Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] oz ahead

Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:  At the moment,
I'm looking forward to seeing Sherwood Smith's "Emerald Wand of Oz," which
is supposed to be coming out sometime this month.

My copy of EMERALD WAND arrived this week from Amazon on the day of its
release, the 14th.  It's been at the Books of Wonder store since at least
the 2nd when Sherwood Smith had a signing there.  (I was unfortunately out
of town and missed meeting her.) 

It's an attractive book, not nearly as nice as one from Hungry Tiger Press, but
cleanly laid out with a bright dust wrapper and handsome dark green
endpapers.  The illustrations by William Stout are fine (although there
are only about a half dozen of them), but they're more portraits of the
characters and not actually illustrating events in the text. 

As for the story, I think it's good, although I have minor quibbles with
certain plot points and descriptions, but they weren't distracting the way an
Oz author's differences can sometimes be.  Most interesting of all is the
fact the Dorothy seems to be missing which is a mystery talked about but not
solved.  I'm assuming that the four-book series will answer the larger
questions left behind, somewhat like the Harry Potter books have individual
mysteries in each volume while the greater question of Voldemort is left for
the end. 

I'd rather not spoil any of the book for those who haven't had a chance yet, so
maybe we should slip EMERALD WAND into our discussion list after we're done
RUNAWAY. 

Alan Wise

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:06:32 -0500
From: David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Emerald Wand of Oz

> At the moment,
> I'm looking forward to seeing Sherwood Smith's "Emerald Wand of Oz,"
> which
> is supposed to be coming out sometime this month. It wasn't in yet at
> Uncle
> Hugo's (a local bookstore specializing in f&sf) when I checked there
> Saturday, but is supposed to be along sometime soon.

Karen Owens had it for sale at Ozmopolitan last weekend, so it's out.
I'm about halfway through it and so far there's been so little change
from the second draft I read back in 2002 that I can't imagine why they
took this long getting it into print. But I suppose that's the
publishing biz. And maybe the second half has changed more. It's good,
so far - a bit more of the modern "kids have family issues to solve"
stuff besides just needing to get home from Oz, but withal quite Ozzy,
and if the second half tracks the earlier draft as closely as the first
half does then it will be even more so. Will report more fully early
next week (have house guests this weekend so even if I finish the book
I probably won't be on-line before Sunday evening at the earliest).

David Hulan

Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:39:31 -0500
From: David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Emerald Wand of Oz

I finished Sherwood Smith's first Oz book a week or more ago but forgot
until now that I'd promised a review of it on Regalia when I had. I
found it quite enjoyable myself, though since this was basically my
third time through it (I'd vetted her first two drafts, and not much
changed, including really nothing as far as the main plot line was
concerned) there wasn't the "ooh" factor there might have been if this
had been my first time through.

Dori and Em are sisters living in Kansas. Dori seems about 11 and Em a
year or two younger, but specifics aren't given. They're related to
Dorothy Gale in some unspecified way - in any case, there's enough of a
connection that their great-grandmother was involved in sorting through
what had been left behind when Dorothy, Uncle Henry, and Aunt Em
disappeared about a hundred years earlier. This included a snow-globe
with the Emerald City inside it; they don't know it, but Glinda had
magicked it to let it show actual events in the Emerald City if the
person holding it says, "Ozma." And it had passed down to Dori over
time.

The sisters don't get along too well - Dori is a dreamer, an Oz fan,
something of a slob, and not very good in school; Em is intensely
practical, a neat freak, excellent in school, and thinks that fiction,
and fantasy in particular, is a waste of time. Their father is an
unsuccessful inventor whom their mother kicked out because he wouldn't
get a steady job - largely at the behest of their rather
unpleasant-sounding Aunt Susan. (Em looks up to Susan, at least at the
opening of the book.)

Dori happens to say "Ozma" while holding and looking into the
snowglobe, and sees some odd happenings in Ozma's throne room - just as
a tornado comes along and sucks both girls out the window and,
ultimately, to Oz. (It isn't clear whether they're actually carried to
Oz by the tornado or whether the snowglobe might have rescued them from
the tornado and dropped them there magically - at least, it isn't clear
in my memory.)

Em doesn't want to believe they're in Oz, and she does a lot of
rationalization of Ozzy things that happen to them over the next couple
of chapters, until finally she's forced to acknowledge them. They're
captured by a band of unicorns (not Roganda's; these are more like the
ones in FANTASIA, at least in appearance), but escape with a boy, Rik, 
who'd also been a prisoner there, and make their way to Glinda's palace
- where they find that the good sorceress seems to have lost her wits.

And from there the story takes off, with Dori and Rik captured by
Winged Monkeys and taken to the castle of Bastinda, niece and namesake
of the former Wicked Witch of the West, who wants the emerald wand that
Rik had stolen from her.

Meanwhile, Em meets Scraps, and later the Scarecrow, Jack Pumpkinhead,
the Glass Cat, and the Sawhorse, and the five of them set off on a
flying carpet to rescue Dori (and Rik, incidentally), and to save Oz
from Bastinda's plotting.

