Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:00:20 -0800
From: Marcus Mebes <baringer at gmail.com>
Subject: [Regalia] The Careless Kangaroo of Oz

The Careless Kangaroo of Oz, by March Laumer, is touted as the Oz Book for
1912. Thus, it's set shortly after the events of The Emerald City of Oz, and
before The Patchwork Girl of Oz.

I love Laumer's little quirkeries... plucking the tiniest of loose plot
threads from the Famous Forty and weaving it into a story that not only ties
up the loose thread, but expounds up on it as well. Laumer isn't limited to
the niceties of society, and has often introduced shocking elements in his
stories. One might not think--in the great outside world--twice about eating
frogs legs, but in Oz, that would be a heinous crime! Yet, in Careless
Kangaroo, the titular character's own children are described as preparing a
meal that included a boiled cat. Yikes!

In this book we get several themes and elements and characters. I really
enjoyed reading about the interactions of the Rainbow and his daughters,
about the Wogglebug, the Kangaroo, and surprisingly: EUREKA! Though Dulabone
has published his own explanation of why she's described as "the pink
kitten", this book gives an extremely valid origin of that... making it her
own choice, and doing it in a way that gives appreciative nods to Baum's
other early works.

Man! Laumer was one well-read fella!

-MM

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:50:11 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] The Careless Kangaroo of Oz

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Marcus Mebes <baringer at gmail.com> wrote:
> I love Laumer's little quirkeries... plucking the tiniest of loose plot
> threads from the Famous Forty and weaving it into a story that not only ties
> up the loose thread, but expounds up on it as well.

Yes, it was interesting to see a story that not only explained how the
Shaggy Man learned to operate a telegraph and Polychrome gained
knowledge of magic, but also incorporated the constantly changing
names of the Wogglebug's school into a plot element.

> Laumer isn't limited to
> the niceties of society, and has often introduced shocking elements in his
> stories. One might not think--in the great outside world--twice about eating
> frogs legs, but in Oz, that would be a heinous crime! Yet, in Careless
> Kangaroo, the titular character's own children are described as preparing a
> meal that included a boiled cat. Yikes!

It's especially odd considering that I think other Laumer books
mention that it's a crime in Ozma's Oz to eat other living things
(although that's a law that's quite difficult to enforce).  Maybe that
cat grew on a tree, but somehow that doesn't ease my mind all that
much.  And since when do kangaroos eat meat, anyway?

> Though Dulabone
> has published his own explanation of why she's described as "the pink
> kitten", this book gives an extremely valid origin of that... making it her
> own choice, and doing it in a way that gives appreciative nods to Baum's
> other early works.

David Hulan also wrote a story that provided an explanation for
Eureka's color change.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:53:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo of Oz

The names of the Rainbow's daughters that mean rainbow are:
 
Arcenciel  French  "sky arch"
Arcobaleno  Italian  "flashing arch"  puns with "whale arch" (reminds me of Davy Jones)
Curcubeu  Romanian  "bent bow"  puns with "hen bow" or "bird bow"
Iris  Greek  "rainbow goddess" possibly from archaic "wiridis" = shining
Raduga  Russian "ruddy"
Roong  Thai  "dragon" from the Chinese - Oriental dragons are water and rain critters
Sateenkaari  Finnish   "rain arch"
Tien Kang   Mandarin  "sky rainbow"
 
Color, water and light names are:
 
Aquarelle  French  "water color"
Aurora  Latin  "dawn"
Farvespil  Danish  "color play"
Lucy  Latin  "light"
Naiad  Greek  "water nymph"
Opal  Sanskrit  "color stone"
Pluvia  Latin  "rain"
Polychrome  Greek  "many colors"
Prism  Greek  "angular" makes rainbows
Regenvlaag  Dutch  "rainstorm" puns with "rain flag"  rainbow
Vattenande  Swedish  "water nymph"
 
and one in punnish
 
Alouette  French  "skylark"  pronounced "alwet" puns with "all wet"
(one of the birds in the Romanian rainbow?)

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:41:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Doherty <janitor_stage_two at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo of Oz

Careless Kangaroo is a good starting point for Laumer's books. It shows how well he writes without
being so experimental or controversial as to scare people away.

Laumer has a way of taking the characters most neglected in the FF and making them his most interesting.
The Woozy, and Button Bright, both completely forgotten by Thompson, and nearly forgotten by Baum become
some of Laumer's greatest characters. I love his treatment of Eureka in this book, and I love his own creation,
the China Dog, although he doesn't really get much chance to shine in this book.

I also like how Laumer portrays the outside world. I never really got the feeling that Baum's Kansas, and
Thompson's Philadelphia were real places. They always seemed so flat and empty. Shaggy's road trip seems
much more real to me. Perhaps not the bit about him stopping in every Eureka between California and Kansas,
but I rather like that element as well, so I can forgive it.

Laumer is fond wordplay as well. Rather than simply saying that there are many things, he often uses every
letter of the alphabet to tell us how many. For example, in The Woozy of Oz, he describes his characters
walking through a herbarium as such: "It took them an hour to work their way past alyssum, basil, coriander,
dill, eupatoriums, fennel, ginseng, hyssop, indigo, jojoba, kalmia, lavender, musk, nandin, oregano, pimpernels,
quail-brush, rue, sage, thyme, urtica, valerian, wormwood, xerophytes, yarrow, and zamia." I like the technique,
as it gives us more of a picture of the scene and serves better to express the vastness of the selection. I was
a little disappointed by Careless Kangaroo's example, describing Polychrome's studies: "She majored in Musicology
and Choreography but also qualified in Archeology, Botany, Chemistry, Diplomacy, Education, Folklore, Geography,
History and so on, through the alphabet."

This book is a little controversial in the love interests of some of the old Oz characters. In particular, both
Shaggy and Ozma confess that they're in love with Dorothy, who doesn't seem too interested in either of them.

I think it's a little unusual that Shaggy speaks of his interest in children, and yet hardly notices Polychrome,
who Baum describes as "A little girl ... no taller than Dorothy, although more slender; nor did she seem any older
than our little heroine." Even Dorothy herself first addresses Polychrome as "Little girl."

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:43:10 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo of Oz

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The names of the Rainbow's daughters that mean rainbow are:
>
> Arcobaleno  Italian  "flashing arch"  puns with "whale arch" (reminds me of
> Davy Jones)

Well, Davy DID get to Oz by means of the rainbow, and he's a
significant character in Laumer's FROGMAN.

I'm trying to recall other names for Polychrome's sisters.  I know the
Meyer/Pattrick rewrite of RUNAWAY had one named Verichrome, and a
sister named Tracey appears in a presumably incomplete Onyx Madden
manuscript.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:58:02 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo of Oz

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Daniel Doherty
<janitor_stage_two at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I love his treatment of Eureka in this
> book, and I love his own creation, the China Dog, although he doesn't really
> get much chance to shine in this book.

He does get his own book, although it's probably the Laumer book that
I remember the least about.  I've never quite understood Eureka's
incredible affection for the dog, but I HAVE seen cats hanging around
statues before.

> I also like how Laumer portrays the outside world. I never really got the
> feeling that Baum's Kansas, and Thompson's Philadelphia were real places.
> They always seemed so flat and empty. Shaggy's road trip seems much more
> real to me.

I think that Baum and Thompson used the Outside World more as a
jumping-off place than as a real setting, although Baum did write
rather lovingly of Trot's California home.  But I do think road trips
like Shaggy's and the one of the girls in VEGETABLE MAN work quite
well.

