Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 08:04:46 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: LIL WIZARD OF OZ, 1 of 8
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
LITTLE WIZARD STORIES OF OZ was a "lost" book to me when I started reading
the series. It's not included in WHO'S WHO or listed among the titles at
the front of the "white cover" edition of ROAD, my two road maps. I saw
references to LIL WIZARD in ANNOTATED WIZARD, but these were Baum's only
published Oz tales that I didn't read until I was old enough to vote. 

  With one exception. I read "The Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman" when it
was reprinted in CRICKET in the late 1970s. At the time, I recall, Michael
Patrick Hearn was a contributing editor for that magazine. Hearn was no
doubt also the impetus behind Schocken (the imprint that published his
Critical Heritage WIZARD) reissuing LIL WIZARD in 1985. So I owe my first
look at these stories to him--and to the realization of "The Baum Trust"
that the tales' copyright was about to run out.

  The Books of Wonder/Morrow edition of 1994 boasts three more color
illustrations than the Schocken reissue: the endpapers are in color instead
of black and white, and there's a color frontispiece. Schocken prints
Neill's story-opening art and initial letters in blue, however, and removes
the "This Book Belongs to" drawing that Reilly & Britton lifted from
POLICEMAN BLUEJAY and BoW reprints.

  Both editions seem to have been reset. The page breaks fall in different
places, as do the illustrations. For that reason I won't quote page numbers
when I comment on the stories. For the early tales I think Schocken did a
better job arranging the art to follow the plot. 

  The biggest advantage of the Schocken edition is Hearn's introduction. He
discusses how the stories developed, quoting Baum's correspondence with
Sumner Britton. The publisher's major concern, it appears, was that the
tales not be too scary for young readers. He wanted to continue using "our
slogan that 'no Baum story ever sent a child to bed to troubled dreams.'" 

  It's ironic, then, that the LIL WIZARD STORIES are full of intense
dangers. We see children (including Dorothy and Ozma) threatened with being
eaten by a tiger, captured by a giant, enslaved, threatened with a
cat-o'-nine-tails, pricked by moving thorn bushes, lost in the forest
without food, and tied to a tree by squirrels. We see our non-human
favorites from Oz broken in pieces, half-blinded, waterlogged, and hung
from a tree by crows. More than enough nightmares!

  Hearn reports that Baum asked Britton if these stories should have a new
artist: "Neill has not been giving satisfaction to my readers lately." I
suspect Baum was upset by the lower sales of SEA FAIRIES and SKY ISLAND,
and was looking for something to blame. 
 
J. L. Bell                       JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 09:07:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Ruth Berman <berma005 at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: ozzy digest
 
A few comments on "The Little Wizard Stories" -- they have some 
amusing moments (especially Ruggedo and Kaliko interacting with Tik-
Tok), but I don't care much for them overall.  Too preachy and too 
sketchy (notice how many characters go un-named as a man, a 
woman, a boy, a girl, a baby, and the absence of names for the 
places).  Neill's illustrations for it also look sketchy, perhaps done too 
hurriedly.  I recall a "Bugle" article on Neill pointing out the double use 
of some illos (slightly modified) in "Patchwork Girl" and "Little Wizard."  
(And "Patchwork Girl" itself was re-using illos multiple times in the story 
evidently to make an inadequate number of illos go further).  The article 
commented that it was hard to tell which book the re-used illos were 
done for originally.  I'd suggest that at least the illo of Dorothy reading 
the "Look out for -- " sign must have been done for "Patchwork Girl" 
originally, as "Yoop" fits the width of the sign better than "Crinklink," 
which had to be squidged to fit in.
 
Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 07:04:45 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: LIL WIZARD OF OZ, 2 of 8
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
"The Cowardly Lion and the Hungry Tiger" is haunted by the specter of
death. Not the death the beasts promise to inflict on the first people they
meet, but their own deaths. "I'm getting old, and it would please me to eat
at least one fat baby before I die," says the Tiger. After tearing someone
to pieces, the Lion says, he would "stalk away...before anyone could attack
me or kill me."

  Was Baum carelessly forgetting that Ozians don't die? Most likely. 

  But another interpretation of these fears begins with what the fat baby's
mother tells the Lion and Tiger: "I do not think either of you have [sic]
ever had an evil thought." Of course the animals have, but they didn't act
on those thoughts. 

  What would happen to the beasts if they killed people? In the same
paragraph in which he speaks of dying, the Tiger says, "we will both run
out of the city gates and gallop across the country and hide in the
jungle." This departure is presaged by the animals' movement away from
Ozma's throne: "Out of the palace they walked...they unlatched a gate..."
For acting on their evil thoughts, the Lion and Tiger would be expelled
from the Emerald City, as surely as Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. 

  Too strange a parallel? Let's examine Neill's drawing of the Hungry Tiger
patting the weepy baby as the Cowardly Lion looks on. What do we see in the
frame's upper right corner? A red fruit hanging from a tree--in western
culture, an undeniable symbol of Eden's forbidden fruit. 

  Applying a Biblical gloss to this story actually helps to explain the
beasts' thoughts of death. When they think of succumbing to their
temptations, the Lion and Tiger expect to die. But as they meet the fat
baby, the forbidden fruit remains intact. The animals won't know evil.
They'll stay immortal in paradise after all.
 
J. L. Bell                              JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 07:59:44 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: LIL WIZARD OF OZ, 3 of 8
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
"Little Dorothy and Toto" in its original form made publisher Sumner
Britton nervous, Michael Patrick Hearn reports in his introduction to the
Schocken LIL WIZARD. Baum had ended this story with Toto killing Crinklink
"on much the same order as a terrier would kill a rat." 

  On the digest I recently wrote of how I preferred Toto as an infrequent
talker, finding him thus to be just as intelligent as but distinct from
Oz's many speaking animals. In this story Baum states flat out, "Toto could
not talk...for he was just a common Kansas dog." Yet he hints that Toto
knows more than he lets on: "he looked at the sign so seriously that
Dorothy almost believed he could read it, and she knew quite well that Toto
understood every word she said to him." And Baum makes clear that Toto can
communicate to Dorothy: "'Bow-wow!' said Toto, and Dorothy knew that meant
a promise." 

  This story's outcome, in both original and published forms, depends on
Toto being a "common Kansas dog." He *is* a terrier (and Crinklink is a
rat)! Dorothy is too humane to seize the villain when he shrinks into bed,
but "Toto had heard this conversation [with the enchanted buttons] and was
not so particular about killing monsters." Dorothy's little dog combines
being able to understand speech and acting like a true canine. Rescuing his
mistress that way is far more interesting to me than his behavior after
starting to speak.

  Baum rewrote the end of "Little Dorothy and Toto" in response to
Britton's complaint that the original was "clearly away from your usual
style of not doing any killing." In fact, Britton introduced the "little
thought [to] suddenly have Crinklink grow larger again and appear in the
person of the Little Wizard of Oz, who would laugh heartily at the joke
perpetuated on little Dorothy." 

  As if children like to have jokes pulled on them. As if children like to
see lessons manufactured for them. As if children like to read about their
world being controlled by adults. What Oz ending could be more annoying?
This is as bad as if the Good Witch of the North hadn't told Dorothy the
silver shoes could take her home because she had to learn that for herself.

  Gratifyingly, Baum knows Dorothy well enough to know that she wouldn't
appreciate that sort of lesson: 

     "You've given me a good scare, Wizard," she added,
     with dignity, "and p'raps I'll forgive you, by 'n' by;
     but just now I'm mad to think how easily you 
     fooled me."
 