I don't want to spoil too much of the story, so I won't go into more
plot details. Overall, I found it quite Ozzy, with plenty of references
to the later Oz books and not just WIZARD. There's a more modern
feeling to it with the family problems Dori and Em have - that sort of
thing never seems to have turned up in the Famous Forty, other than the
orphan status of Bob Up and Robin Brown in their books, but I think
that was typical of chidren's books up until fairly recently. Children
might have problems with their families being poor, or dead, or the
like, but I can't remember any I've read from before 1960 or so where
their parents had quarreled and separated.

This is also supposed to be the first of a set of four books making up
a single story arc, and through it there are several adumbrations of
the main overall plot line when nasty-looking clouds appear and pass
over. And Dorothy has disappeared and Ozma and Glinda can't find her.

If the second book (where I've again read the first draft) stays more
or less the same Dori is the primary adventurer in it, in the company
of Rik again and Prince Inga of Pingaree, with most of the action
taking place in the Nome Kingdom. Em stays home and tries to cover up
Dori's absence. The third book will have Em as the primary adventurer
and Dori will stay home; most of its action will be in the sky and
Polychrome will be featured, but I don't know more than that. And of
the fourth the only thing I know is that both girls will be back in Oz
(loosely speaking) and the whole story arc will be wound up. All this
may, of course, depend on whether EMERALD WAND sells well enough Harper
Collins publishes the rest of the series.

The illustrations (by William Stout) are nice enough, but there aren't
many of them by Oz book standards - not even one per chapter. The b/w
drawings are about as numerous as the color plates in the early books.

I think anyone who likes Oz enough to participate in Regalia would
enjoy this book, and at $16.99 for a hardcover with jacket it's not all
that pricey. Give it a try!

(Oh, I should probably note that I'm given the first and foremost
thanks in the Acknowlegements. And that the book is dedicated to "the
friendly people at Ozmopolitan, summer 2002, and especially Mr. Fred
Meyer, Oz Historian Extraordinaire.")

David Hulan

Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:47:42 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] Emerald Wand of Oz

David Hulan:
>The sisters don't get along too well - Dori is a dreamer, an Oz fan,
>something of a slob, and not very good in school; Em is intensely
>practical, a neat freak, excellent in school, and thinks that fiction, and
>fantasy in particular, is a waste of time.

I have to wonder if Em's more practical nature will become useful in one of
Smith's future books (assuming they're published, which I really hope they
are).  I mean, even in Oz, I'm sure there are times when math lab is more
useful than horse grooming.  And I don't just mean a visit to Rith Metic.

>And from there the story takes off, with Dori and Rik captured by Winged
>Monkeys and taken to the castle of Bastinda, niece and namesake of the
>former Wicked Witch of the West, who wants the emerald wand that Rik had
>stolen from her.

I liked Rik, but wasn't quite as interested in Bastinda, who struck me as
more of a by-the-numbers style villain.  Even her defeat was quite
reminiscent of that of her aunt.

>(Oh, I should probably note that I'm given the first and foremost thanks in 
>the Acknowlegements. And that the book is dedicated to "the friendly people
>at Ozmopolitan, summer 2002, and especially Mr. Fred Meyer, Oz Historian
>Extraordinaire.")

I also noticed that, on p. 257, Susan mentions neighbors called the Hulans. 
I don't know whether the Lenanders, the other neighbors mentioned on that
page, are also named after a real person.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:30:41 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] math & lenanders of oz

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
>  even in Oz, I'm sure there are times when math lab is more useful than
> horse grooming.  And I don't just mean a visit to Rith Metic. >

Well, presumably all those Oz farmers need to keep track of things like how
much wheat can be sent off for making into bread and how much needs to be
kept for seed for next year's crop. (Magic could make up for a lot of crop
failures, but things probably go better if the magicians can be using up
their time on problems other than those that could be avoided by simple
precautions such as inventorying your supplies.) Over at the "Ozmapolitan,"
they need to keep track of paper, ink, subscribers. RPT has a scene in
"Wishing Horse" where the palace staff are worrying about getting in enough
of a wild variety of different sorts of foodstuffs, and while she doesn't
actually say that it takes arithmetic to work out how much is needed and how
much of each type various suppliers can supply, presumably it does. But
puttng this sort of detail into a story is often not all that easy, as it
can pile up to too much detail to hold interest easily and too much detail
to be easily made clear to the reader.

> I also noticed that, on p. 257, Susan mentions neighbors called the
> Hulans.  I don't know whether the Lenanders, the other neighbors mentioned
> on that page, are also named after a real person. <

Sherwood Smith is a long-time member of the Mythopoeic Society, and so are
David Lenander  (who founded the Twin Cities branch of the Mythopoeics) and
his family.