> Laumer is fond wordplay as well. Rather than simply saying that there are
> many things, he often uses every letter of the alphabet to tell us how many.

He also gave us the Baron of Baroquea speaking in alphabetical
sentences, and Laumer was quite crafty with his multiple-language
puns.  How many languages was he fluent in, anyway?

> This book is a little controversial in the love interests of some of the old
> Oz characters. In particular, both Shaggy and Ozma confess that they're in
> love with Dorothy, who doesn't seem too interested in either of them.

Shaggy's interest in Dorothy kind of rubbed me the wrong way, but it
does bring an interesting conflict to his character.  I know I never
really got the sense that Shaggy had any particular affection for
Dorothy.  He liked her, as pretty much everyone does, but his
interactions with her never seemed much different than those with
other companions.  I think Baum wrote him as the kind of guy who gets
along well with everybody.  I think Laumer might have something with
his Ozma/Dorothy idea, though.

> I think it's a little unusual that Shaggy speaks of his interest in
> children, and yet hardly notices Polychrome, who Baum describes as "A little
> girl ... no taller than Dorothy, although more slender; nor did she seem any
> older than our little heroine." Even Dorothy herself first addresses
> Polychrome as "Little girl."

I suppose Neill drew her as looking like more of a teenager or young
woman, and that was influential in how she appeared in later books.

CARELESS KANGAROO gives a different (and much more gruesome)
explanation of the creation of the Love Magnet from the canonical one
in SHAGGY MAN.  I've heard that Laumer didn't really aim for
consistency with any of the FF after Neill's, although he does mention
Omby Amby's marriage to Tollydiggle (as mentioned in MAGICAL MIMICS)
in UMBRELLAS, so maybe he eventually changed his mind.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:34:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo of Oz

Daniel Doherty
 
>This book is a little controversial in the love interests of some of the old Oz characters. In
>particular, both Shaggy and Ozma confess that they're in love with Dorothy, who doesn't
>seem too interested in either of them.

>I think it's a little unusual that Shaggy speaks of his interest in children, and yet hardly
>notices Polychrome, who Baum describes as "A little girl ... no taller than Dorothy,
>although more slender; nor did she seem any older than our little heroine." Even Dorothy
>herself first addresses Polychrome as "Little girl."
 
I didn't get the idea that Shaggy was interested in children. Just Dorothy. After all, in one of Baum's books,
Glinda maybe, Ozma comments that Dorothy has the ability to cause people to love her. Also the book is set
way earlier than Green Dolphin so I don't expect the New Teaching (of the 1970s) has been expounded yet, much
less reach Oz. Gonna have to wait 60 years or so.

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:06:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Doherty <janitor_stage_two at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo of Oz

Nathan DeHoff:
> He does get his own book, although it's probably the Laumer book that
> I remember the least about.  I've never quite understood Eureka's
> incredible affection for the dog, but I HAVE seen cats hanging around
> statues before.

It's not a very good book. I like how he comes across, but I think that's the high point. That's mostly in the first chapter.

> He also gave us the Baron of Baroquea speaking in alphabetical
> sentences, and Laumer was quite crafty with his multiple-language
> puns.  How many languages was he fluent in, anyway?

According to his web site, he claimed speaking knowledge of 10 languages, and translation knowledge of 5 more at one point.

> I think Laumer might have something with
> his Ozma/Dorothy idea, though.

I don't really think so. I don't see any indication of it in Baum. They were friendly, but I don't see anything more.

> I suppose Neill drew her as looking like more of a teenager or young
> woman, and that was influential in how she appeared in later books.

Laumer in particular considered absolutely everything canonical, including the illustrations. So that certainly influenced him here.

> CARELESS KANGAROO gives a different (and much more gruesome)
> explanation of the creation of the Love Magnet from the canonical one
> in SHAGGY MAN.  I've heard that Laumer didn't really aim for
> consistency with any of the FF after Neill's, although he does mention
> Omby Amby's marriage to Tollydiggle (as mentioned in MAGICAL MIMICS)
> in UMBRELLAS, so maybe he eventually changed his mind.

He also mentions a few of the characters from Snow's Shaggy Man in one of his later books. Ten Woodmen, I think.

Boq Aru:
> I didn't get the idea that Shaggy was interested in children. Just Dorothy.
> After all, in one of Baum's books, Glinda maybe, Ozma comments that Dorothy
> has the ability to cause people to love her. Also the book is set way
> earlier than Green Dolphin so I don't expect the New Teaching (of the
> 1970s) has been expounded yet, much less reach Oz. Gonna have to wait 60
> years or so.

Shaggy tells Ozma: "I came to stand behind an elderly man and a little girl. The latter soon caught my attention.
I'm afraid they always do. Like the man that wrote Alice in Wonderland, so I've heard. Well, maybe not quite like him."

I think Laumer's referring to this:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1142/was-lewis-carroll-a-perv

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 06:02:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

Daniel Doherty
 
>Shaggy tells Ozma: "I came to stand behind an elderly man and a little girl. The latter
>soon caught my attention. I'm afraid they always do. Like the man that wrote Alice in
>Wonderland, so I've heard. Well, maybe not quite like him."

>I think Laumer's referring to this:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1142/was-lewis-carroll-a-perv
 
Yes, I think that is what Laumer is referring to. But I tend to think for Shaggy, considering his disinclination to
form attachments, it's more like the quote attributed to Carroll, possibly spurious, "I like children...well,
except for boys"
 
(As time goes on Carroll's reputation gets cleaned up more and more as people get more of a handle on his
Zeitgeist re young girls - or reinvent the Zeitgeist to fit their theories)
 
I'm guessing that Shaggy liked to look at young girls in much the same way that people find puppies and kitties
attractive. And then he has the "thunderbolt" and is smitten by Dorothy. So he goes to her neighborhood
specifically to meet her. Love magnet and all. And then she doesn't fall in love with him but Polychrome does.
It seems Dorothy isn't mentally of age to fall in love. She liked him and trusted him but that's about it.
Poor Shaggy. Poor Ozma.

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:35:22 -0600
From: Marcus Mebes <baringer at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

Regarding the infatuations revealed in CARELESS KANGAROO, I tend to think
that as disturbing as they may have been (had they really happened in this
fictional world), that after time they likely mellowed and became sincere
friendship and admiration. I mean, this is Oz, after all...

March tended to incorporate his own inclinations into the books at times, as
most authors do. I personally imprinted some of my own quirks in stories I
wrote and on characters, but in the grand scheme, they remain as Baum and
Thompson created them. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

MM

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>    Daniel Doherty
>
> >Shaggy tells Ozma: ?I came to stand behind an elderly man and a little
> girl. The latter >soon caught my attention. I?m afraid they always do. Like
> the man that wrote Alice in >Wonderland, so I?ve heard. Well, maybe not
> quite like him."
>
> >I think Laumer's referring to this:
> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1142/was-lewis-carroll-a-perv
>
> Yes, I think that is what Laumer is referring to. But I tend to think for
> Shaggy, considering his disinclination to form attachments, it's more like
> the quote attributed to Carroll, possibly spurious, "I like children...well,
> except for boys"
>
> (As time goes on Carroll's reputation gets cleaned up more and more as
> people get more of a handle on his Zeitgeist re young girls - or reinvent
> the Zeitgeist to fit their theories)
>
> I'm guessing that Shaggy liked to look at young girls in much the same way
> that people find puppies and kitties attractive. And then he has the
> "thunderbolt" and is smitten by Dorothy. So he goes to her neighborhood
> specifically to meet her. Love magnet and all. And then she doesn't fall in
> love with him but Polychrome does. It seems Dorothy isn't mentally of age to
> fall in love. She liked him and trusted him but that's about it. Poor
> Shaggy. Poor Ozma.

Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:12:33 -0500
From: dneprof at aol.com
Subject: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

Morton Walter dneprof at aol.com
I notice with pleasure that the meanings of the names of the rainbow's daughters has been worked out. A google
search will give you some nice pictures of the Kissel Kar - I don't know quite how it was that March was aware
of its existence since it didn't last long.

Alphabetical series are one of March's favorite devices - together with series such as "crazy confused cowering kind.
of a creature... Kangaroo ... conscientious"

Since one of the themes of the book is things lost (such as mittens and minds) and found, places and cats
named Eureka are to be expected. I observed to March that he failed to introduce the Three Little Kittens who lost THEIR mittens : 

  "i'll look forward to an in-depth rationale on KANGAROO when you have had time to give it its second reading.
   for the moment i'll just say that it never crossed my mind to think of the kittens/mittens jingle while i was
   writing the book. if i had i would certainly have stuck it in! i love quoting & playing around
   with literary reference.. i dare say you noticed ample refs to ALICE, etc. in that work? .. glad you noticed
   the frequency of eurekas in the book. as for the "lostness " element, i didn't really think of eureka the cat
   as lost; rather, "unfairly unretrieved', i should say, and of course a guiding motif in my oz jobs is always
   to try to rationalize away some of the unexplained contradictions in the canonical works. in this case, these
   were: why did old friends shaggy & polychrome not appear to recognize each other in TIKTOK? under what
   circumstances did eureka return to oz to live there? how did she get to remain a permanent kitten - and be
   pink:- when baum clearly left her white in color & at home in kansas for a long period during which
   she was bound to age? ... a levi-strauss approach or a transformation of the kittens/mittens verse was far
   from my thoughts."? I stick by my claims of levi-strauss transformations in March's works: there is absolutely
   no reason why the author should be conscious of making them (though they can be done consciously)."

Morton

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:40:29 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo of Oz

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Daniel Doherty
<janitor_stage_two at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think Laumer might have something with
>> his Ozma/Dorothy idea, though.
>
> I don't really think so. I don't see any indication of it in Baum. They were
> friendly, but I don't see anything more.

I guess I can see how it might have developed into more on Ozma's
part, but you're right that there isn't any real indication of this.

>> CARELESS KANGAROO gives a different (and much more gruesome)
>> explanation of the creation of the Love Magnet from the canonical one
>> in SHAGGY MAN.? I've heard that Laumer didn't really aim for
>> consistency with any of the FF after Neill's, although he does mention
>> Omby Amby's marriage to Tollydiggle (as mentioned in MAGICAL MIMICS)
>> in UMBRELLAS, so maybe he eventually changed his mind.
>
> He also mentions a few of the characters from Snow's Shaggy Man in one of
> his later books. Ten Woodmen, I think.

Yes, I think he mentions Twink and Tom.  There's also a Laumer book
with a reference to Story-Blossom Mountain, but I forget which one.  I
wonder if his gradual acceptance of Snow coincided with his writing
with co-authors.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:46:12 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Marcus Mebes <baringer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding the infatuations revealed in CARELESS KANGAROO, I tend to think
> that as disturbing as they may have been (had they really happened in this
> fictional world), that after time they likely mellowed and became sincere
> friendship and admiration. I mean, this is Oz, after all...

I think we see a bit of this in CARELESS KANGAROO, in which Shaggy
seems to realize that there's no possibility of his having a
relationship with Dorothy, but he still wants to help her in some way
(in this case by retrieving her cat).  Regarding Ozma, I do have to
wonder how she took it when Dorothy got married, which I believe
occurs offstage sometime before TEN WOODMEN.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:29:03 -0500
From: dneprof at aol.com
Subject: [Regalia] marriage

Morton,
Just as Poly had never contemplated marriage with the Shaggy Man, so I doubt we are to think he had ever contemplated
marriage with Dorothy.

Despite the comparisons between Shaggy and Dorothy with Alice and LC (CD) the real contrast is probably young/old,
preferably in the same person: Eureka had become a somewhat old white cat, and becomes an old white cat in the body
of a young pink kitten, Poly may look young but only her father and sisters are older in this story; she enjoys young
Fes after the infatuation with old Shaggyl, Toby while young in life is old (80 or so years) in existence. Ozma can
wonder about Dorothy getting older - which she will in subsequent ML books.

On the lost/found theme: Mar is lost, as is the Wogglebug, and is found, and from being lost they go on to find others
lost from Oz. In a subsequent book ML makes much of Ozma - who herself has been lost in a later Baum book - being reverted
to a peach pit (2 ML books). Of course being transformed and restored (a form of lost/found) is standard Oz fare. If
anything it is hard to think of Oz books where it doesn't happen!

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:58:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Doherty <janitor_stage_two at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

Nathan DeHoff:
> Regarding Ozma, I do have to
> wonder how she took it when Dorothy got married, which I believe
> occurs offstage sometime before TEN WOODMEN.

Yeah, I think Ten Woodmen is the first mention of Dorothy being married. Laumer introduces Dorothy's future husband
in 1911 in Uncle Henry (which takes place a year before Kangaroo) and Betsy is married by 1954 in Woozy, but Dorothy
doesn't seem to be married until nearly fifty years later. Of course I haven't read all of Laumer's books yet, so it's
possible I missed a mention somewhere.

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:05:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

In Wizard, Mr Baum reported that when Dorothy left her house in the Munchkin country, she exchanged her old
leather shoes for the silver shoes and packed a little basket with bread and then set off. 

In Kangaroo Shaggy went to Dorothy's new old house to find things of meaning for her that she might have left
behind. Things that he could make an impression on her by returning them to her. He found a few hair ribbons and such. 

Beyond the unlikelihood of a Kansas country girl of the turn of the century wearing shoes during any thing except
winter time, there is something else she must have taken with her and packed in that basket. 

According to Dr Arthur Herzler MD, a turn of the century Kansas horse and buggy doctor, whose autobiography is
incidentally well worth reading, there is something all little Kansas girls had. That is, a rag dolly. Usually
made of blue and white checked gingham. Sometimes something as simple as a knot for a head tied in a dish clout,
but normally sewn, with a head, body, arms and legs. All stuffed with more gingham. 

My mother, who was contemporary with Dorothy within a couple of years, had one and it was her most prized possession.
She cherished it her entire life and when she died many years ago we buried it with her. It was threadbare with wear
and love. 

The supposition that Dorothy did not have a doll of some kind is, I think, preposterous. Girls need them and role play
and project with them and fit themselves for life and the fortunes of life. 

Not to have even one is, I suppose, possible, but the only women I know who didn't have at least one doll as a child
had very difficult and troublesome childhoods and could not afford to have such hostages to misfortune. 

So, even though Mr Baum, a boy, does not mention her taking her dolly with her, I think that she must have. And took
it back with her from Oz. And had it with her at sea, probably in a pocket, or possibly left with Uncle Henry. And
then taken with her on the Road, maybe yes, maybe no. But definitely taken with her when she left Kansas for the last
time and thus not found by Shaggy. Surely mentioning it in his novels would have made no point for Mr Baum as it
played no part in any of the action. But I think it really must have been there.

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:13:10 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The supposition that Dorothy did not have a doll of some kind is, I think,
> preposterous. Girls need them and role play and project with them and fit
> themselves for life and the fortunes of life.