The Wizard pulls the same magically-disguise-myself trick on Number Nine in
WONDER CITY. It's no more charming there, but the boy doesn't talk back.
 
Ruth Berman seems on target when she sees a sign that Neill lifted his
"Crinklink" sign from PATCHWORK GIRL. That sign may well have been part of
Baum's rewrite--when Dorothy disregards its warning, the Wizard has more of
a lesson to teach. The picture of Dorothy bending to look at Crinklink
probably went the other way, from this volume to PATCHWORK GIRL. Dorothy
has no reason to bow on page 214 of that book, where the setting has been
moved inside. This implies that Neill planned Dorothy's outfit (dress,
polkadot sun hat) to appear in both volumes.
 
J. L. Bell                     JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:05:04 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: LIL WIZARD OF OZ, 4 of 8
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
"Tik-Tok and the Nome King" is my favorite LIL WIZARD tale. I see Ruth
Berman singles it out for faint praise as well, based on the characters.
Baum picks three favorites, all true to what we know from the longer books:
Ruggedo rash and reckless, Kaliko shrewd and secretive, Tik-Tok direct and
determined. Tik-Tok is uncharacteristically impolitic, but that's the very
reason for his visit to the Nomes. Since Roquat/Ruggedo (this seems to be
in his nameless period) hates everything associated with Oz, there's a
natural conflict; the story isn't moved by generic characters (a man, a
crow). And the ending doesn't depend on the Wizard ex machina, like most of
these stories. 

  In fact, I theorize that the Wizard is inadvertently behind Tik-Tok's
action (or the actions of his action) at the start. Smith & Tinker
guaranteed the clockwork man would work for a thousand years. It therefore
seems awfully early for "some of his parts [to be] wearing out." Baum tells
us, "The skillful little Wizard of Oz had tinkered with Tik-Tok's thoughts
without being able to get them properly regulated." The Wizard may have
opened Tik-Tok out of curiosity and overconfidence, and then realized he
was botching things. That would have voided the mechanical man's warranty
(not that Smith & Tinker is in business any longer). 

  In one elemental respect Tik-Tok is not the same mechanical man we've
met. Kaliko refers to him as "a cast-iron person," and a Nome such as
Kaliko would know his metals. Neill follows that lead by coloring Tik-Tok
blue-gray instead of coppery. 

  In ROAD Baum showed us Tik-Tok speaking after his thoughts ran down (one
of my favorite moments in the Oz books). In this story Kaliko "wound up the
motion machinery and the Clockwork Man walked up and down as naturally
[that is, as artificially] as ever" *before* the Nome "wound up the thought
works." If I were designing a mechanical man, I'd make him unable to move
without thinking, for fear he might cause damage. I would make him able to
speak without thinking, as a harmless signal to people to wind up his
thoughts. Perhaps Smith & Tinker had a better design, or perhaps the Wizard
or Kaliko didn't replace that regulator properly. 
 
J. L. Bell                    JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:27:42 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: LIL WIZARD OF OZ, 5 of 8
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
"Ozma and the Little Wizard" takes us back to a time when aluminum could be
treated as preciously as gold and silver. 

  Unfortunately, it doesn't do much else. The magical battle between the
Imps and the Wizard seesaws and builds to...nothing. We don't even see the
moral payoff--the Wizard just tells Ozma that it will come about. (Of
course, he was also confident his first three spells would reform the
Imps.) I almost suspect Baum listed an "Ozma/Wizard" story in his LIL
WIZARD scheme, but then discovered how much he needed Dorothy alongside
those two to make such stories compelling. 

  Minor observations: 
* The Wizard "mumbled a magic mutter" to dry his clothes. In "The Scarecrow
and the Tin Woodman," he is "obliged to mumble some magic words" to their
boat. Mumbling seems key to his style of magic.
* The Wizard wore another form of enchanted buttons in "Little Dorothy and Toto."
* The Wizard threatens to make the impish pigs into "chops, sausages or
roasts." No vegetarianism in this Oz!
* Neill seems to like curlicues. That spiral shape appears in the Wizard's
hair, the hair of the Ozian cottagers, the Imps' hair, and of course the
pigs' tails. 
 
J. L. Bell                      JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:01:27 -0600
From: David Hulan <davidhulan at ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-09 & 11-98
 
Ruth:
I have to agree with you on the _Little Wizard Stories_. I reread the
stories about ten days ago and already I can hardly remember them. (Can't
remember "The Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman" at all, and most of the others
only sketchily.) "Dorothy and Toto" is the most memorable, but it isn't
very. Baum seems to be writing down to his readers in these stories as he
didn't (often) in his FF books.
 
One of these stories - I believe "Jack Pumpkinhead and the Sawhorse" - was
in the "library" of my 4th-grade class in Jacksonville, IL, back in 1946;
that was when I was at the peak of my childhood enthusiasm for Oz (as
contrasted to my much more avid adult enthusiasm for Oz that you can
currently behold...), and I was very disappointed when I read it.
 
J.L.:
I didn't get the impression that the Wizard was magically disguising
himself in _Wonder City_, but that Number Nine just didn't know what the
Wizard looked like. However, I haven't read that book terribly carefully (I
dislike it a good deal), so I could be wrong.
 
David Hulan

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:02:35 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: LIL WIZARD OF OZ, 6 of 8
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
"Jack Pumpkinhead and the Sawhorse" would be more satisfying to me if the
Wizard didn't come to the heroes' rescue. I'd like to have seen Jack and
the Sawhorse, so limited in their different ways, solve their dilemma by
themselves. For instance, the Sawhorse could carry headless Jack and the
children to a pumpkin patch and instruct the little ones in carving a new
head--which, of course, would come out all googly-eyed. I know these are
the LIL WIZARD stories, but in the best of them that "little, withered old
man" is on the sideline. 

  "Ozma made [Jack] a map" to the lost children, and, despite the
Sawhorse's doubts, that chart takes him right to them. It even details the
paths through the forest. How might Ozma know that much from the Magic
Picture? And is this the first map of Oz we see mentioned in the books? (I
know Baum had one created for his Radio Plays.) 

  My favorite detail of this story is the opening artwork, showing Jack
currycombing his hard-barked steed.
 
J. L. Bell                   JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 98 12:53:35 (PST)
From: Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at delphi.com>
Subject: Ozzy Things
 
LITTLE WIZARD STORIES:
J.L. Bell wrote:
>The Wizard "mumbled a magic mutter" to dry his clothes. In "The Scarecrow
>and the Tin Woodman," he is "obliged to mumble some magic words" to their
>boat. Mumbling seems key to his style of magic.
 
Well if he said them out loud someone might overhear and and steal 
his secrets!
 
Bear wrote:
>I think the fact that no one is discussing the "Little Wizard
>Stories of Oz" is because there isn't a whole lot to discuss.
 
Perhaps not...But i am glad to hear J.L. Bell's comments.  I agree
_Tik-Tok & Nome King_ is the best.  _Scarecrow and Tin W._ is the
worst.   The others are not fantastic but I generally like them better
than J.L. does.  I agree though that the endings would be more satisfying
than the "Wizard ex machina" approach, which is Thompsonesque.  I admit
that I never really thought much before about what a dirty trick
it really is that the Wizard pulls on Dorothy.  I always kind of saw
it as a sort of parallel to the _Queeg_ episode of _Red Dwarf_, in which the
onboard computer Holly pulls the "Jape of the Decade" by similarily assuming
the disguise of a tyrannical ogre and sets the crew to work washing dishes
and scrubbing floors.
 
BTW, for you Dwarfers on the Digest, I am currently working on a
_Red Dwarf_ page on my web site.  One of the highlights will be a
piece on parallels of _Red Dwarf_ with Oz.
 