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 09:57:39 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at UMN.EDU>
Subject: [Regalia] emerald residents & rundel-timing

Regarding Ozzy Lenanders -- I hear through David L. that the "Emerald Wand"
reference to them was (apart from the long-time acquaintance) because his
daughter Claire ("Cat") was so interested in hearing
about the book when they and Sherwood Smith saw one another at Mythcon in
Berkeley. And there will be another reference to Cat in book three.

Incidentally, the "Hulans" are described as living on Nage Street -- that's
because Sherwood Smith and the Hulans have been active a long time in the
apa (amateur press association) Apanage, called Nage for short, which is an
apa for discussion of children's fantasy.

Ruth Berman

Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:49:34 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Byron Preiss dies

The NY TIMES reports that Byron Preiss, the book packager who was a
pioneer in graphic novels and digital publishing, died in a car accident
over the weekend. He was 52. Among his upcoming projects, I recall
reading last year, was a Classic Comics version of WIZARD. He also
commissioned Bruce Coville to write MY TEACHER IS AN ALIEN, and was
quite active in publishing science fiction.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:59:53 -0500
From: David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Byron Preiss

> The NY TIMES reports that Byron Preiss, the book packager who was a
> pioneer in graphic novels and digital publishing, died in a car
> accident
> over the weekend. He was 52. Among his upcoming projects, I recall
> reading last year, was a Classic Comics version of WIZARD. He also
> commissioned Bruce Coville to write MY TEACHER IS AN ALIEN, and was
> quite active in publishing science fiction.

While those who have worked with him and his company have had, shall we
say, Mixed reactions to its activities, he was indeed responsible for a
fair amount of quite enjoyable children's-YA publication, including THE
EMERALD WAND OF OZ. I hope that his demise doesn't interrupt the
publication of Sherwood's series.

David Hulan

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:05:58 -0400
From: "jnolbell at earthlink.net" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] RE: Byron Preiss dies

I see that Preiss also owns the copyright to EMERALD WAND (the text, not the art), so he must have
been involved in conceiving that book and commissioning Sherwood Smith to write it.

J. L. Bell               
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] RE: Byron Preiss dies

jnolbell at earthlink.net" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote: I see that
Preiss also owns the copyright to EMERALD WAND (the text, not the art), so he must have
been involved in conceiving that book and commissioning Sherwood Smith to write it.

I thought the Baum Trust had copyrighted the text. 

Alan Wise

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:57:44 -0400
From: "jnolbell at earthlink.net" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] RE: Byron Preiss dies

Alan Wise wrote:
<<>> I see that Preiss also owns the copyright to EMERALD WAND (the text, not the art), so he must have
>> been involved in conceiving that book and commissioning Sherwood Smith to write it.


I thought the Baum Trust had copyrighted the text.  >>

We're both half right: the text copyright is owned jointly by the Baum Trust and Byron Preiss.

William Stout had the clout to retain copyright over his art. He's just posted a heartfelt lament about
Preiss's passing on his website:
<

>

J. L. Bell                   
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

 

Monday, July 11th

BYRON PREISS
music: Barber's Adagio for Strings
mood: Numb

I am devastated by the news of the death of my dear friend Byron Preiss. I...
[Ed.:  Read the remainder at]

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:38:33 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Stout price for Oz art

I came across this image of the Nome King by William Stout, evidently
drawn for Sherwood Smith's upcoming TROUBLE UNDER OZ, on sale for a mere $1,200:
<

>

There are a few other Oz images by Stout linked from that page. His
sketches for the recent Muppet movie imply that Dorothy was originally
supposed to be played by a young white actress with straight brown hair.

There are also a couple of pictures never used in EMERALD WAND: the
Loomy Tooms described only in passing and a cover rough from when that
book was still titled THE WINGED MONKEY OF OZ. Stout drew the cover
monkey (date unstated) with batlike wings and claws, and a sinister
expression. The monkey who bursts into the book in a 2003 illustration
has feathered wings and hands; he seems more regal and unknowable than
threatening, especially given the image of an eye on one palm.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:00:45 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] EMERALD WAND comments

I held off on reading folks' comments on EMERALD WAND until I'd actually
read the book because I was asked to review it. Now that I've turned in
my review, I'm available to have my mind changed. SPOILERS ahead!

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
<more of a by-the-numbers style villain. Even her defeat was quite
reminiscent of that of her aunt.>>

I also thought Rik was quite a successful character, even though in my
conception of the Oz universe he couldn't exist.

With Bastinda I thought William Stout's drawing had more flair than the
character described in words. Her ending was reminiscent of her aunt's
indeed, but it almost had to be, given how much EMERALD WAND bows to
WIZARD. I even felt like Smith was rushed at that point, not giving Em
enough motivation for what she does because artistically Em HAS to do
that thing.

One important change is that, unlike her aunt, Bastinda is intact and
(especially with a power-hungry rock fairy around) potentially
restorable. Ozma even hopes she might be changed by seeing goodness in
front of her. At first I thought that might mean the young witch had
been restored to normal life, but then I concluded she's supposed to
watch life like Benny or Crunch. Is it possible that we'll see Bastinda
again in this miniseries?