Well, in KABUMPO, Ruggedo is reported to have stolen a doll from Trot,
and a doll's rocker from Betsy Bobbin.  So there are certainly dolls
in the royal palace, even if none of them are specifically mentioned
as Dorothy's.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:23:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Hutchins <scottandrewhutchins at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

Would a Dakota girl have worn shoes in summer?? I assume so, or Baum would not have written it that way.

> ________________________________
> From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
> To: regalia <regalia at pumperdink.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 10:05:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo
> 
> 
> In Wizard, Mr Baum reported that when Dorothy left her house in the Munchkin country, she exchanged her old
> leather shoes for the silver shoes and packed a little basket with bread and then set off. 

> In Kangaroo Shaggy went to Dorothy's new old house to find things of meaning for her that she might have
> left behind. Things that he could make an impression on her by returning them to her. He found a few hair
> ribbons and such. 

> Beyond the unlikelihood of a Kansas country girl of the turn of the century wearing shoes during any thing
> except winter time, there is something else she must have taken with her and packed in that basket. 

> According to Dr Arthur Herzler MD, a turn of the century Kansas horse and buggy doctor, whose autobiography
> is incidentally well worth reading, there is something all little Kansas girls had. That is, a rag dolly.
> Usually made of blue and white checked gingham. Sometimes something as simple as a knot for a head tied in
> a dish clout, but normally sewn, with a head, body, arms and legs. All stuffed with more gingham. 

> My mother, who was contemporary with Dorothy within a couple of years, had one and it was her most prized
> possession. She cherished it her entire life and when she died many years ago we buried it with her. It was
> threadbare with wear and love. 

> The supposition that Dorothy did not have a doll of some kind is, I think, preposterous. Girls need them
> and role play and project with them and fit themselves for life and the fortunes of life. 

> Not to have even one is, I suppose, possible, but the only women I know who didn't have at least one doll
> as a child had very difficult and troublesome childhoods and could not afford to have such hostages?to misfortune. 

> So, even though Mr Baum, a boy, does not mention her taking her dolly with her, I think that she must have.
> And took it back with her from Oz. And had it with her at sea, probably in a pocket, or possibly left with
> Uncle Henry. And then taken with her on the Road, maybe yes, maybe no. But definitely taken with her when
> she left Kansas for the last time and thus not found by Shaggy. Surely mentioning it in his novels would
> have made no point for Mr Baum as it played no part in any of the action. But I think it really must have been there.
> 

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:03:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo and shoes

Scott Hutchins

>Would a Dakota girl have worn shoes in summer?? I assume so, or Baum would not have
>written it that way.

I'm thinking that Baum was a city boy whether he grew up in the city or not. 

Kids in the city wore shoes year round. Country kids got their shoes off as fast as possible in the spring and
on as late as possible in the fall. Dakotas would have been just a bit later in the spring and a bit sooner in the fall. 

Basically if you were doing most of your walking on dirt it was no shoes. I grew up in the city so I mostly wore
shoes year round but my cousins in Beaver Dam didn't. On the other hand about the time Beaver Dam got real sidewalks
and streets that were concrete and alleys that were gravel, their shoes stayed on.

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:17:17 -0800
From: <tyler.jones at cox.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Country Shoes

> Country kids got their shoes off as fast as possible in the spring and on as late as possible in the fall.

In fact, in TOM SAWYER, the author remarks that Huck Finn was noted for being "the last to put them on in the winter,
and the first to take them off in the spring" or some quote that sounds like that.

Tyler Jones

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:55:28 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Befuddled (and other CARELESS KANGAROO matters)

I've always kind of wondered about the Fuddles, who seem like they
would be hollow (after all, there are no reports of anyone having to
assemble their insides), but still have to eat food.  The way that
Grandmother Gnit loses her mind in CARELESS KANGAROO seems to support
my own pet theory, which is that the insides automatically regenerate
when the outsides are assembled.

Here are a few other items related to CARELESS KANGAROO that I wanted
to address:

A passage in Chapter 8 suggests that the Cowardly Lion is an exception
to the rule of animals in Oz having alliterative descriptions, but
there actually aren't very many examples of this rule.  There's the
Comfortable Camel, Doubtful Dromedary, and Elegant Elephant, but
that's hardly enough to establish a rule.  Thompson was, however,
considering introducing a character called Jenny the Gentle Giraffe in
a sequel to OZOPLANING, which Laumer might have known.

Baroquea sounds like a very interesting place to visit, although I
don't think I'd want to live there.

I always figured Sky Island was stationary in the sky, but Laumer
makes it mobile.

We've already gone over the names of Polychrome's sisters, but is
there any significance to the names of Mar's children (Plonch, Zelix,
Tronto, Meluel, and Ophrid)?

Speaking of names, Laumer provides them for a lot of previously
established characters, even when they don't seem to need them, as
with the Sawhorse (Lignum) and the Frogman (Frederick Fraukx).  Yet he
purposely avoids revealing the Shaggy Man's real name, even when he
has a clear opportunity to do so.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 12:54:34 -0800
From: <tyler.jones at cox.net>
Subject: [Regalia] The Alliterative Aardvark Of Oz

> suggests that the Cowardly Lion is an exception 
to the rule of animals in Oz having alliterative descriptions,

>  There's the Comfortable Camel, Doubtful Dromedary, and Elegant Elephant,
There's also the Curious Cottabus, but as you say, even four isn't really enough to establish a "rule".
There's also the Hungry Tiger and the Lonesome Duck, for examples of non-alliteration.

I'm trying to use only living "meat" animals native to Oz, so that would exclude the Glass Cat and even
Roger the Read Bird, for example.

Tyler Jones

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:41:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

Nathan DeHoff

>I've always kind of wondered about the Fuddles, who seem like they
>would be hollow (after all, there are no reports of anyone having to
>assemble their insides), but still have to eat food.? The way that
>Grandmother Gnit loses her mind in CARELESS KANGAROO seems to support
>my own pet theory, which is that the insides automatically regenerate
>when the outsides are assembled.

My figuring was that they're hollow and remain hollow. And when scattered their clothing is their outside,
but when assembled, their body is their outside and their clothing is regular clothing. Essentially 3d cartoons.
Still eat and drink etc but any organs are only there when cartoonishly appropriate.

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 17:36:17 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] The Alliterative Aardvark Of Oz

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:54 PM,  <tyler.jones at cox.net> wrote:
>> suggests that the Cowardly Lion is an exception
> to the rule of animals in Oz having alliterative descriptions,
>
>> There's the Comfortable Camel, Doubtful Dromedary, and Elegant Elephant,
> There's also the Curious Cottabus, but as you say, even four isn't really enough to establish a "rule".
There's also the Hungry Tiger and the Lonesome Duck, for examples of non-alliteration.

I suppose the High Horse could count, but he's also referred to as the
Giant Horse, and I'd say the pun takes precedence over the
alliteration.  And has Pigasus ever been referred to as the Poetic
Pig?
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:21:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> 
Subject: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

Speaking of the young lady who originally owned the Love Magnet
 
The young lady's name was Penelope Thacker (Her neighbors, knowing no better, called her "Penny-loap," as who would
say {who wouldn't?} "cally-cap," "hyper-bowl," "sin-droam.")
 
OK, I understand about Pene-lopee and Hyper-bolee.
But Syndrome IS sin-droam
and what the heck is cally-cap?
 
Am I missing something obvious?