                             -- Dave

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 16:49:05 -0500
From: Lisa Bompiani <bompi at microserve.net>
Subject: Ozzy Digest
 
As for LWS, I couldn't help but giggle while reading "The Cowardly Lion and
the Hungry Tiger."  It appeared a very didactic tale about not trying to
live up to one's name.  The picture of the two struting off to find their
prey with the red bows in their tale or mane didn't give the image of
ferocity!  Then again, it wasn't meant to do so, which is the point.  Plus,
Neil's drawing of the fat baby was more like a toddler, and definitely not
fat.  And, it has a rather adult-like face, which is a charcteristic that I
noticed about earlier illustrations of children as a result of the ongoing
research project about illustrations.  Also, in working on that project, I
noticed that Neill's faces for the female characters were very similar --
Dorothy, Betsy, Trot, etc. -- and if I cut around the face I could use the
same one for each.  The face of the baby reminded me of those other faces.
Question:  If the people of Oz are seldom naughty and very well behaved,
what problems do they have?  There's a moral to this tale for sure. 
 
J.L. Bell: 
 
>  Was Baum carelessly forgetting that Ozians don't die? Most likely. 
Or, there's another reason why they couldn't carry out their evil thoughts.
Death doesn't happen in Oz.
 
>  A red fruit hanging from a tree--in western culture, an undeniable symbol
of Eden's forbidden fruit. 

I was thinking that the color red was very bright in these illustrations,
and appeared much brighter than it does in other illustrations, especially
p16 w/ the Tiger's tongue, p20 w/ the Tiger's mouth, the woman's dress, and
p36 in the background.
 
Peace & Love,
Bompi

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 09:06:14 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: LIL WIZARD OF OZ, 7 of 8
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
"The Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman" rests on a questionable premise: that
these two gentlemen would like boating. The Scarecrow had bad experiences
with rivers in WIZARD and LAND; he isn't too pleased with the river in
PATCHWORK GIRL, either. Nick rusts easily. Yet off they go on the water. 

  (They do the same in LUCKY BUCKY and OZMAPOLITAN, so perhaps boating is
simply their choice of extreme sport. In the former, Nick's seams seem to
have been sealed because he floats like a tin can instead of sinking.)

  In this story the Scarecrow even says, "My straw will not rust, and is
easily replaced, if damaged, so I'm not afraid of the water." I can only
take his heedlessness as a sign of deep affection for the Tin Woodman, whom
he wants to rescue. The image of the straw man bobbing on the surface,
unable to reach his friend, is actually rather amusing, but as our mothers
always warned us, it's not so funny after someone loses an eye!

  The crows laughing at our heroes' injuries from high in a tree remind me
of the squirrels in "Jack Pumpkinhead and the Sawhorse." Both flocks have a
king to do most of the talking. But while the King of the Squirrels has a
consistent grievance, the King Crow changes from friendly to hostile as the
plot requires. 

  The Scarecrow's vaunted brains are not much in evidence here. He makes a
couple of foolish mistakes, perhaps indicating distress. The tools to
rescue the Tin Woodman all seem to be at hand: a fishing hook, stout ropes,
rigging with pulleys. If the Scarecrow is powerful enough to lift the
anchor, he should be able to haul Nick back to the bank. But instead, the
crows do the thinking for him. 

  (Why would the Scarecrow's boat contain a fishing line? Presumably for
his servants, who eat, or for the amusement of Winkie children. Or, for all
we know about Ozian fauna, for the amusement of the fish themselves.) 

  Once he and Nick are up a tree, the Scarecrow really has to think. But
when he finally gets an idea, he "clapped his hands to his head, forgetting
the anchor, which tumbled to the ground." And away they go! (Fortunately,
all the Tin Woodman's worry about dents is for naught since he lands "on a
pile of dead leaves"--lucky non-break.) 

  A question for the engineers and other problem-solvers in the group: What
might the Scarecrow's solution have been? He mustn't let go of the anchor.
Nick is rusted. The two hang "not ten feet apart," but can't reach each
other or the trunk. What did the Scarecrow think to do?
 
Dave Hulan wrote:
<<I didn't get the impression that the Wizard was magically disguising
himself in _Wonder City_, but that Number Nine just didn't know what the
Wizard looked like. However, I haven't read that book terribly carefully (I
dislike it a good deal), so I could be wrong.>>
 
There are two Wizard masquerades in WONDER CITY, of different sorts; I had
them melded in my memory. 

  In Chapter 14 the Wizard shows up as a "street magician" visiting Jenny's
shop while she and Nine are there. For this chapter Neill draws him with a
ridiculously false moustache. (Ridiculous for America, that is; in Oz there
are probably whole cities of 'em.) Neither child recognizes him, nor is
there any unmasking later. Neill may have been inspired by the MGM movie of
the previous year, in which the Wizard worked out in the City in a variety
of facial hairs.

  In Chapter 23, Nine visits the Wizard's lab and finds a short, bald,
ruddy man in a dressing gown, whom he takes to be a lunatic janitor. Later,
when the Wizard arrives in his usual costume, the boy recognizes the Wizard
as that man and feels foolish. The implication is that the Wizard didn't
actively try to fool Nine, but didn't introduce himself when he had the
chance, either.

  Nevertheless, the drawings of the "lunatic" in this chapter are clearly
different from the Wizard we know and love. The Wizard is jowly and
prosperously plump; the man with the broom sunken-cheeked and thin. (Only
the endpapers' profiles make plausible that the "broom man" is simply the
Wizard on a bad hair day.) We can't decide to trust the historian over the
artist because they're supposed to be one AND the same. This may be another
discrepancy between Neill's art and "Neill's" text for Steve Teller to
investigate. 

  Dave Hulan, I hope that report saves you the pain of rereading these
parts of WONDER CITY. Chapter 23 is actually the longest in the book!
 
J. L. Bell                     JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:21:29 -0500
From: Richard Randolph <dixnam at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Ozzy Digest 3-14-98
 
Re Little Wizard Stories; Some other examples of Neill's drawings
not in sync with Baum's description. In Ozma & the Little Wizard,
Baum describes the Imps ..."They had big round ears, flat noses.."
while Neill's drawing shows them with small ears and long noses.
When the Wizard turned the the Imps to doves, the birds pictured
looked more like hawks!
 
In Jack Pumpkinhead and the Sawhorse, the Sawhorse tells the children
to "pick up the Pumpkinhead's body and set it on my saddle. Then
mount behind it and hold on."  In the picture, there is no saddle
on the Sawhorse, and Jack is sitting behind the children.
 
Dick

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:07:58 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: LIL WIZARD OF OZ, 8 of 8
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
When I reread a Baum Oz book these days, I look for themes that link all or
nearly all its episodes, such as good and bad rulers in TIK-TOK or the
fragility of bodies in TIN WOODMAN. I tried to do the same for all six LIL
WIZARD tales, and the best I can come up with is, "Don't leave home." 

  The Emerald City is a pleasant place where even great carnivores are
docile and everyone takes a nap in the afternoon ("The Cowardly Lion and
the Hungry Tiger"). But outside the city it's dangerous, a lesson imparted
explicitly ("Little Dorothy and Toto") and implicitly (all the rest). The
Ozians meet trouble beside a lake, under the ground, in the mountains, in
the forest, and on a river--in every form of Ozian wilderness besides a
desert. 

  In contrast to the Oz novels, no idyllic little villages await our
favorites. Adventure in parts unknown never appears as fun, even for
Dorothy. Nor does this collection have a stranger-comes-to-town or
conflict-arises-at-home story. In their homes the characters are always
safe, and they must always come home to be safe.