Here's a question I didn't bring up in my review: Is EMERALD WAND a girl
book? It's got not one but two young female protagonists. The closest
thing to a boy protagonist is an inhuman Other, wild, untrustworthy, and
only barely attaining a conscience--perhaps a girl's stereotype of an
icky boy?

There are eight chapters devoted to decorating the manes and tails of
candy-colored unicorns. The book shows both boys and girls participating
in that inane activity, but the ads for My Pretty Pony(R) are clear that
play is targeted for girls. Would many boys need this episode to tell
them that combing a unicorn isn't really the most wonderful thing in the
world? Will many boys get through it to where the book's plot really
picks up?

Joe Bongiorno wrote:
< of marketing and publicity. With SO many titles in print, how on earth
do parents or children even know what's available to them??>>

The sheer number of books published (and it's going UP with the ease of
publishing these days) makes established authors and brand names more
valuable. That's why HarperCollins and Byron Preiss commissioned the
books from Smith: "Oz" is a brand name.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:00:24 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] witch family reunion

Who knew the Wicked Witch of the West could have so many relatives?

This year we're seeing:
* EMERALD WAND OF OZ, by Sherwood Smith, whose chief villain is the
  witch's namesake niece.
* LIVING HOUSE OF OZ, by Edward Einhorn, in which a version of the
  Wicked Witch from another version of Oz (in which she's neither
  wicked nor a witch) turns up in what seems to be standard Oz.
* SON OF A WITCH, by Gregory Maguire, following on WICKED with the
  story of Elphaba's son by Fiyero.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:00:46 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] series singular or series plural

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> I'll probably incorporate EMERALD WAND into my own personal view of Oz
> history, since it's consistent with the FF, and not a bad book.  (I'm

> curious as to why John Bell thinks Smith's books should be considered an
> alternate series to the FF.)  That's a very subjective decision,
though.

Partly because I've become less intellectually (and physically) agile as
I age, so convincing myself of ways to reconcile differences between
authors' treatments is harder. Also, at its heart my view of Oz is based
on emotional tugs when I was young, and few or no Oz books I've read in
adulthood can recreate that experience and thus seem "real."

Partly because I've been taken with the idea of Oz "cladistics," and
several branches of the series hanging off a single trunk. It seems
respectful of Smith's vision to treat her books as her take on Baum's
universe (with some careful avoidance to directly contradict later
authors) rather than to set aside or compromise her details to make them
match another author's.

And partly because Sherwood Smith portrays Oz in certain ways which are
fundamental to that universe, and in one case fundamental to her
plotting, yet disagreeable to me (or vice versa). A couple of those:

1) Nome children. Rik's the most fun character in EMERALD WAND. I'm
eager to read more about him. But in my conception, Nomes have no need
or facility to reproduce, being immortal rock fairies. (I therefore have
an alternative reading of the passage in SANTA CLAUS in which the Gnome
King talks about his children.)

2) All of the meat people of Oz losing their "smarts" because their
ruler does. That seems to violate the Baum Oz books' value on
individuality and free will.

3) The implication that Dori is right about Ozians speaking a different
language, but her being able to understand their speech. Smith isn't the
first person to suggest this idea, of course. I just see it raising as
many questions as it answers.

Little contradictions, like why Rik doesn't know about shoes and why the
girls have to explain television, are easy to expain away. But things
like the above are basic to the workings of the Oz universe, or universes.

We'll also see how the rest of this series treats questions of fate and
the connection between Oz and America.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:37:11 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] EMERALD WAND comments

J. L. Bell:
>Nathan DeHoff wrote:
><>more of a by-the-numbers style villain.  Even her defeat was quite
>reminiscent of that of her aunt.>>
>
>I also thought Rik was quite a successful character, even though in my
>conception of the Oz universe he couldn't exist.

I know some people object to the idea of Nome children (or Nome women, for
that matter), but I don't really have a problem with them.  There are
several hints in the books that all Nomes do not date back to the beginning
of the world, and we see Ozma as a baby fairy in MAGICAL MIMICS, so I don't
think the Nomes being fairy creatures necessarily means they don't have
children.

>Here's a question I didn't bring up in my review: Is EMERALD WAND a girl
>book? It's got not one but two young female protagonists. The closest thing 
>to a boy protagonist is an inhuman Other, wild, untrustworthy, and only
>barely attaining a conscience--perhaps a girl's stereotype of an icky boy?
>
>There are eight chapters devoted to decorating the manes and tails of
>candy-colored unicorns. The book shows both boys and girls participating in 
>that inane activity, but the ads for My Pretty Pony(R) are clear that play
>is targeted for girls. Would many boys need this episode to tell them that
>combing a unicorn isn't really the most wonderful thing in the world? Will
>many boys get through it to where the book's plot really picks up?

