's flying machine runs out of power just like Sir Pryse Bok's 
umbrella-replacement, but no one says that machine failed. Perhaps the 
others dislike Imar because he's obviously juvenile-lead material, and 
they aren't.

J. L. Bell                 JnoLBell at earthlink.net

    Musings about some of my favorite
    fantasy literature for young readers.
    http://ozandends.blogspot.com

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:29:21 -0600
From: Bell Snickle <bell-snickle at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Regalia] John Dough & the Cherub

I just finished "John Dough & the Cherub" and found it interesting for a couple
reasons.  One of which, already mentioned in this discussion, is the amount of
working magic in America with the Elixir of Life and the witch the helps Ali Dubh.
While most of the people John Dough encounters are frightened by him, the encounter
with the woman who recognizes that he's a live piece of gingerbread and wants to cut
him up and eat him stands out.  She accepts the idea of an edible living gingerbread
man walking down her street without fear or confusion and any wonderment she feels
is apparently overridden by her hunger for gingerbread.

Also intriguing was Dough's dilemma over giving the Princess a piece of his body to eat.
As far as I can remember, Baum doesn't have any other character's deal with a similar
problem in his other books.  (I could be wrong, I haven't read ?A New Wonderland?/"The
Magical Monarch of Mo" in quite a while and that book in particular seems like it could
have a similar situation.)  The closest I could think of is the Scarecrow who allows
himself to be unstuffed a number of times but he, unlike John Dough, is usually confident
that he can be re-stuffed and returned to his original state at a later point.

Beyond those two points I also had these random thoughts on the text:

I wonder if the Princess and her parents were from a fairy country or if they were from
our world?  While the text never mentions where they originally came from, the mother's
description ?round as an apple in form? almost sounds like she could have been comfortable
in Loland.

When John Dough meets the parrot that eats his coattails he says to the bird "You're a rampsy,
that's what you are!"  Anyone know what a rampsy is?

The mouth that Neill gives the Mifkets in the illustrations is remarkably similar to those he
gives some of the Scoodlers in "The Road to Oz."  It makes it a little clearer to me how he
confused attributes from both in his memory and thus in his later portrayal of the mifket in
"The Scalawagons of Oz."

I was unfamiliar with the song "Annie Laurie" that the King of the Fairy Beavers plays for
John Dough and company but was able to hear a version of it via YouTube, here's a link if
anyone else is interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vokDjYtGXXw

A small point but I found it sort of odd that John Dough and the children apparently are able
to walk upright in the Fairy Beavers' underground home.  An adult beaver standing up is only
around two feet tall so I'd imagine the ceilings, even if high from a beaver's perspective,
would only be around three or four feet high?  But there's no mention that I noticed in the
text of them the Fairy Beavers shrinking them or if they had to crouch or crawl.

Sport I feel is one of Baum's less believable living grotesques. I'm not sure why I find him less
believable than what say Para Bruin but Sport just falls beyond the bounds of believable fantasy
for me.  I would guess a stronger editor might have cut him, and the pointless Prize Potato for
that matter, from the text.

I did enjoy though how the fantasy realm portion of the book takes place on a series of islands.
I know that Baum and the Martin/Haff map later place Hiland and Loland adjacent to Baum's other
fairy kingdoms but I preferred it as an island.  The downside is it gives the book a very episodic
feel but the tension that the search for land gives the book made it worthwhile.

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:23:31 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Regalia Digest, Vol 13, Issue 14

Bell Snickle <bell-snickle at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if the Princess [Jacquelin] and her parents were from a fairy 
> country or if they were from our world?  While the text never mentions 
> where they originally came from, the mother's description ?round as an 
> apple in form? almost sounds like she could have been comfortable in 
> Loland. >

In France, her name would be spelled Jacqueline, but it's a typically French 
name. With Monsieur and Madame Grogrande in the story, I wonder if Baum 
could have been thinking of this little family as originally French. I wish 
he'd found some end for them that would have had them turn up in 
Hiland/Loland (as you say, the mother sounds as if she would have felt at 
home in Loland), rather than leaving them on an island on their own. Sounds 
lonesome, and (depending on how much deathlessness you think there is in the 
Borderlands) awfully hard on Jacquelin when her parents die, and eventually 
when she dies all alone herself. I suppose keeping them with John would mean 
having to find some kind of palace appointment for them, and he might have 
felt that was crowding the place a bit. But he did find room for Para Bruin 
to come along, rather than keeping strictly to the partnership of John & 
Chick that otherwise dominates the story.