  Maybe that's a proper message for readers who are themselves young enough
to take naps. But it's not as much fun as a real Oz adventure, which
depends on both the dangers and rewards of travel. 

  Dave Hulan wrote: <<Baum seems to be writing down to his readers in these
stories as he didn't (often) in his FF books.>> I think that's true. In
these stories Baum was intentionally writing for little kids, for marketing
reasons. Most of Baum's earlier short stories--MOTHER GOOSE IN PROSE, MO,
AMERICAN FAIRY TALES, QUEER VISITORS, etc.--were for age ranges around that
of the Oz books, and by and large they work. But he may not have had as
sure a touch when he aimed for younger readers. Among stories for tots (I
haven't read FATHER GOOSE or the alphabet books), I think of DOT AND TOT
and the TWINKLE AND CHUBBINS tales--all as sticky as half-eaten lollipops. 
 
All the LIL WIZARD STORIES pair two celebrities from the Emerald City or
its environs, both of whom have been featured in at least two of the first
six books. What other tales would we like to see? 
* "Professor Wogglebug and the Shaggy Man"
* "General Jinjur and the Field Mice"
* "Aunt Em and Billina"
* "The Soldier with the Green Whiskers and the Guardian of the Gates" 
* combinations from the later books?
 
J. L. Bell                    JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:04:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Ruth Berman <berma005 at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: ozzy digest
 
J.L. Bell: I hadn't realized that Jack is currycombing the Sawhorse in 
that illo, so missed the humor in it.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Your 
discussion of the Lion/Tiger story has haunted by Death (with contrast 
to story of expulsion from Eden) is an interesting one.  I don't think 
Baum was really being careless in the references to death in Oz -- he 
hadn't (IIRC) decided yet that people in Oz don't die.
 
Dave Hardenbrook: "One and the same."  I think you're probably right 
that the Wizard tends to mumble spells because he's worried about 
having them misappropriated if clearly audible.

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 22:38:49 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: Oz souffle
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
Bompi wrote:
<<I was thinking that the color red was very bright in these illustrations,
and appeared much brighter than it does in other illustrations, especially
p16 w/ the Tiger's tongue, p20 w/ the Tiger's mouth, the woman's dress, and
p36 in the background.>>
 
I, too, was struck by how prominent red was in Neill's art for "Cowardly
Lion & Hungry Tiger," and (to a lesser extent) in other LIL WIZARD STORIES.
I wondered if this was because he was consciously working in a brighter
palate for younger children. But it could simply be Neill adding color to
frames dominated by camouflage-colored carnivores.

  My mother keeps complaining that the fat baby being patted by the Tiger
is a thalidomide child. (That may be the last time I loan her an Oz book
she hadn't read before.)
 
Ruth Berman wrote:
<<I don't think Baum was really being careless in the references to death
in Oz -- he hadn't (IIRC) decided yet that people in Oz don't die>>
 
Dorothy makes a remark about nobody dying in ROAD when she finds Jack's
tombstones. Baum really doesn't go all out and say Ozians keep living after
being torn to pieces until TIK-TOK, so these stories may fall during the
idea's development.

  Bompi, note that the Tiger wanted to eat someone, and the Lion to tear
someone apart--they don't speak explicitly of killing people, I think, only
of dying and being killed.
 
J. L. Bell                      JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:54:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Ruth Berman <berma005 at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: ozzy digest
 
J.L. Bell: The Scarecrow's idea for getting himself and the Tin
Woodman down from the tree -- I should think he might have actually
planned to drop the anchor, except that then he dropped it before he
was planning to.  But if he'd dropped it at a moment when his intention
was to drop it, perhaps he could have caught hold of the branch above
him when he was pulled up, and stopped the Woodman's fall by
hanging on to the branch while he worked himself along the branch to
the trunk, and from there on down.
 
Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:43:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Lisa Bompiani <TBZF at grove.iup.edu>
Subject: Ozzy Digest Post
 
Hello!  I am at work on campus and decided to just send in part of my post from
here rather than wait until I get home.  Time management skills at work!
 
I finished the LWS and found myself agreeing with a lot of J.L.'s comments. 
OH!  I'm gald we're talking about the LWS, too.  I've learned that discussing
the literature that may not be considered wonderful or worth discussion can
soemtimes be just as helpful and rewarding as discussing that that is wonderful
and worth discussing.  Anyway, here goes:
 
Little Dorothy and Toto:
 
p42 - About Toto and his inability to talk . . . could it just be the fact that
once in Oz, "outsiders" do not acquire the traits of Ozians and Baum was just
reminding readers of that fact?  Or, since readers know dogs can't talk, and
talking is viewed by many as a sign of intelligence, that Baum was using the
fact that Dorothy can understand him, and knows that he understands her as a
means to establishing Toto's smartness for later in the story?
p49 - I found it odd that Dorothy fell for the Crinklekink's trick.  She
usually seems much keener and more cautious.  However, as I found out, her
anger at the end for being duped plays to this idea.
p56 - I found it interesting that Dorothy's "punishment" was something she was
a bit nervous about, or something all little girls can relate to.  I'm already
sensing a didactic tone to this story which is out of baum's character to be so
upfront with his lessons, as J.L. mentioned (I think).  Plus, as Dave said
about being preached to, I definitely learn more from non-preaching situations.
p59 - of course no killing, we're in Oz!
 
Tik-Tok and the Nome King
 
p66 - controlling thoughts is a bit scary . . . however, if "elastic and
responsive" means an expanding of his outlooks, well, maybe that's okay.
p69 - opposite illos. - this picture looks more like the Crinklkink description
on p45 than the Crinklekink illos.
p84 - The NOme King's speech here is almost as didactic as the Wizard's in
"Little Dorothy," but there is a touch more humour here because of the nature
of the King's character.  Maybe this is what makes this story the most
appealing.
 
Ozma 
 
p89 - I think the only discontented person in Oz is Ozma. Geez!  She is so
concerned with the others' happiness.  Think about the opening to "Cowardly Lion."
p91 - I love the name play with the Imps!  BTW, why does Ozma need the WIzard's
help?  Isn't she powerful enough to do it herself?  Or is this just part of her
ploy to ensure the Wizard's happiness?
p109 - My, my!  The Wizard sure seemed to gather his wits at the end after
bumbling through the entire scenario!  The explanation about buttons and such
doesn't match his mistakes and helplessness throughout the story.
 
J.L. - I'm not up on my history concerning these tales, but as you've noted,
and I've started to note, there are quite a few parallels or repeated ideas. 
Was Baum experimenting with new ideas for full-length Oz tales, were these
ideas that he had abandoned for full-lenght works, or did he just
write these to satisfy his Oz audience of a younger age as the afterword
states?  Anybody?
 
Jack Pumpkinhead
 
p112 - Oh boy, this story echoes Hansel and Gretel?
p120 - opposite illos. - I'm sorry, but I see Trot and Betsy tied to the tree,
or is it the toddler from "Cowardly Lion?"  In each of the following illos.,
the children look different, and I', not sure that I would put them all
together in one story if they didn't have the same clothes on.
p131 - sometimes they're going back to friends, but Jack says parents. . .
p134 - I don't understand this last comment at all.  Why would Baum end this
story on such a negative sounding note?  It's not consistent with the rest of
the story at all.  For that matter, I don't understand the motivation for the
Sawhorse's question since the earlier talk of Jack carving his new heads didn't
talk about brains.  Was it simply a Scarecrowesque reference?  Plus, why did
the Wizard answer?  Jack can talk . . .
 