I think this is a good question, and you might be right that it's primarily
targeted to girls.  Personally, I didn't mind the unicorn chapters, because
I saw them as just another example of an Ozian community of people totally
obsessed with one particular thing.  That said, there was a lot of detail on
unicorn grooming, so I might see boys (and even some girls) becoming bored
with the book fairly early on.  I wonder if, from this standpoint, it might
have been preferable to introduce the unicorns a little later in the story?
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:12:06 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] EMERALD WAND contradictions and book numbering

J. L. Bell:
>And partly because Sherwood Smith portrays Oz in certain ways which are
>fundamental to that universe, and in one case fundamental to her plotting,
>yet disagreeable to me (or vice versa). A couple of those:
>
>1) Nome children. Rik's the most fun character in EMERALD WAND. I'm eager
>to read more about him. But in my conception, Nomes have no need or
>facility to reproduce, being immortal rock fairies. (I therefore have an
>alternative reading of the passage in SANTA CLAUS in which the Gnome King
>talks about his children.)

Baum is rather inconsistent on the point of whether immortals have children,
and throwing other authors into the mix complicates matters even more.  In

SANTA CLAUS, it is stated that there are no children among the immortals,
and Necile is said to have come into existence as an adult when she was
needed to protect a tree.  On the other hand, as you mention, the Gnome King
has children.  I know you've suggested before that these children aren't
necessarily (g)nomes themselves, but I prefer to think that they are.  MAGIC
implies that all fairies, including Ozma, came into existence at the
beginning of the world.  In LAND, however, Mombi says that Ozma was a baby 
when the Wizard brought her to the witch, and this is presumably true, since
Glinda is using her pearl to test the accuracy of Mombi's statements.  In
MAGICAL MIMICS, Snow suggests that fairies typically go through infancy.

Of course, it's quite possible that different sorts of immortals have
different rules.  Limiting it to Nomes, I offer Thompson's statements that 
Ruggedo is 1000 years old (hardly old enough to date back to the beginning
of the world), as well as the descriptions of Guph and Potaroo as being
particularly old Nomes.  All Nomes not being the same age doesn't
necessarily mean they're ever children, though.  They could come into being
as adults, like Necile did.

I suppose this is one area where there's evidence that points in both
directions, so a reader will just have to decide what they prefer.  Someone
who likes the idea of immortal children will favor the passages that suggest
this is possible, while others will favor the statements that there are no
children among the immortals.

>2) All of the meat people of Oz losing their "smarts" because their ruler
>does. That seems to violate the Baum Oz books' value on individuality and
>free will.

This is reasonable, although the idea of a link between the ruler and her
kingdom is an old one, and one that might hold to a certain extent in Oz. 

Besides, do we know the exact nature of Bastinda's spell?

>3) The implication that Dori is right about Ozians speaking a different
>language, but her being able to understand their speech. Smith isn't the
>first person to suggest this idea, of course. I just see it raising as many 
>questions as it answers.

I don't like this idea either, and since it plays no part in the story, I
think it might have been better if she hadn't included this at all.  On the
other hand, the fact that it is irrelevant to the story helps to support the
idea that Dori could be wrong.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:17:29 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] smarting

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
>>2) All of the meat people of Oz losing their "smarts" because their ruler
>>does. That seems to violate the Baum Oz books' value on individuality and
>>free will.
>
> This is reasonable, although the idea of a link between the ruler and her
> kingdom is an old one, and one that might hold to a certain extent in Oz.
> Besides, do we know the exact nature of Bastinda's spell?

According to Rik, after research in Glinda's library, "If it [the
emerald wand] takes something from a leader, the leader's people lose it
too. If the wand gives something to the leader, the people get it too"
[145].

So the de-smarting is apparently intrinsic to this magical tool. Which
makes sense since nothing like this has happened in Oz books before. The
people of Ragbad don't lose their sense when their king's brains go off
with his head, and the Flatheads don't gain anything from their Su-Dic
becoming extra intelligent.

In MERRY-GO-ROUND, a similar dumbing-down works equally on rulers and
subjects: /all/ the people of Halidom suffer the same de-smarting when
the Circlet rolls out of the kingdom, and regain their intelligence when
it comes back under the royal family's control.

Curiously, the emerald wand's power works only on meat subjects. The
Scarecrow, Patchwork Girl, et al., aren't affected, the change must have
a biological as well as a political basis.

Another oddity is that Glinda requires a separate zapping. Does that
mean that in Smith's presentation of Oz she's not a subject of Ozma? Or
does the fallout from Ozma's enchantment extend only to the Emerald City
region?

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:12:16 +0100 (BST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Emerald Wand

I rather liked the language bit in Emerald Wand. The way I see it, getting to
Oz might well involve the syllogismic process as in de Camp's Enchanter. That
is, besides being a relocation in space it would also be a translation from one
frame of reference to another. The translation might have six parameters of
time, space and probability as per Heinlein, thus the degree of fit would
involve six degrees of compliance.

1 Coordinating in time direction and rate, parity in size and permeability and
fitting within the local narativium as in Pratchett. Not ending up like a
counting pine unable to perceive any space of time shorter than a day in a
world of woodchoppers.

I'll skip 2 through 4

5 Coordinating comprehension within the extelligence, which would naturally
involve understanding the local language and gestures as if one had grown up
with them.