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:30:12 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] non-alliterative animal names

Several Oz animals are like the Cowardly Lion in being named for 
unexpected or unusual traits -- Hungry Tiger, Wise Donkey, Foolish Owl, 
Cat with Two Tails, Glass Cat, Wishing Horse, Lonesome Duck. Some are 
named for expected traits, like Professor Grunter & Squealina Swyne, the 
(proverbial) Hurrah Bird, and perhaps Snufferbux the Bear (snuffles when 
scenting things) Some are named for their colors -- Big Lavender and 
Little Pink Bears, Blue Rabbit, and White Crab. Some have actual 
name-style names, such as Bru, Loo, Chiss, Confido, Pansy the Watch Cat, 
Roganda the Unicorn, Bungle for the Glass Cat, Chalk for the Wishing 
Horse. Snif the Iffin rhymes, as does Nox the Ox, but Nox's real name is 
Boz.

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:53:48 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com> 
Subject: [Regalia] non-alliterative animal names

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
> Snif the Iffin rhymes, as does Nox the Ox, but Nox's real name is
> Boz.

And Snif claims not to know his real name.  "Snif" is what the Scares
called him, apparently.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:04:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Tom DeWitt" <silverscorpion007 at yahoo.com> 
Subject: [Regalia] non-alliterative animal names

You forgot...Jim the Cab Horse, Eureka, the Pink Kitten, the Nine Tiny Piglets, the Frogman,
Sawhorse, Hank the Mule, and of course Toto.

Tom De Witt
Oz fan and animal namer.

--- On Thu, 3/5/09, Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:

> From: Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu>
> Subject: [Regalia] non-alliterative animal names
> To: regalia at pumperdink.org
> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 2:30 PM
> Several Oz animals are like the Cowardly Lion in being named
> for 
> unexpected or unusual traits -- Hungry Tiger, Wise Donkey,
> Foolish Owl, 
> Cat with Two Tails, Glass Cat, Wishing Horse, Lonesome
> Duck. Some are 
> named for expected traits, like Professor Grunter &
> Squealina Swyne, the 
> (proverbial) Hurrah Bird, and perhaps Snufferbux the Bear
> (snuffles when 
> scenting things) Some are named for their colors -- Big
> Lavender and 
> Little Pink Bears, Blue Rabbit, and White Crab. Some have
> actual 
> name-style names, such as Bru, Loo, Chiss, Confido, Pansy
> the Watch Cat, 
> Roganda the Unicorn, Bungle for the Glass Cat, Chalk for
> the Wishing 
> Horse. Snif the Iffin rhymes, as does Nox the Ox, but
> Nox's real name is 
> Boz.
> 
> Ruth Berman

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 05:14:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> 
Subject: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo  sin-droam & cally-cap

> But Syndrome IS sin-droam
> and what the heck is cally-cap?
 
> Am I missing something obvious?
 
And I was.
 
Trying to figure out sin-droam and cally-cap was way more difficult than figuring out the names of the Kangaroo Kidz.
But was finally, blindingly obvious once I checked out my original hard copy and checked out some old dictionaries on Syndrome
 
Sin-droam-ee was the original accepted pronunciation of Syndrome. Sin-droam eventually swamped it much like
provo-loan is becoming the acceptable pronunciation of Provolone.
 
And, cally-cap is a misprint. It's supposed to be cally-oap. Which is the carny pronunciation of Calliope.
Personally I consider cally-oap to be a tad uncouth sounding, whereas cal-lye-opee sounds just great.
 
One of my friend of a friends used to have a pneumatic calliope in his rec room. Same sound as a steam calliope
without the fuss. Course there was the sound of the air compressor, but if you listened at a distance it was great.

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:22:07 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu> 
Subject: [Regalia] non-alliterative names in oz

Tom DeWitt added as some other examples of non-alliterative Oz animal 
names Jim the Cab Horse, Eureka the Pink Kitten, the Nine Tiny Piglets, 
the Frogman, the Sawhorse, Hank the Mule, and Toto. The way the topic 
was set up at first, Jim, Eureka, Hank, and Toto are ineligible, coming 
from the US, so not showing off Oz naming patterns.

I think the Sawhorse was earlier mentioned as a counter example -- and 
he's an example of an interesting naming pattern (especially common in 
Baum's Oz books) of not actually having a name at all, but just having a 
description that morphs into getting used as a name, for lack of any 
other. The Frogman is another example. The Soldier with the Green 
Whiskers eventually acquired a name (in fact, two of them, as RPT didn't 
spot the details that show Omby Amby as the same person as the SwtGW), 
but the Guardian of the Gates and Shaggy Man never did get names of 
their own, unless you want to count Baum's stage adaptations (Gardy and 
-- was it Wiggins?). But it's a pattern Baum uses much more often with 
animals, so much so that I think to some extent his feeling was that 
even animals who can talk wouldn't feel the same kind of need for 
individual names that humans do. (Didn't stop him from having them have 
names when convenient for the narrative, but it kind of looks as if it 
was what he would assume unless the animal-character needed a namier 
sort of name for a particular reason.) The Nine Tiny Piglets are 
probably in this category. Since it's later revealed that they are 
(apparently) the Swynes' kids, they maybe do have names of their own 
that we just don't find out about, comparable to their parents' Grunter 
and Squealina. But at least in their main appearance, Baum is apparently 
thinking of them as not having or needing individual names, but getting 
by with a descriptive label so that they can be talked about, but no 
appellations that they could be called by. (Well, not conveniently. I 
suppose you could yell, "Hey, Tiny Piglet," if you wanted to get one's 
attention and thought "sooey, sooey, pig!" would be rude, although 
ancient. But neither address would let you single out one of them, 
something someone might imaginably want to do, especially Grunter or 
Squealina.)

Nathan DeHoff points out that RPT's Snif is apparently the Scares' 
nickname for the Iffin. I wonder if he in his pre-Scare days might have 
been like so many of Baum's animals in not having anything namier than 
"that griffin there."

Ruth Berman

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:02:21 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com> 
Subject: [Regalia] non-alliterative names in oz

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
> The Soldier with the Green
> Whiskers eventually acquired a name (in fact, two of them, as RPT didn't
> spot the details that show Omby Amby as the same person as the SwtGW),
> but the Guardian of the Gates and Shaggy Man never did get names of
> their own, unless you want to count Baum's stage adaptations (Gardy and
> -- was it Wiggins?).

I think it might have been the Shaggy Man's brother who was named
Wiggy.  "Gardy" is the nickname that the Wizard calls the Guardian in
OZOPLANING, but I think his name in the stage adaptation was Private
Gruph.

> Nathan DeHoff points out that RPT's Snif is apparently the Scares'
> nickname for the Iffin. I wonder if he in his pre-Scare days might have
> been like so many of Baum's animals in not having anything namier than
> "that griffin there."

Certainly possible, although he tells Jack and Peter that he forgot
his real name.  Perhaps the animals most likely to have names are the
ones who spend a lot of time around humans, which Snif presumably did,
having lived in the Land of the Barons.  Belfaygor says he remembers
Snif, but never calls him by his real name.  This rule doesn't always
seem to work out, though.  The Cowardly Lion and the Hungry Tiger live
among humans and don't seem to have any proper names, although the
fact that the adjectives are usually used in referring to them
differentiates them from any other lions or tigers.  And the animals
in the Forest of Gugu, who usually avoid humans, all seem to have
their own proper names.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:31:25 -0800 (PST)
From: "Tom DeWitt" <silverscorpion007 at yahoo.com> 
Subject: [Regalia] non-alliterative names in oz

How about the Gump?  Of course he is an example of an animal designed by a committee and was animated
by the powder of life, but the Gump was alive at one time.