> When John Dough meets the parrot that eats his coattails he says to the 
> bird "You're a rampsy, that's what you are!"  Anyone know what a rampsy 
> is? >

Rampsies are the smallest of immortals. Besides their mention in "John 
Dough," they show up in "Nelebel's Fairyland" (published 1905, the year 
before "John Dough"), Baum's San-Diego-praise story.

> I know that Baum and the Martin/Haff map later place Hiland and Loland 
> adjacent to Baum's other fairy kingdoms but I preferred it as an island. <

Well, technically, they do make it an island, inserting an arm of the ocean 
cutting off HilandLoland from the mainland while leaving it in about the 
same position as on the "Tik-Tok" map (which does show it as part of the 
mainland). In the process, not wanting (I suppose) to have the Deadly Desert 
come right down to the seashore, they had a narrow strip of non-desert 
shoreland there opposite Loland. Sometimes people ask whose territory that 
would be. Easiest answer, I think, is to say that it's Loland's mainland 
territory. A suggestion I've made other times — it could be that the strip 
of ocean dividing their island from the coast is so shallow that it's only 
at high tide that they're an island, with the most of the bit inbetween 
being dry land at low tide and connecting directly at those times with the 
strip that borders the Desert.

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:01:49 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] John Dough & the Cherub

"Bell Snickle" wrote:
> Also intriguing was Dough's dilemma over giving the Princess a piece
of his body to eat. As far as I can remember, Baum doesn't have any
other character's deal with a similar problem in his other books.>>

The Scarecrow's choice to let the Hip-po-gy-raf eat his straw in TIN 
WOODMAN seems like the most similar analogy: giving part of yourself up 
to be utterly consumed in order to help a friend.

Most of Baum's living edibles aren't so existentially generous, however, 
as we learn in in Bunbury.

I interpret John Dough's choice to let a bit of himself be eaten—the 
fate that he, like most previous gingerbread men, has spent his whole 
life trying to avoid—is the moment when he becomes a hero worthy of 
being a king.

> I wonder if the Princess and her parents were from a fairy country or
> 
if they were from our world? While the text never mentions where they
originally came from, the mother's description ?round as an apple in
form? almost sounds like she could have been comfortable in Loland.>>

In his introduction to the Dover edition, Martin Gardner notes that the 
book is full of round ladies: Mme. Grosgrande, Tina on Phreex, the 
Princess's mother, and the Lolander baker who helps John feel whole again.

> When John Dough meets the parrot that eats his coattails he says to
the bird "You're a rampsy, that's what you are!" Anyone know what a
rampsy is?
> 

Baum used this term one other place, in "Nelebel's Fairyland":
<http://www.hungrytigerpress.com/tigertales/tigertale018.shtml>
Rampsies, it turns out, are the "smallest of immortals."

J. L. Bell                 JnoLBell at earthlink.net

    Musings about some of my favorite
    fantasy literature for young readers.
    http://ozandends.blogspot.com

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jared Davis <scarecrowandtinman2002 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Regalia] John Dough and the Cherub

I find it funny that Baum used the name "Tina" for a large, obese woman. The name means
"small." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's related to the word "tiny."
   
  In John Dough, I kind of found Baum's ending somewhat abrupt. Yes, the story has run it's
  course by the time John and Chick and Para reach Hiland and Loland (indeed, the addition
  of Pirate Island and Sport was completely unneccessary), but Baum usually eased or brought
  action into his endings.
   