J.L. - it would be interesting to see charcters work things out for themselves,
yes.  It does tend to get annoying because they do work things out in the
longer Oz texts.  Could it just be Baum's limitations because of the length of
a short story, so he skipped their working things out and assigned the Wizard
the role of Mighty Mouse?  
 
Scarcrow & Tinman
 
p142 - tie and anchor to his waist?!  Where're the brains in that comment!?
p144 - I'm sorry again, the cliche was too much;  "you may lose an eye
yourselves someday."  I couldn't help but think of Ralphie in _A Christmas
Story_:  You'll shoot your eye out!
p154 - Again, where's the Scarecrow's intelligence?  Why not drop the anchor? .
. . Geez.  I couldn't help but giggle when he said soon after, "I'll do the
thinking b/c my brains are the sharpest."
p158 - opposite illos. - I thought the sail was purple?  Plus, the Wizard
mumbles here, too.  And, since the boat had been anchored, how was it floating? 
Or did the Wizard fix that too?  
 
Overall, I agree that this was the worst and that Tik-Tok was the best.  I kind
of liked Ozma, too, for it's humor, even though the Wizard had an imposed
solution.  I think that the bits of humor in the stories is what makes them
appealing, to me anyway. 
 
More later when I get home,
Peace & Love, Bompi 

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:37:36 -0500
From: Tyler Jones <tnj at compuserve.com>
Subject: Oz
Sender: Tyler Jones <tnj at compuserve.com>
 
John Bell:
Here's some combos that might be interesting:
Kabumpo and Nox
Benny and Crunch
Wag and the Bananny Goat
Peter and Speedy
Captain Salt and Realbad
Jenny Jump and Handy Mandy
 
Tyler Jones

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:07:49 -0500
From: Lisa Bompiani <bompi at microserve.net>
Subject: Ozzy Digest
 
Hello,  I posted from campus earlier today, and decided to go ahead and post
again in order to keep up with the Digest.  :-)
 
J.L. :  I find it interesting why in a good bit of fiction, especially that
aimed at younger people, the animals always have a king, or some member of
the group who functions as a leader.  Is this in some way implying that we
all have our place and function within society, reinforcing the notion of
class and caste?  After all, these were written during the early 1900's and
the rise of Naturalism.  Or is it simply a literary technique employed for
the amusement of readers?  Also, I was thinking as I read the stories that
there seemed to be a very pointed moral to each story, ie:  Don't walk out
by yourself, beware the consequences of quick anger, etc., which is along
the lines of your finding a common moral thread for them as a whole.
 
Richard Randolph:  I noticed those differences in Neill's drawings and text,
too.  Actually, I made note of the differnces.  I think it was easier to
pick up discrepancies in these stories b/c they're so short.

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:40:06 -0600
From: David Hulan <davidhulan at ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-14 & 16-98
 
J.L.:
Enjoyed your analysis of "Tik-Tok and the Nome King." You seem to have
covered just about everything I might have had to say about it, and a good
deal more besides.
 
Baum doesn't seem to have implied vegetarianism in Oz, anyhow; it's true
that Dorothy never eats meat in _Wizard_ (or at least someone has said this
- I think Hearn in _Annotated Wizard_ - and I don't know of a
counter-example), but meat is definitely eaten in some of the books. The
dinner Tollydiggle gives Ojo has mutton-chops as its entree, for instance.
We don't know if this meat is from animals that once lived or if it grew on
trees, but it's meat.
 
*******************Spoiler for LOST PRINCESS***************
The fact that Ozma could make Jack a map to where the children were located
may be an indication that the Magic Picture has a zoom function, like my
"Street Atlas USA" CD-ROM. I would think that it should. Though this would
contradict the problem they have using it to find Ozma in _Lost Princess_
(after they recover it from Ugu); it would show nothing but dark if it were
zoomed in close, inside the peach pit or even Button-Bright's pocket, but
as it zoomed out it should show the outside of the pocket and then
Button-Bright and then the whole group. Still, it may be that something in
Ugu's spell that put Ozma in the peachpit in the first place prevents the
Picture from showing her surroundings.
*******************End spoiler**************************
 
3/16:
Bompi:
Sorry your health hasn't been good this winter. Hope you're doing better now.
 
At the time of LWS I don't think that Baum had ever said Oz people couldn't
die. I believe that idea was first put forth in _Tik-Tok_. In _Emerald
City_ he said that there was no illness in Oz, so no one died unless he met
with an accident that prevented him from living - implying that accidents
could kill Oz people (and presumably so could murder or suicide, not that
anyone in Oz would have occasion for the latter).
 
J.L.:
The Tin Woodman doesn't actually float on water in _Lucky Bucky_; the
"water" he falls into is dry and nothing sinks in it.
 
Interesting idea for further pairings of characters from books. I'm a
little skeptical about including Jinjur or Aunt Em; both are mentioned in
more than one of the first six books, but each is only a featured player in
one. Aunt Em is a motivating factor in several of the early books, but she
has less than half a dozen lines before _Emerald City_. And Jinjur has a
couple of lines in _Ozma_ and is otherwise absent between _Land_ and _Tin
Woodman_. How about rearranging it into "Professor Woggle-bug and Billina"
and "The Shaggy Man and the Field Mice"? I think the contrast between the
Professor's pedantic bombast and Billina's down-to-earth practicality would
be a great pairing, and since Shaggy is a wanderer he's likelier to have an
adventure with the field mice than most of the other Ozites.
 
Other plausible pairings from later books (let's confine it to Baum,
though, and retain the restriction that the character must have been
featured in more than one book):
 
Cap'n Bill and Trot
Betsy Bobbin and Hank
Button-Bright and Polychrome
The Glass Cat and the Woozy
 
Button-Bright and Polychrome appeared in one of the first six books, but
didn't make their second appearances until later.
 
David Hulan

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 98 21:05:52 (PST)
From: Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at delphi.com>
Subject: Ozzy Things
 
_LITTLE WIZ STORIES_ AND _HIGHLIGHTS_:
Bompi wrote:
>p89 - I think the only discontented person in Oz is Ozma. Geez!
 
Well, she is a perfectionist I guess, much to her credit. :)
 
>BTW, why does Ozma need the WIzard's help?  Isn't she powerful enough to
> do it herself?
 
Probably not at this time -- She doesn't really start becoming powerful
until after _Lost Princess_ (see David Hulan's "Ozma" essay)...Although
I wouldn't entirely discount your idea that Ozma strives to make others
(e.g. the Wizard) feel needed...
 
 
SOME MORE LWS THAT NEVER WERE BUT SHOULD BE IMHO:
_Scraps and the Wogglebug_
_Jellia Jamb and Betsey Bobbin_
_Cayke and the Frogman_
_Sir Hokus and Kabumpo_
_Randy and Planetty_
_Audah and Aujah_
_Reera and Aurah_
_Files and Ozga_
_Polychrome and the Ork_ (Is there a prohibition on non-Ozites?)
 
                             -- Dave

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 18:34:35 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: Oz-suming the worst
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
On the gradual disappearance of death in Oz, here are three quotations, in
chronological order of Baum's composition:

ROAD, p. 172: 
       "But I thought nobody ever died in Oz," she 
     [Dorothy] said.
       "Nor do they; although if one is bad, he may be 
     condemned and killed by the good citizens," he 
     [the Tin Woodman] answered.

EMERALD CITY, p. 30:
       No disease of any sort was ever known among 
     the Ozites, and no one ever died unless he met 
     with an accident that prevented him from living. 

LIL WIZARD, "Cowardly Lion & Hungry Tiger":
       The Tiger remained silent for several minutes, 
     thinking deeply as he washed his face with his left 
     [sinister] paw. Then he said:
       "I'm getting old, and it would please me to eat 
     one fat baby before I die."