Then there is Billena, the Yellow Hen.  Ok, she originated from the outside world, but she named all her
children (named Dorothy) were born in Oz, so they should be exceptions.

Tom De Witt

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 17:39:15 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com> 
Subject: [Regalia] non-alliterative names in oz

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Tom DeWitt <silverscorpion007 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Then there is Billena, the Yellow Hen.  Ok, she originated from the outside world, but she named all her
children (named Dorothy) were born in Oz, so they should be exceptions.

Billina was originally named Bill by a boy on her farm, but she says
the creatures in the barnyard also called her that, which implies that
names are used among some animals.  Once again, it might be because
these animals were domesticated, and hence used to answering to
human-like names.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:21:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Daniel Doherty" <janitor_stage_two at yahoo.com> 
Subject: [Regalia] non-alliterative names in oz

It seems like the only rule that Baum followed consistently when it came to names was that no Ozian character
could have a name from the outside world--at least not where it wouldn't be a pun. Ann, Nick, and Jack can get
away with it because of their last names, but you never find a just-plain name like Jim or Bill or Betsy among the natives.

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:24:08 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <ivanlan9 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Is Ozma LGBT? Also: Careless Kangaroo

Hi All--

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Mike Conway <mike at conway.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Scott Hutchins <
> scottandrewhutchins at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>  I don't believe that Ozma belongs in the LGBT category on Wikipedia.
>>
>
> Why the heck is this even an issue?
>

Scott, why don't you explain why you think it is an issue?  Let's have the
discussion here, not in the back rooms of Wiki where no one will see it.

[***
  But let me remind everyone that while no topic is forbidden on Regalia,
flaming and personal attacks will result in a topic being shut down quickly.
***]

> Technically, the word TRANS means "across" and Ozma did cross genders,
> identity notwithstanding.

>
> A transgendered person is, in most cases, in a body they're not supposed to
> be in. Tip was never supposed to be Tip in the first place, and the mistake
> that was foisted upon him was undone. Whether the change was magical or not
> is really immaterial, it still happened.

I rather think we might describe her as a transexual, since she has actually
had her sex changed from female to male to female.  When Ozma was Tip, then
you might be able to describe Tip as transgendered--"in a body they're not
supposed to be in"--but pre- and post-Tip, she is in the "correct" body.  As
Ozma the ruler, she has completed the journey.

March Laumer certainly seems to think that Ozma is LGBT.  In the last few
pages of _Careless Kangaroo_ Ozma and Shaggy both confess their love for
Dorothy.  "I used to be a boy," says Ozma, using it as a reason, though not
an excuse or justification, for her feelings.

>
> Besides, is this an intellectual thing, or a squick thing?

Ah.  New word.  Thanks!

Metta,
Ivan
-- 
Ivan Van Laningham
God N Locomotive Works
http://www.pauahtun.org/
http://www.python.org/workshops/1998-11/proceedings/papers/laningham/laningham.html
Army Signal Corps:  Cu Chi, Class of '70
Author:  Teach Yourself Python in 24 Hours

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> 
Subject: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo and college

So Polychrome goes to college. See the novel "Stover at Yale" for an early 1900s view of college and what
it is and should be. By Owen Johnson's time universities were no longer thought of as seminaries but places
where you learned classics (mostly Greek and Latin) and engaged in sports. Dink Stover is a major football
player and is dumbfounded when he runs into a classmate who has never heard of him. His classmate is in
school to learn things usable in the business world that he intends to excel in and considers sport to be
totally non interesting. Johnson works a plea into his novel that the liberal arts and sports should be
deemphasized if not totally eliminated. That universities are for business and technical skills because
that's what is of use and that's what they were founded for. Which is historically incorrect as stated 
they were intended to be of use all right, but to train priests. Saint Bernard was mightily against the
introduction of the study of the thought of Aristotle into the universities (the New Teaching of the time).

Professor Wogglebug appears to be caught up in the midst of this. As I read Baum, it seemed to me that he
was both making fun of the sports thing and had the real use of the college as a place for parents to dump
their over active teenagers.

I think Laumer has a more positive view of the Royal College than Baum. As a place where the pills allow
you to actually understand stuff rather than just be able to produce rote memorization on extensive subjects.
Professor "know it all" is expanded to "I don't know it all" and Polychrome actually learns real information.
Though very rapidly. 

Laumer seems to me to manifest a mid twentieth century view of the reason for existence of the university
system. No longer to be a place that fits the student to the demands of society but a place for the student
to become self actualized, to become their own personal best. Well, except for biz-ad students of course.
Back to philosophy and Aristotle as the most important courses. The examination of the meaning of life rather
than rote learning. As a concept that lasted for a while. Well into the late 80s when Kangaroo was published. 

Laumer's Royal College is a place that might actually have a decent library. Like the University of Washington
in Seattle rather than the grave for books of Syracuse U. A place where one goes to be mentored rather than to
attend classes and engage in rote learning. It looks as if in his Royal College the pills take the place of
classes, and are expanded upon by mentoring and brought into depth by further reading.

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> 
Subject: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo

Carroll reference...
When the Woggle Bug had the Department of Public Instruction cleaned up it took seven maids with seven mops half
a year. Apparently it had less sand and dust and muck in it than the beach that the Walrus and the Carpenter walked on.
 
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand
If this were only cleared away
They said, it would be grand!
 
If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year
Do you suppose, the Walrus said
That they could get it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter
And shed a bitter tear
 
And then there's Laumer's name for the Ozian/Borderland continent. Sempernumquam. Latin for Always-Never.
I like that. I think it has the proper kind of East of the Sun, West of the Moon, Back of the North Wind
feel to it.

I find it interesting that Latin and English are among the few enough languages that have developed separate
words for Always and Never. A lot of languages just have a word or two that mean Ever and then either affirm or
privative it in some way to mean Always or Never or Sometime or Whatever. 

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:15:48 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com> 
Subject: [Regalia] CARELESS KANGAROO matters

In the book, Mar thinks about how her husband Pea had been the one to
name their children.  Is there any indication as to what happened to
Pea?  I can't remember there being one.

And regarding Sky Island, I didn't really care for the idea of its
being mobile.  No such thing is mentioned in SKY ISLAND (the book),
and I figure it's pretty much stationary in the air.  The idea that it
moves around seems too reminiscent of Umbrella Island to me.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:41:57 -0400
From: tyler.jones at cox.net <tyler.jones at cox.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Mobile Sky Island

Nathan says

> And regarding Sky Island, I didn't really care for the idea
> of its being mobile.

Yeah, I never really got this either. Baum's original description doesn't really say anything one way or
the other, but the general sense I've always gotten is that the Island is it a fixed point over the earth.
So I suppose it moves as the earth moves, but it's likely always at the same latitude, longitude and altitude.

Tyler jones

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Scott Hutchins" <scottandrewhutchins at yahoo.com> 
Subject: [Regalia] Mobile Sky Island

I think James E. Haff said that he thought it was mobile, and that's why he left it off the map.  Unfortunately,
I'm not sure I know where my full size color maps and descriptive pamphlet are in order to verify this.
 Scott Andrew Hutchins 

http://web.archive.org/web/20050304105837/mywebpages.comcast.net/scottandrewh/ [archive site; not currently active]
http://www.myspace.com/4637382
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scottandrewhutchins
http://Cinemopera.dvdaf.com
http://akas.imdb.com/name/nm0003149/

"The progress of a love-story is tedious to all those who are not concerned, and I leave such themes to the
hack novel-writers, and the young boarding-school misses for whom they write."
--William Makepeace Thackeray, _Barry Lyndon_. 