6 Coordinating involvement in local interests as if what is important to them
is important to you and thus recognizing subtleties in local manners and
customs.

How well the compliance would take place would depend on the willingness of the
traveler to accept foreign reality as their own. Dori obviously is willing to
believe the fantastic on no greater grounds then that it happens to be true. Em
on the other hand requires reality to make prosaic sense. She is capable of the
language shift but only in relationship to apparent humans. Animals still sound
like animals, much like with the unfortunate ferryman. It takes a shock to her
sensibilities by seeing the totally impossible for her to accept the phase
shift to the same degree as her sister.

For that matter neither of them is willing to blend in to the extent of the 6th
degree of compliance and spend the rest of their lives playing my pretty pony.
Travel from one enclave to another in Oz seems fraught with the same difficulty
for travelers in terms of the 6th degree of compliance. Mostly, I think,
because the enclaves are often closed centers of local importosity, as in
deCamp, thus need some sort of resolution before they can be left.

And speaking of language, Nixta and Rik could be Gaelic but I don't recognize
Niki Noo, Drusnum, Wizzin and Larpa at all.

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:31:54 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] clues about Smith series schedule?

The sudden death of book packager Byron Preiss caused some of us to
wonder about the future of Sherwood Smith's Oz series, which started
this summer with EMERALD WAND.

This week Preiss's widow told PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, "We are continuing to
fulfill the commitments of my husband, Byron Preiss, to his authors and
projects. We appreciate your understanding throughout this period."

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:28:47 -0700
From: Ivan Van Laningham <ivanlan at pauahtun.org>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] King Gil

Hi All--

Ruth Berman wrote:
> Isn't it time for those who want to discuss "Emerald Wand" to discuss it?
>

Sure.  I'll even start (wonder of wonders).

While I liked the book and will buy the next ones in the series, there
are some things I didn't really care for.

The slavery in the book seemed somehow to have a different tone than in
other books.  I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's related to
humor and/or extravagant, ridiculous pomposity.  The unicorns don't have
it; they're not very bright and totally selfish, so there's no room in
the situation for humor.  I know the RPT had much more problematic
slavery in the Jinnicky books, but even there, there's humor.  This
isn't very clear, I think, but somehow or other the way the unicorns
held the girls prisoner just creeped me out.

While I liked Rik all right, I'm not sure I bought him as the son of the
Nome King.  I especially didn't buy his choosing the good at the end of
the book; all the Nomes I know would have spluttered and fussed and done
something foolish and self-destructive.

Overall, though, there was more of an Ozzy feeling than I've had from
many of the apocrypha.

Metta,
Ivan
----------------------------------------------
Ivan Van Laningham
God N Locomotive Works

Army Signal Corps:  Cu Chi, Class of '70
Author:  Teach Yourself Python in 24 Hours

Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 18:13:29 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] EMERALD WAND and Rik

On 11/2/05, Ivan Van Laningham <ivanlan at pauahtun.org> wrote:
> While I liked Rik all right, I'm not sure I bought him as the son of the
> Nome King.  I especially didn't buy his choosing the good at the end of
> the book; all the Nomes I know would have spluttered and fussed and done
> something foolish and self-destructive.

Well, not all of the Nomes we see in the series are totally evil, or
even necessarily foolish.  I thought Rik was the most interesting
character in EMERALD WAND, and I don't mind his being smarter (in some
ways, anyway) than his father.

I do think Smith made too much of an effort to make all of the new
characters in EMERALD WAND related to established ones.  This is
especially true for Rik, since there's no indication in the FF that
Nomes can have children.  Nevertheless, I did like Smith's excuse for
why no female Nomes have appeared in the series.  (The other, and
perhaps more likely, explanation is that they don't exist, but I
suppose there's no clear evidence either way.)  I also kind of hope
that there will be some indication in future books as to just how Dori
and Em are related to Dorothy.  They're apparently living in her old
house in Kansas, but there's no suggestion in the FF that Dorothy has
any relatives other than Aunt Em and Uncle Henry living in that area.
On the other hand, Henry DOES have relatives in California and
Australia, and possibly other places as well.  Maybe one of them heard
about Henry's financial troubles, and bought his old farm after he had
left for Oz?
--
Brick is red, and Hitler's dead,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org or fablesto at gmail.com

Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:58:14 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: EMERALD WAND and Rik

Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
> The slavery in the book seemed somehow to have a different tone than in
> other books.  I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's related to
> humor and/or extravagant, ridiculous pomposity.  The unicorns don't have
> it; they're not very bright and totally selfish, so there's no room in
> the situation for humor.  I know the RPT had much more problematic
> slavery in the Jinnicky books, but even there, there's humor.  This
> isn't very clear, I think, but somehow or other the way the unicorns
> held the girls prisoner just creeped me out.

A lot of the "slaves" we meet in earlier Oz books are /other/ people.