  Well, you must admit that here, as in "Dot and Tot of Merryland" and "Dorothy and the Wizard
  in Oz," Baum uses episodic travels. So, really the whole point of the book is John trying
  to find a place where he will be safe from being devoured. So, I guess the ending is fine.
   
  I did once theorize that he hurried the ending because Reilly & Britton were anxious to begin
  their advertising for the book, but I find that unlikely now. It should be noted (as Scott,
  I believe, did recently) that Baum was working on a large amount of work for 1906, even though
  this (correct me if I'm wrong) was the only new book his real name was on that year.

Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:14:20 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] JOHN DOUGH and Jacquelin's family

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Bell Snickle <bell-snickle at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Also intriguing was Dough's dilemma over giving the Princess a piece of his
> body to eat.  As far as I can remember, Baum doesn't have any other
> character's deal with a similar problem in his other books.  (I could be
> wrong, I haven't read "A New Wonderland"/"The Magical Monarch of Mo" in
> quite a while and that book in particular seems like it could have a similar
> situation.)  The closest I could think of is the Scarecrow who allows
> himself to be unstuffed a number of times but he, unlike John Dough, is
> usually confident that he can be re-stuffed and returned to his original
> state at a later point.

I get the feeling that the Scarecrow is often overconfident as to his
own indestructibility, as when he assumes that King Krewl would never
think of trying to destroy him with fire.  John, on the other hand,
has a terrible fear of being eaten, even if it wouldn't result in his
total destruction.

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
>  Bell Snickle <bell-snickle at hotmail.com> wrote:
>  > I wonder if the Princess [Jacquelin] and her parents were from a fairy
>  > country or if they were from our world?  While the text never mentions
>  > where they originally came from, the mother's description ?round as an
>  > apple in form? almost sounds like she could have been comfortable in
>  > Loland. >
>
>  In France, her name would be spelled Jacqueline, but it's a typically French
>  name. With Monsieur and Madame Grogrande in the story, I wonder if Baum
>  could have been thinking of this little family as originally French. I wish
>  he'd found some end for them that would have had them turn up in
>  Hiland/Loland (as you say, the mother sounds as if she would have felt at
>  home in Loland), rather than leaving them on an island on their own. Sounds
>  lonesome, and (depending on how much deathlessness you think there is in the
>  Borderlands) awfully hard on Jacquelin when her parents die, and eventually
>  when she dies all alone herself. I suppose keeping them with John would mean
>  having to find some kind of palace appointment for them, and he might have
>  felt that was crowding the place a bit. But he did find room for Para Bruin
>  to come along, rather than keeping strictly to the partnership of John &
>  Chick that otherwise dominates the story.

I also thought that the fate of Jacquelin and her parents, while not
as bad as being slaves to the Mifkets, didn't really provide that much
closure.  It kind of feels like Baum was just tired of working with
those characters, but wanted them to have at least a reasonably happy
ending.  A story that has Jacquelin and her parents being rescued (or,
alternatively, other people coming to live on their island) is
something I've considered.
— 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:05:09 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Annie Laurie

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Bell Snickle <bell-snickle at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was unfamiliar with the song "Annie Laurie" that the King of the Fairy
> Beavers plays for John Dough and company but was able to hear a version of
> it via YouTube, here's a link if anyone else is interested:
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vokDjYtGXXw

Trot also mentions the song in SEA FAIRIES, as something that she
thinks the singing barnacles should sing instead of their nonsense
songs (along with "Home Sweet Home," which is briefly quoted in
WIZARD).  I'm not sure whether it was a favorite of Baum's, or just
something he expected his readers to recognize.
— 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hungry Tiger Press <hungrytigerpress at pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Annie Laurie

Baum didn't need to expect people to know "Annie Laurie," virtually anyone would have known
"Annie Laurie," both then and until very recently when the US sort of tossed pop-culture aside

It's just an Irish folk song and should be as recognizable as say "Ta ra ra boom be-yea"or
"Danny Boy,"or "Oh, Susannah."

Perhaps people don't know it by name anymore, but still the melody should be VERY familiar.
It's also used in Montgomery and Stones's Scotch Moriah medley on the 1903 WIZARD CD I put out.