From: "tyler.jones at cox.net" <tyler.jones at cox.net>
To: regalia at pumperdink.org
Date: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:41:57 AM
Subject: [Regalia] Mobile Sky Island

Nathan says

> And regarding Sky Island, I didn't really care for the idea
> of its being mobile.

Yeah, I never really got this either. Baum's original description doesn't really say anything one way or the other,
but the general sense I've always gotten is that the Island is it a fixed point over the earth. So I suppose it moves
as the earth moves, but it's likely always at the same latitude, longitude and altitude.

Tyler jones

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:33:26 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] sky island

Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com> wrote:
 > > regarding Sky Island, I didn't really care for the idea of its 
being mobile. No such thing is mentioned in SKY ISLAND (the book), and I 
figure it's pretty much stationary in the air. The idea that it moves 
around seems too reminiscent of Umbrella Island to me. < <
and Tyler Jones commented:
 > Yeah, I never really got this either. Baum's original description 
doesn't really say anything one way or the other, but the general sense 
I've always gotten is that the Island is it a fixed point over the 
earth. So I suppose it moves as the earth moves, but it's likely always 
at the same latitude, longitude and altitude. <

Possible, although I think you'd need some admixture of magic to keep 
people from drifting off (if it's in any sort of orbit, it's in free 
fall, and it's not large enough to generate any noticeable gravity of 
its own), and to keep it from having its orbit gradually slowed by the 
friction of the air around it so that it would eventually fall to 
ground. Another question is whether it's in the same plane of existence 
as the San Diego Trot & Co. started out from -- whether you'd fall into 
the Pacific Ocean or the Nonestic Ocean (or maybe some land in the Oz 
world) if you departed from it without something magic like Button 
Bright's umbrella to get you home.

The feeling that it would be too similar to Umbrella Island (not to 
mention Kapurta in "Enchanted Island" -- or Swift's Laputa in 
"Gulliver's Travels"!) if the people on it controlled its flight seems 
attractive. But I'd think that even if the residents don't control it, 
it might nevertheless wander around a great deal with respect to 
ground-level, whether because: (a) it might be in a non-synchronous 
orbit, (b) the winds might blow it about, or (c) whatever magic holds it 
up and not blown about by the winds or impeded by friction from the air 
might move it about on its own.

Ruth Berman

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Hungry Tiger Press" <hungrytigerpress at pacbell.net>
Subject: [Regalia] sky island

Patrick Maund and I talked a lot about Sky Island logisitcs back in the early 80s when we had nothing better to do.
And we were approaching it from a vaguely science-fiction esque POV. How would it work, and so on. One of my
suggestions was to have it constantly moving but staying exactly on the line between night and day so it was always
day on one side and always night on the other as it should be. Thus it is always in motion BUT it is also always
travleing in this  twilight world half in day and half in night. This idea necessitated that Sky Island be somewhat
convex-shaped, too.

David Maxine

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:17:48 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Mobile Sky Island

2009/3/27 Scott Hutchins <scottandrewhutchins at yahoo.com>:
> I think James E. Haff said that he thought it was mobile, and that's why he
> left it off the map.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure I know where my full size
> color maps and descriptive pamphlet are in order to verify this.

I don't know where my pamphlet is either (and I think I have two of
them), but I do remember Haff mentioning that he left off places in
the sky because most of them didn't really have fixed locations.
Another factor might well have been that he wasn't sure what these
places would be above even if they DIDN'T move, though.  The Skyle of
Un from COWARDLY LION is apparently always above the same spot in the
Munchkin Country, but it isn't on the map either (although the
location of the knitting tree is identified as "U").
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:22:57 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: [Regalia] sky island

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
> Another question is whether it's in the same plane of existence
> as the San Diego Trot & Co. started out from -- whether you'd fall into
> the Pacific Ocean or the Nonestic Ocean (or maybe some land in the Oz
> world) if you departed from it without something magic like Button
> Bright's umbrella to get you home.

I like the idea that it's over the Nonestic world, both because it's
identified as a "Borderlands of Oz" book, and because that allows the
King of the Pinks who was pushed off the edge to have landed in a
fairy country where he might have survived.  (I'm somewhat partial to
the idea that he founded Rash, which also has a pink color scheme.)
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:16:33 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> 
Subject: [Regalia] Mobile Sky Island

I think if we were to ask the inhabitants of Sky Island, they 
(especially the Blues) would say that it's not mobile.

But they might debate whether the universe, including that strange giant 
ball below, moves around them.

J. L. Bell                 JnoLBell at earthlink.net

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo and Shaggy's status

Concerning Shaggy's status. Hobo, Tramp and Bindlestiff are pretty much interchangeable terms for itinerants
as far as civilians are concerned. For knights of the road they're quite distinct.

Hobos are itinerants who ride the rails and who might do a little work for food. They tend to support one another
to a minor extent if there are enough of them in one place at a time.

Tramps are itinerants a little lower on the social scale and are usually loners. They get around on shank's mare
hence the name.

Bindlestiffs are tramps with luggage, whether it's a sack on a stick or not. Bindlestiffs are the lowest form of
itinerant there is. Something to remember if you ever feel like walking about with a pack on your back. If you
look scruffy you are likely to be rousted by the police. It will be assumed that you have stolen goods in your
pack. No self respecting hobo or tramp ever carries more than what will fit in pockets.

The etymologies of Hobo and Bindlestiff are debatable. That said, both words are from German itinerant slang
(Rotwelsch). Hobo is from Hobben = to ride for free, to stowaway. Bindlestiff is from Bindelsteif = bundle-staff.
The cartoon version has the bundle (or matilda) out on the end of a stick over the shoulder. In actuality the bag
hangs right at the shoulder and this form of knapsack has a long history going back at least as far as the Roman
Legionaries who carried their equipment that way, using a spear as the stick. Pointy end forward. For itinerants
one reason for the stick is to discourage dogs. Farm dogs especially can be fiercely territorial. One of the
things in Doctor Herzler's medicine bag (turn of the century Kansas horse and buggy doctor) was a Colt 38 Peacemaker.
Not to kill the dogs but to warn them off. He's shoot as close to them as possible. They'd get the message.

So Shaggy, under normal circumstances, was a loner tramp not a hobo or bindlestiff. With his luggage he became a
bindlestiff and would not have dared ride the rails. When he got rousted out of the box-car in Nevada, he would
have been beaten at least, were it not for the Love Magnet. 

Hobos, tramps, bindlestiffs, gypsies, indians, peddlers, tinkers, cobblers - all itinerants of any kind, my gramma
used to feed them all. She had "nice lady lives here" markings on her fence in many different symbolisms and
she was proud of it.

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo - Deadly Desert

How deadly is the Deadly Desert? I like the take in Return to Oz. The Wheelers accidentally rush out onto the desert
and immediately turn to sand. I thought the settling and subsequent cracking into sand lumps was very effective. 

Laumer seemed to think that the whole transformation of Tip to Ozma took place in the desert but it didn't. At a
minimum, only the wooden feet of the Sawhorse and the Gump, the feet of the Griffin, the shoes of Mombi and Glinda
touched the sands. Considering that the witches might have been able to magically resist being turned into sand
besides wearing shoes, I'd say no diminution of deadliness is implied.