Clearly, one of these things is not like the others. 
 
About "Jack Pumpkinhead & Sawhorse," Bompi wrote:
<<Why would Baum end this story on such a negative sounding note?  It's not
consistent with the rest of the story at all.>>
 
The Wizard's remark about Jack's lack of wisdom is *thematically*
consistent. This tale hinges on his other weaknesses: awkward fingers,
fragile head. Even Ozma advises Jack to take the Sawhorse because "he is
swift and intelligent and will help you." But I agree that the ending feels
abrupt and even a bit rude. Baum was no doubt trying for a witty close; in
these tales he managed that only in "Tik-Tok & Nome King." 
 
I thought of another explanation for the map to the lost children that Ozma
gives Jack. Later in the story Baum tells us, "The [Cowardly] Lion knew the
forest well and when he reached it he bounded straight through the tangled
paths to where the Sawhorse was wandering." The Lion might have recognized
from the Magic Picture where the children were and guided Ozma in drawing
the map. 
 
Bompi wrote:
<<it would be interesting to see charcters work things out for themselves,
yes.  It does tend to get annoying because they do work things out in the
longer Oz texts.  Could it just be Baum's limitations because of the length
of a short story, so he skipped their working things out and assigned the
Wizard the role of Mighty Mouse? >>
 
Baum seems to have been able to create more satisfactory stories of this
length as long as they were for slightly older readers (or, to put it
another way, as long as he wasn't consciously aiming for an audience
younger than his usual one). And there's quite enough filler in these tales
for him to have made space for other endings. 

  Sumner Britton seems to have wanted each of the LITTLE WIZARD STORIES to
feature the little Wizard. At least he pointed to that as an additional
reason to rewrite the end of "Lil Dorothy & Toto," according to Michael
Patrick Hearn's introduction to the Schocken edition. Since he was already
looking for a way to bring the Wizard on stage, Baum may have taken his
arrival as an easy way to get characters out of their jams. 

  Have the stories been collected in the order in which Baum wrote them? If
so, it's notable that the last three are the ones in which the Wizard's
actions save the day most peremptorily. In the first three (as Baum first
wrote them), the little Wizard doesn't affect the denouement at all.  
 
Another reason for these stories to be below par: Baum's correspondence
with Britton reveals, "in writing these stories I did not want...to use
material that would be of value in my future Oz stories."

  There's one lost LIL WIZARD story. Britton was disappointed in Baum's
original tale of "Scarecrow & Tin Woodman," one of the first drafted. Baum
quickly wrote the one we know. Could the original have been worse? Or could
Mr. Britton's tin ear for child-pleasing themes have caused Baum to junk an
entertaining story? 
 
Bompi wrote:
<<I find it interesting why in a good bit of fiction, especially that aimed
at younger people, the animals always have a king, or some member of the
group who functions as a leader.  Is this in some way implying that we all
have our place and function within society, reinforcing the notion of class
and caste? . . . Or is it simply a literary technique employed for the
amusement of readers?>>
 
I think there are two reasons for creating a king over a group of animals
or other hard-to-distinguish creatures (Rooks, Wheelers, Flying Monkeys):
1) The ruler speaks and decides for the rest, thus converting a crowd into
a single character--much easier for an author to keep track of.
2) Seeing a ruler appeals to children's sense of order. It's not that all
those children's authors wanted to bolster monarchism; rather, monarchism
is fundamentally a childish system. 
 
Dave Hulan wrote:
<<Baum doesn't seem to have implied vegetarianism in Oz>>
 
Baum certainly didn't, but more recent commentators have. In a digest last
Thanksgiving Dave Hardenbrook reported: <<Everyone is feasting in Oz as
well, although not turkey of course since all the meat in Oz grows on
trees.>> I haven't done a thorough survey, but it strikes me that Eric
Shanower's stories are also herbivorous. I had those depictions in mind
when I noted the Wizard's threat to butcher the Imps for pork chops. 
 
Dave Hulan wrote:
<<The Tin Woodman doesn't actually float on water in _Lucky Bucky_; the
"water" he falls into is dry and nothing sinks in it.>>
 
Though Nick and the Scarecrow do benefit from their dry river (p. 264),
earlier in the story Davy had sunk in Lake Quad (p. 231): 

      Overboard went more than one hundred uncles, 
    making a tremendous splash. Davy Jones disappeared.  
    Being all good swimmers, the Uncles managed to  
    reach land. Uncle Sam swam close to Bucky. Between  
    them they held the Scarecrow high above the water  
    and succeeded in landing him on shore with only one  
    boot damp, which really was remarkable considering  
    the nervous state the Emperor [of the Munchkins, as  
    this book calls the Scarecrow] was in. Uncle Henry  
    [not that one] and Uncle Joe, who were both strong  
    swimmers, floated the Tin Woodman to safety between  
    them. 

  Later in that chapter we encounter the following contradiction in terms:
"the half-drowned, soggy figure of an old witch" (p. 236). So once again we
must take Neill's fish stories with a dose of sea-salt.
 
J. L. Bell                                 JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 17:54:55 -0600
From: David Hulan <davidhulan at ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-21-98
 
J.L.:
>I, too, was struck by how prominent red was in Neill's art for "Cowardly
>Lion & Hungry Tiger," and (to a lesser extent) in other LIL WIZARD STORIES.
>I wondered if this was because he was consciously working in a brighter
>palate for younger children. But it could simply be Neill adding color to
>frames dominated by camouflage-colored carnivores.
 
Or it could be something the printer did; I know Neill didn't provide the
color for any of the FF books he illustrated except for _DotWiz_ and
_Emerald City_, and he probably didn't for LWS either.
 
Tyler:
>John Bell:
>Here's some combos that might be interesting:
>Kabumpo and Nox
>Benny and Crunch
>Wag and the Bananny Goat
>Peter and Speedy
>Captain Salt and Realbad
>Jenny Jump and Handy Mandy
 
I notice you're using post-Baum characters exclusively - and almost all
Thompson, except for Jenny. (Actually, I think Number Nine might be a
better match for Speedy than Peter - both of them having been wizard's
assistants at one time or another.)
 
>J.L. :  I find it interesting why in a good bit of fiction, especially that
>aimed at younger people, the animals always have a king, or some member of
>the group who functions as a leader.  Is this in some way implying that we
>all have our place and function within society, reinforcing the notion of
>class and caste?
 
Just about any social animal - including humans - will have some member of
any group who functions as a leader. The leader may be a king, or a
president, or a mayor, or a coach, or just the alpha member of the group,
and the leadership may be due to heredity, election, or superior strength
and/or intelligence, but it's likely that without a leader a social
grouping can't really work. (That's a backward inference from evolutionary
theory; if leader-follower organization weren't advantageous to social
animals, you'd expect that it wouldn't be so omnipresent.) This isn't the
same thing as class or caste, since those are hereditary and leadership
isn't particularly. (Of course, in a society with a strong class system
it's much likelier that a member of a class that's "born to lead" will
acquire the necessary skills than one from a class that's "born to follow,"
but lots of people born to the former class will not develop into leaders
and some from the latter will.)
 
Dave:
>SOME MORE LWS THAT NEVER WERE BUT SHOULD BE IMHO:
>_Scraps and the Wogglebug_
>_Jellia Jamb and Betsey Bobbin_
>_Cayke and the Frogman_
>_Sir Hokus and Kabumpo_
>_Randy and Planetty_
>_Audah and Aujah_
>_Reera and Aurah_
>_Files and Ozga_
>_Polychrome and the Ork_ (Is there a prohibition on non-Ozites?)
 