The protagonists might be threatened with slavery, and are naturally
indignant about it (for themselves), but for the most part they spend
little time actually slaving. The girls in EMERALD WAND do actually get
enslaved for a while.

One exception to that rule is Dorothy's extended work for the Wicked
Witch of the West in WIZARD, but then that book often has a different
tone from its sequels. She also does household chores in "Little Dorothy
& Toto" and GRAMPA, but for only one day, as I recall. And those chores
are the sort of work that children are familiar with, tedious but useful.

In contrast, the work that the unicorns set the sisters to doing
benefits no one but the unicorns themselves, which might add to the
sense of exploitation. And that episode goes on for many chapters in
great detail; it really does start to seem like work.

> While I liked Rik all right, I'm not sure I bought him as the son of the
> Nome King.  I especially didn't buy his choosing the good at the end of
> the book; all the Nomes I know would have spluttered and fussed and done
> something foolish and self-destructive.

I think Smith was trying to tie Rik's moment of generosity to his
earlier surprise and gratitude at getting help from Dorri even when she
knew what he was up to. He's definitely sneakier than Ruggedo. For all
the authors said about Rug's slyness, his ambitions are usually
transparent to both readers and companions. (They often go along with
him longer than they ought not because they trust him but because they
think they can beat him. He may actually seem /so/ foolish and
self-destructive that they don't recognize the danger.)

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> I also kind of hope
> that there will be some indication in future books as to just how Dori
> and Em are related to Dorothy.  They're apparently living in her old
> house in Kansas

I didn't catch that detail. I agree that the girls' relationship to the
legendary Dorothy was vague to the point of frustration.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:50:43 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] nomes, gwotn, families

Ivan Van Laningham <ivanlan at pauahtun.org> wrote:
> > While I liked Rik all right, I'm not sure I bought him as the son of the
> > Nome King.  I especially didn't buy his choosing the good at the end of
> > the book; all the Nomes I know would have spluttered and fussed and done
> > something foolish and self-destructive. <<

and Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com> commented:
> Well, not all of the Nomes we see in the series are totally evil, or even
> necessarily foolish.  I thought Rik was the most interesting character in
> EMERALD WAND, and I don't mind his being smarter (in some ways, anyway)
> than his father. >

Kaliko, even after he becomes king and gets much more Ruggedo-like than he
was as Steward, is not totally evil and decidedly not foollish. (David Hulan
in the past has pointed out that the "Ozma" Steward is not named, and for as
fast as Ruggedo tended to go through servitors, might not be the same person
as Kaliko. If he isn't, then he's an additional example of a Nome with a lot
of common sense.)

> there's no indication in the FF that Nomes can have children.
> Nevertheless, I did like Smith's excuse for why no female Nomes have
> appeared in the series.  (The other, and perhaps more likely, explanation
> is that they don't exist, but I suppose there's no clear evidence either
> way.)  <

It might be relevant that the Gnome King in "Santa Claus" gets presents for
his children from Santa. J.L. Bell has suggested that these might be human
children living in the Gnome kingdom and "his" in that sense rather than
implying gnome children. But they at least suggest a possibility of
gnome/nome children.

When Paracelsus invented the elemental spirits, he indicated that all come
in both male and female varieties, but said that the females of some of the
elemental species avoided contact with humans -- including specifically the
gnomides (female gnomes, parallel to his coinage of sylphide, meaning female
sylph, although, confusingly, the term "sylph" as it later developed for
airy spirits came to be taken as exclusively feminine, too). Ruggeodo's wish
in "Tik-Tok" that Polychrome should be his wife or any kind of female 
relative might be taken as implying enough knowledge about marriage to
suggest that there are marriages and female nomes among his subjects, but
might (perhaps more likely?) be taken as implying so little knowledge of
marriage as to indicate that he has no idea of sexual relations or children
as reasons to wish for a wife rather than just any form of relationship to
Polychrome at all.

> I also kind of hope that there will be some indication in future books as
> to just how Dori and Em are related to Dorothy.  They're apparently living
> in her old house in Kansas, but there's no suggestion in the FF that
> Dorothy has any relatives other than Aunt Em and Uncle Henry living in
> that area.  On the other hand, Henry DOES have relatives in California and
> Australia, and possibly other places as well.  Maybe one of them heard
> about Henry's financial troubles, and bought his old farm after he had
> left for Oz? <

Possibly -- but the name "Em" might suggest that the relationship is on Em's
side of the family, so maybe someone from the Hugson family (maybe Zeb, who
seems to be Uncle Hugson's nephew, and Aunt Hugson his aunt only by
marriage -- which might explain why the relationship to Dorothy seems so
vague and yet something they're so much aware of)?

Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:25:04 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] EMERALD WAND thoughts

On 11/4/05, J. L. Bell <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> > I also kind of hope
> > that there will be some indication in future books as to just how Dori
> > and Em are related to Dorothy.  They're apparently living in her old
> > house in Kansas
>
> I didn't catch that detail.