Kiki Aru has to fly high because of poisonous fumes from the burning sands, which need not be literally burning.
Allowing that some parts might be a lot stinkier than others, naytheless, no decrease in awfulness.

The Magic Carpet might well be generally defensive, sweeten the air etc considering that it could bridge a gulf,
besides just rolling and unrolling.

Thus four gates to the desert, sage brush and cactus you can get a drink from don't seem too likely to me.

Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:54:19 -0400
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo and Shaggy's status

2009/3/31 Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>:
> So Shaggy, under normal circumstances, was a loner tramp not a hobo or
> bindlestiff. With his luggage he became a bindlestiff and would not have
> dared ride the rails. When he got rousted out of the box-car in Nevada, he
> would have been beaten at least, were it not for the Love Magnet.

He probably rode the rails at some point in his life, since he claims
in EMERALD CITY to have visited both Mexico and Boston.  Of course,
that would have been he came to Oz in the first place.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 06:29:50 -0400
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo - Deadly Desert

2009/3/31 Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>:
> Laumer seemed to think that the whole transformation of Tip to Ozma took
> place in the desert but it didn't.

Yes, it actually took place at Glinda's tent outside the Emerald City.
Oddly enough, I've seen the same mistake other places.  I wonder if
it's a common misconception, or if the other authors are relying on
Laumer's misinformation.

> Thus four gates to the desert, sage brush and cactus you can get a drink
> from don't seem too likely to me.

No, that rubbed me the wrong way, too.  There isn't any clear case in
the FF of someone touching the desert and turning to dust, but I have
to suspect that the deadliness is not exaggerated.  On the other hand,
it's only stated to affect living flesh, so I suppose it's possible
some plants have managed to thrive there.  Unlikely, though, I'd say.
-- 
Ozma and Oz Forever,
Nathan
fablesto at gmail.com or nathandehoff at gmail.com

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo - insensate perception

"Curiously, the dog seemed to have a memory of all its years prior to its having come alive just now. If Eureka had been
a reflective cat she might have been horrified at the thought that all "insensate" things can perceive what happens to them.
A tree in a forest fire suffers all the dread and pain of a sentient creature burning. A flower pulled up be the roots knows
the torment a cat would feel if its feet were suddenly yanked off. A plate shattered knows all the keen agony of a animal -
or man - torn in a hundred parts. A book at the bottom of a lake dissolves to mush as unwillingly as any feeling being. We
are only blessed in that they can't tell us so."

Of all Laumer's suppositions this one is in my opinion the least attractive - let me rephrase that - the most horribly
ugly. No wonder china figurines, teddy bears, dolls and other suchlike would resist being vetted to the mundane world.
Torture, torment and unremitting pain. A world of hell. 

Cook and eat a carrot? I think not! About the only thing a person with empathetic conscience could be would be a level
2 vegan - as in the Simpsons. Eat nothing that casts a shadow. 

Live on light, air and water like a tree. Or a toon with no interaction with the physical world. Or a fairy that lives
on mist cakes and lives in the clouds. Talk about Nature red in tooth and claw.

My understanding of Baum's position was that the sentient who was transformed to a thing would normally be unconscious
but if perceptive would be otherwise physically insensate and kind of adrift in time. Were Laumer's supposition the way
things actually are, I'm thinking a major effort should have to be made by the fairies who run the world to stupefy all
the "insensate" so that they actually would be insensate. Either that or toonify the entire shebang.

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel Doherty <janitor_stage_two at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo - insensate perception

I'd always thought it was resembling life that was important. The Scarecrow couldn't see until he had been given eyes.
If the eyes ever faded or washed away, he'd lose that sight. He sees because he looks like he can see.

I believe in Baum that Scraps had memories of her existence prior to being brought to life, so there is some evidence
for some of what Laumer is saying. Something that resembles a person or animal does seem to have memories of pre-life.
  But that doesn't mean that they're aware, thinking, and feeling at that point. Plus we all know that the Scarecrow
  can have his insides torn out and feel no pain whatsoever. So it does not seem like books and plates would feel pain.

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:15:56 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] insensate perception

Daniel Doherty wrote:
> I'd always thought it was resembling life that was important. The
Scarecrow couldn't see until he had been given eyes. If the eyes ever
faded or washed away, he'd lose that sight. He sees because he looks
like he can see.
> 

I think you're right on the first point: an inanimate object having some 
resemblance to mammalian life clearly helps in coming to life in Baum's 
stories. The major exception I can think of is Victor Columbia Edison, 
and even he clearly has legs and a "mouth" in the form of his cone.

As for the Scarecrow's eyes, that experiment has been run--or almost so. 
In the LITTLE WIZARD STORY called "The Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman" 
Baum wrote:

+++++
"True enough," sighed the Scarecrow, wiping his wet face with a
handkerchief; and then he gave a cry of astonishment, for he found he 
had wiped off one painted eye and now had but one eye to see with.

"How dreadful!" said the poor Scarecrow. "That eye must have been 
painted in watercolor, instead of oil. I must be careful not to wipe off 
the other eye, for then I could not see to help you at all."
+++++

The Scarecrow doesn't worry about losing his life, simply his sight. Of 
course, he could be ignorant of that threat. But the books have other 
mentions of the Scarecrow getting his eyes and ears repainted, again 
with no suggestion that losing them would leave him lifeless.

Perhaps Baum imagined that once a creature gains life, he or she 
wouldn't lose it. But parts of that creature--such as the Scarecrow's 
straw--wouldn't necessarily remain alive when separated from the 
essential bits (head and face?).

Dennis Anfuso has written a latter-day Oz book about the broom from the 
Gump. As I recall, it's alive, but can't reveal its life until someone 
carves a nick in the handle for a month.

J. L. Bell                 JnoLBell at earthlink.net

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

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:56:04 -0700 (PDT) 
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> 
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Careless Kangaroo - invisibility and recognition 
 
Some very peculiar invisibility. What I would have expected is something more like the glass barrier in 
Time Bandits, only without the glass. That is, on the inside looking out you see nothing (but desert) and 
on the outside looking in you see nothing (but desert). Not so much a barrier of invisibility but of illusion. 
And the barrier going overhead high enough to hide the mountains and possible bean stalks. Birds fly 
through it and Oops, there's Oz. 

On the other hand, there's no reason to undo that sort of invisibility. And it would appear(!) to be gone 
by Scarecrow, as the Orcs seem to have found Oz just fine, whatever special circumstances might hold 
for Trot, Cap'n Bill and Button Bright. 

So it seems as if Laumer solved that by having a very peculiar invisibility indeed. Each individual particle 
of Ozishness when the spell is cast is incommensurate with every individual particle of outsideness. If 
you're on the inside looking out you see nothing (at all) and if you're on the outside looking in you see 
nothing (at all) and if you cross the barrier it makes no difference. You still see nothing (at all). A special 
exception made for Shaggy. 

It becomes immediately obvious that that is a total boondoggle and so it is undone as soon as possible, 
so as not to inconvenience desirable travelers. By the time of Queen Ann's foray then, no problem. They 
can't be said to exactly see the Rak who probably is a visitor, but when they are shifted to the outside 
wastelands they see and are seen just fine.  

Though there is that problem with Shaggy and Polychrome not especially greeting one another as old 
acquaintances. Maybe a lingering effect of invisibility. But it doesn't specify that they were strangers 
either. It just kind of seems that way. They were pretty casual for being previous comrades. I don't think 
it really called for a special spell of forgetfulness, but then again, without it there wouldn't have been 
much of a story.