Shouldn't be a prohibition on non-0zites, since the Nome King is featured
in one of Baum's. I don't know about a title with _no_ Ozites, though. I
like your pairings, though, all but Jellia and Betsy. Betsy just doesn't
seem strong enough to make it a good match. I'd pair Jellia with someone
like Jinjur or the Glass Cat or the Frogman.
 
David Hulan

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 08:55:19 +0300 (IDT)
From: Tzvi Harris <ltharris at internet-zahav.net>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-21-98
 
Lisa
According to Hearns' intro to LWS Baum also liked the name play.  According
to Hearn Baum reused variants of these names in a play "The Uplift of Lucifer".
Regarding the reason Baum wrote these stories: (Again according to Hearn)
They were part of an Oz promotion accompanying _Patchwork Girl_ which was
the first Oz book Baum wrote after his attempt to discontinue the Oz series
in 1910.
 
I have to agree with those who wrote that there isn't much to comment on in
these stories.  I was left with the feeling that some of them ended in the
middle of the story.
 
I recall from one of the Oz books the Scarecrow getting wet and making a big
deal out of it (being spread out to dry etc.).  I tried to remember where
this occurs, (_Tin Man_ ?) with no success.  In LWS the Scarecrow comes out
of the water uneffected.
Tzvi
Talmon
Israel

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:50:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Ruth Berman <berma005 at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: ozzy digest
 
J.L. Bell and David Hulan: Not a pairing, but I've sometimes thought it 
would be fun to write a story about Jinjur focusing on her as an artist 
(making the not-necessarily-warranted assumption that her ability to 
help the Scarecrow out by repainting his face when needed implies 
artistic ability).
 
Lisa Bompiani: Interesting question about the political implications of 
assuming that animals have kings.  I suppose it might be argued that 
we don't find out enough about the animal societies to know what 
"kingship" implies.  It might be (in spite of the Squirrel King's 
gold crown) that whichever animal undertakes to speak up when 
there's a problem to deal with is for the time being the "king," or it 
might be that "kings" are elected by group vote, or some other system 
different from a permanent class system.  Presumably the continued 
references to "kings" could give child-readers the impression that 
societies "ought" be to monarchies, but presumably child-readers, too, 
can catch the egalitarian assumptions in stories where "kings" can be 
successfully opposed.  (Then, too, there are stories like George 
MacDonald's "The Princess and the Goblin," where authors explicitly 
state that ALL people are of royal character -- or should be trying to be.)
 
Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:23:43 -0500
From: Tyler Jones <tnj at compuserve.com>
Subject: Oz
Sender: Tyler Jones <tnj at compuserve.com>
 
More Ozzy Pairings (some Baum this time!)
Cayke and Jellia
Frogman and Wogglebug
Shaggy and Cap'n Bill
Pon and Ervic
Jinjur and Reera
Snip and Button-Bright
 
Tyler Jones 

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:11:28 -0800
From: Nathan Mulac DeHoff <vovat at geocities.com>
Subject: Ozzy Digest
 
On Vegetarianism and Oz:
Thompson didn't portray the Ozites as vegetarians, either.  In fact, the 
people of Kimbaloo were quite willing to have a sentient goose 
slaughtered for their dinner.  According to _Wishing Horse_, Pigasus was 
once captured by a farmer, who presumably wanted to make pork products 
out of him.  I do not believe that it was specifically mentioned that 
this happened in Oz, however.  It might have happened in Ev or elsewhere. 
In _Gnome King_, the Wizard eats chicken, which is interesting, when you 
consider the statements in _Emerald City_ to the effect that no Ozite 
would even consider eating chicken.  Maybe there is a tree in the Emerald 
City that produces chicken (or a very similar kind of meat).  In my own 
vision of Oz as is it today, most meats can now be grown on trees, so the 
slaughter of animals has become largely unnecessary.  A wild animal (such 
as a Kalidah) would still be willing to eat a person or animal, however. 
The fact that they couldn't be killed wouldn't matter much, because, as 
Files said, "A hamburger-steak is a hamburger-steak, whether it is cooked 
or not."
 
John Bell:
>Later in that chapter we encounter the following contradiction in terms:
>"the half-drowned, soggy figure of an old witch" (p. 236). So once again 
>we
>must take Neill's fish stories with a dose of sea-salt.
 
Well, you must remember that Mombi's speaking likeness was made of paint, 
and it was obviously not water-soluble paint, since that would have led 
to all of the Ozites' hard work on the castle walls being washed off 
during the next rainfall.  Hence, the painted Mombi could withstand 
water, even though her natural form could not.
 
Ruth:
>Not a pairing, but I've sometimes thought it
>would be fun to write a story about Jinjur focusing on her as an artist
>(making the not-necessarily-warranted assumption that her ability to
>help the Scarecrow out by repainting his face when needed implies
>artistic ability).
 
She also painted straw for the Scarecrow at one point, and it was 
realistic enough that it could actually be used to stuff him.  This, 
combined with my comments about Mombi, raises the question of whether 
this was real straw or paint in the form of straw, however.
--
Nathan Mulac DeHoff
vovat at geocities.com

"All I know could be defaced by the facts in the life of Chess Piece Face."

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:14:14 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: Oz controversies
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
Here's something the Scarecrow might have thought of to get himself and
Nick Chopper gently down from the tree: 
1) Secure the anchor in his hands to the line around his waist.
2) Untie the knot that binds him to that line.
3) Climb the rope to the branch overhead.
4) By resting on the branch, reduce the weight on his side of the line just
enough that the Tin Woodman slides slowly toward the ground. 

     Anchor + Scarecrow = Tin Woodman, so Anchor < Tin Woodman
5) If the Tin Woodman doesn't go all the way to the ground (with only one
eye the Scarecrow might have difficulty perceiving the distance), let Nick
dangle safely from the anchored rope. Fall to the ground, stand up, and go
for help. 

  Yet another "Scarecrow & Tin Woodman" mystery, however: after Nick falls
into the river he continues to talk, and he can move enough to wrap the
hook around his neck. Why doesn't he just stand up and walk to shore
underwater? I guess he doesn't want to tread on any fish.
 
I'm up for reading SCARECROW next month, but I see regrets over the
horizon. I'm using these discussions as a chance to read my Books of
Wonder/Morrow editions and see all the color plates in place for the first
time. But if we reach LOST PRINCESS around late summer, we'll have gotten
ahead of the reissues. 

  'Taint nothing I can do about that but toss out alternative topics to
distract people: 
 
* Frank Kramer is a better Oz artist than Dick Martin.
 
* Professor Wogglebug is secretly gay.
 
* THE WIZARD OF OZ was written to forecast the election of 1912: Scarecrow
= Wilson, Tin Woodman = Roosevelt, Cowardly Lion = Taft.
 
* Glinda must actually be ugly if she's still single.
 
+ The only reason Ozma's palace isn't smothered with Billina's chicks is
that the Hungry Tiger eats in his sleep.
 
* How come in the book the Good Witch of the North doesn't just tell
Dorothy her name is Glinda?
 
* Randy is much too good for Planetty.
 
Discuss amongst yourselves!
 
J. L. Bell                              JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 13:38:02 -0500
From: Lisa Bompiani <bompi at microserve.net>
Subject: Ozzy Digest
 
Ruth: >It might be (in spite of the Squirrel King's 
>gold crown) that whichever animal undertakes to speak up when 
>there's a problem to deal with is for the time being the "king," or it 
>might be that "kings" are elected by group vote, or some other system 
>different from a permanent class system.  
 