Best, David M.

Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com> wrote:
Trot also mentions the song in SEA FAIRIES, as something that she
thinks the singing barnacles should sing instead of their nonsense
songs (along with "Home Sweet Home," which is briefly quoted in
WIZARD).  I'm not sure whether it was a favorite of Baum's, or just
something he expected his readers to recognize.
— 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hungry Tiger Press <hungrytigerpress at pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Annie Laurie

Gosh, Now I go and make a fool of myself calling "Annie Laurie," Irish when I know plain well
that it's Scottish and even mention it being in the "Scotch Moriah" number! Guess my Campbell
ancestors are gonna be mad at me now.

Where's the haggis...

David M.

PS  haggis is what you EAT while listening to "Annie Laurie" ... It's something like a gump's
stomach, that stuffed with other chopped gump parts, oats, etc.,  and consumed with a bottle of scotch.

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:54:02 -0600
From: Bell Snickle <bell-snickle at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] John Dough & the Cherub

Regarding "Annie Laurie," it's interesting how songs that Baum assumed would be pretty much
universally known to his readers of the time have now fallen into obscurity.  A bit similar
is the scene from "Dot & Tot in Merryland" when Dot finds a hurdy-gurdy in the Valley of
Lost Things that plays "Silver Threads Among the Gold," "Little Annie Rooney," "Captain Jinks,"
and "Two Little Girls in Blue."  Dot seems to recognize the songs though she does comment that
all of them were quite old and as such the hurdy-gurdy was probably lost before she was born.

When I last read "Dot & Tot" I did brief searches for all of those songs as well.  The only
one I was relatively certain I accurately found was "Silver Threads Among the Gold."  If
anyone's curious, you can legally download a now public domain version of that song as sung
by Elsie Baker here:

http://www.archive.org/details/SilverThreadsAmongTheGoldbyElsieBaker

Thanks for the replies on rampsies.  I haven't read "Nelebel's Fairyland" so I'll have to
check that out.

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:46:43 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] dough details

Jared Davis <scarecrowandtinman2002 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I find it funny that Baum used the name "Tina" for a large, obese woman. 
> The name means "small." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's related 
> to the word "tiny." >

Not exactly. Tina as a name comes from the nickname Tina, which is short for 
longer Classical names like Christina or Clementina. The -t- is part of the 
Christ or Clement root. But -ina is a diminutive ending, so any form of the 
name includes the "small" meaning. The English word "tiny" is probably not 
related — it may come from "tine" (as in tines of a fork), and that's a 
Germanic word.

"Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com> wrote:
> I also thought that the fate of Jacquelin and her parents, while not as 
> bad as being slaves to the Mifkets, didn't really provide that much 
> closure.  It kind of feels like Baum was just tired of working with those 
> characters, but wanted them to have at least a reasonably happy ending.  A 
> story that has Jacquelin and her parents being rescued (or, alternatively, 
> other people coming to live on their island) is
something I've considered. <

Sounds like a good idea. I wonder if Baum wanted to separate Chick and 
Jacquelin, because the kids were getting too friendly and could have 
distracted from the central (in terms of plot) friendship of Chick and John. 
If you think of the friendship between the two kids as something that would 
have turned into a romance, Chick would probably have had to confront issues 
of gender that Chick didn't want to confront (and Baum didn't want Chick to 
confront, since he wanted to keep Chick's gender a mystery). Even if you 
think of the friendship as staying a friendship, it would probably have 
distracted from Chick's friendship with John in a way that acquiring a pet 
rubber bear didn't threaten to do.

> Trot also mentions the song ["Annie Laurie"] in SEA FAIRIES, as something 
> that she thinks the singing barnacles should sing instead of their 
> nonsense songs (along with "Home Sweet Home," which is briefly quoted in 
> WIZARD).  I'm not sure whether it was a favorite of Baum's, or just 
> something he expected his readers to recognize. <

Could easily enough have been a personal favorite, but he would certainly 
have expected his readers to know it.

Ruth Berman