True, I guess, too, I was thinking of those stories in which animals seem to
have a committee that meets to make decisions regarding the forest, jungle,
etc. and there seems to be a representative animal from each area or
species.  It does seem to be soemthing more than just a motif.
 
Peace & Love,
Bompi

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:05:09 -0500 (EST)
From: JOdel <JOdel at aol.com>
Subject: Re:  Ozzy Digest, 03-29-98
 
As far as the Little Wizard Stories go, I'm with whoever who said he didn't
like them. I can't say that I care much for them either. Each of them seems to
have something in it which contradicts things said in the FF and some of the
discontinuities are really jarring. ILTT that these are stories that Baum
wrote during the 2-3 years that he had no contact with Dorothy. He made them
up out of his own head without refering back and double-checking what had
already been said about Oz and the Ozians. They just plain don't FEEL
authentic.

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 22:45:35 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: The Name of the Oz
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
In response to my cheeky question about the Good Witch of the North "in the
book," Richard Bauman added:
<<Names have power so some practitioners conceal their real names to avoid
giving an adversary power over them.>>
 
I know this is traditional in many fantasies (Susan Cooper's THE DARK IS
RISING is my favorite example), but are there Baum stories in which knowing
a name gives someone power over that person? 

  A while back Ruth Berman noted how many "sketchy," unnamed characters
there are in LIL WIZARD STORIES: a man, two children, a lady and her baby.
She rightly saw those characters' flatness as contributing to rather flat
tales.

  On the other hand, spare use of names distinguishes WIZARD from later Oz
books, I think. In that book Baum often names characters by identity: "the
Scarecrow." As in LIL WIZARD, there are creatures identified by their
position within their community: Queen of the Field Mice, King of the
Winged Monkeys, China Princess. There are generic crowds, like the Wizard's
courtiers and the Winkies. Omby Amby and Jellia Jamb debut in WIZARD, but
not by name: they're the Soldier with the Green Whiskers and the "green
girl." The Guardian of the Gates also appears (and continues to guard his
name tightly in later books). 

  Even without names, however, many of the WIZARD people seem distinct: for
instance, the family Dorothy meets in Chap. X, the father ill in bed and
telling stories. [Remind us of any families the Baum children would have
known?]

  Another way to measure this trend is to count how few Ozians in WIZARD
have names: I think they're Oz, Boq, Nick Chopper, Gayelette, Quelala, Mr.
Joker, and Glinda. That's few relative to Baum's later books. 

  To me that pattern makes WIZARD more primal and archetypal than the other
Oz books. The political struggles of Mombi, Jinjur, Glinda, and Ozma are
nuanced because each is an individual. But the Good Witch of the North, the
Wicked Witches of the East and West--we don't need to know anything more
about them, do we? The young-child world of WIZARD becomes a bit more
complex in the later books.
 
Bompi wrote:
<<by tying the idea of leadership to animals, or nature, it made the idea
of some animals being better/smarter/etc than otehrs seem inevitable and
natural. For children, this could lead to false beliefs about power and
ruling.>>
 
As Richard Bauman says, it's "inevitable and natural" that some animals are
better or smarter than others, especially in a given situation. But you're
right that simple-minded extrapolations from that reality lead to the
"false belief" that certain individuals should be rulers. The collective
wisdom of the community is almost always better than the thoughts of even
the most intelligent individual. Especially when the animals are human. 
 
J. L. Bell                                    JnoLBell at compuserve.com

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 10:38:33 -0600
From: David Hulan <davidhulan at ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Ozzy Digest, 03-26-98 thru 04-02-98
 
Tzvi:
>I recall from one of the Oz books the Scarecrow getting wet and making a big
>deal out of it (being spread out to dry etc.).  I tried to remember where
>this occurs, (_Tin Man_ ?) with no success.  In LWS the Scarecrow comes out
>of the water uneffected.
 
It happens more than once - in _Land_ during the initial escape from
Jinjur, and in _Scarecrow_ after he falls into the waterfall. There may be
other occasions as well, but those are two I remember.
 
Bompi:
>I think my connection to class and caste was somewhere along the lines of by
>tying the idea of leadership to animals, or nature, it made the idea of some
>animals being better/smarter/etc than otehrs seem inevitable and natural.
>For children, this could lead to false beliefs about power and ruling.
 
Not sure what you mean. Some animals _are_ smarter than others, both within
a given species and from species to species. (I mean, barring pathological
cases, all dogs are smarter than all horses, and all pigs are smarter than
all dogs, and all chimpanzees are smarter than all pigs, and all humans are
smarter than all chimps.) "Better," of course, is a separate issue; there
you're looking at a value judgment and not at an objective fact. What
"false beliefs about power and ruling" did you have in mind?
 
David Hulan

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 11:54:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Ruth Berman <berma005 at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: ozzy digest
 
J.L. Bell: Interesting point that many of the characters in "Wizard" are 
presented by titles or descriptions rather than names.  It seems to 
me, though, that titles like "Queen of the Field Mice" and descriptions 
like "Soldier with the Green Whiskers" are closer to names (being 
distinctive identifiers) than they are to the kind of namelessness 
represented by the "Little Wizard Stories" with "a woman" or "a man" 
or "a Winkie child."  (In some books, Baum moved from a descriptive 
identifier to using the description as a name, as when a shaggy man 
becomes the Shaggy Man, and is addressed as Shaggy Man, or 
Shaggy for short, by his friends.)
Ruth Berman

Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 00:26:56 -0400
From: Lisa Bompiani <bompi at microserve.net>
Subject: Ozzy Digest
 
Dave Hulan:
>Not sure what you mean. Some animals _are_ smarter than others, both within
>a given species and from species to species. (I mean, barring pathological
>cases, all dogs are smarter than all horses, and all pigs are smarter than
>all dogs, and all chimpanzees are smarter than all pigs, and all humans are
>smarter than all chimps.) "Better," of course, is a separate issue; there
>you're looking at a value judgment and not at an objective fact. What
>"false beliefs about power and ruling" did you have in mind?
 
Yes, some animals are smarter, . . . I recognize that and that as Bear said
the inevitability and naturalness of some people ruling and others beign
ruled, but I think that the repetition of this ruler/ruled motif in stories
which do not deal with the more judgemental (sp) aspects of the issue can
lead to the development of false or skewed beliefs concerning who should or
should not possess power.  
 
Well, off to bed.  I hope to offer more next time.
 
Peace & Love,
Bompi

Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 22:01:39 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
Subject: Oz, WAS, and what will be
Sender: "J. L. Bell" <JnoLBell at compuserve.com>
 
Thanks, Nathan DeHoff, for the reminder that <<The Tin Woodman's name is
not mentioned in _Wizard_.>> That cuts the number of Ozians named in WIZARD
down by one, and a major one at that. 

  On that topic, Ruth Berman wrote: <<Interesting point that many of the
characters in "Wizard" are presented by titles or descriptions rather than
names.  It seems to me, though, that titles like "Queen of the Field Mice"
and descriptions like "Soldier with the Green Whiskers" are closer to names
(being distinctive identifiers) than they are to the kind of namelessness
represented by the "Little Wizard Stories" with "a woman" or "a man" or "a
Winkie child.">>

  We can make a useful distinction between names (Tattypoo),
definite-article designations (the Good Witch of the North), and
indefinite-article designations (a good witch). Most Oz books operate at
the first level; WIZARD at the second; LIL WIZARD at the third. After his
first Oz book, Baum moved several characters from the second level to the
first by making their designations into names (Shaggy, as you point out,
and Wizard) or giving them names (Nick, Omby Amby). 

  I think that creates a friendlier Oz, but a less archetypal one.
 
J. L. Bell                        JnoLBell at compuserve.com