That's because it wasn't actually in there.  I thought I had
remembered that detail being mentioned in the book, but I just
finished re-reading it, and it doesn't say anything about the house
being the same as Dorothy's.  Dori and Em's house is located near
Lawrence, in between Topeka and Kansas City.  The only reference we
really have to where Dorothy's house was is that it was near the
imaginary town of Butterfield.  OZMAPOLITAN does mention that the
local newspaper is the TOPEKA TIMES, so that could be (but isn't
necessarily) an indication that the farm was near Topeka.

> I agree that the girls' relationship to the
> legendary Dorothy was vague to the point of frustration.

The snow globe was handed down to the girls by their grandmother, who
says that the names Dorothy and Emma "run right through the female
side of the family, going way back" (p. 23).  That really doesn't give
us much help.

The globe was apparently given to Dorothy during her visit in ROAD,
although the circumstances aren't entirely clear.  Ozma says that
Dorothy "took it back to Kansas after one of her adventures here" (p.
3), but since ROAD ends with Ozma transporting Dorothy back to Kansas
while she's asleep, it isn't clear how Dorothy could have played an
active role in taking it home.

Just a few other thoughts on the book, while it's still BCF:

Aside from the relative lack of illustrations, one thing that makes
this book appear different from most traditional Oz books is that
there are no chapter titles.

Some of the familiar characters act a bit oddly in EMERALD WAND.  Why
would the Sawhorse have been so willing to take the invisible Rik to
Glinda's palace?  Also, while basically in character, Scraps seems a
little more childish than usual, as well as being obsessed with good
manners (certainly not something she ever bothered with in the Neill
books, especially).  Maybe the spell on Ozma affected her and her
fellow magically animated beings more than she thought.  On the other
hand, the Scarecrow and Bungle act pretty normally, and no less
intelligent than usual.

I'm not sure where the idea that the Magic Belt needs time to recharge
after being used for something major originated (I know it came up on
the Ozzy Digest a few times, but I'm not sure whether it started
there), but EMERALD WAND incorporates this idea into the story.  It's
a pretty good excuse for why a few quick fixes with the Belt can't fix
every problem threatening Oz.
--
Brick is red, and Hitler's dead,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org or fablesto at gmail.com

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:34:45 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] bio, nd, ks

Nathan DeHoff
<fablesto at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dori and Em's house is located near Lawrence, in between Topeka and Kansas 
> City.  The only reference we really have to where Dorothy's house was is
> that it was near the imaginary town of Butterfield.  OZMAPOLITAN does 
> mention that the local newspaper is the TOPEKA TIMES, so that could be
> (but isn't necessarily) an indication that the farm was near Topeka. >

There's a mention to Topeka in "Emerald City," too -- doesn't Em say she
stayed in a hotel in Topeka one time? That sounds as if it might be the
nearest large city, where she might have stayed overnight for special
excursions (selling some of their produce and buying supplies, with a hotel
stay for a special treat, maybe?).

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:50:14 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: EMERALD WAND thoughts

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> Aside from the relative lack of illustrations, one thing that makes
> this book appear different from most traditional Oz books is that
> there are no chapter titles.

A sharp-eyed point. I thoroughly dislike the typeface chosen for the
numbers themselves.

> I'm not sure where the idea that the Magic Belt needs time to recharge
> after being used for something major originated (I know it came up on
> the Ozzy Digest a few times, but I'm not sure whether it started
> there), but EMERALD WAND incorporates this idea into the story.

Looking back at old Digests, it looks like John N. White proposed the
idea in February 1996, and a number of people signed onto it in the
following months. It's a handy way to make plots possible. We know
Sherwood Smith had an advisor who was involved in those discussions, so
perhaps she got the idea (or assurance that it was plausible to some Oz
fans) by that route.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:56:52 -0600
From: David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: EMERALD WAND thoughts

> Looking back at old Digests, it looks like John N. White proposed the
> idea in February 1996, and a number of people signed onto it in the
> following months. It's a handy way to make plots possible. We know
> Sherwood Smith had an advisor who was involved in those discussions, so
> perhaps she got the idea (or assurance that it was plausible to some Oz
> fans) by that route.

I do remember discussing the point with Sherwood, though I don't recall
whether it was in the context of her asking if it sounded plausible or
of her wondering how to get around the belt's apparent omnipotence and
my suggesting the theory.

David Hulan

Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:49:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Emerald Wand thoughts, part 1

  The essential question, it seems to me, in discussing Sherwood Smith's
EMERALD WAND OF OZ is whether or not she succeeds in her own stated goal: to
write a more modern Oz book, faithful to those of Baum, but also intriguing
enough to modern readers unfamiliar with the series.  In a way, it's
difficult for long-time Oz fans to evaluate her work because we have certain
expectations of how the characters act and how the various accoutrements of the
standard Oz formula integrate with any new author's plot.  Of course, I
can't know how a new reader would react to the book because I'm not a new
reader, but I think speculating on how this interplay of old and new works in
Ms. Smith's book might be useful in our discussions, especially as we enter the
borderland books, because fleshing out the idea of what truly makes an "Oz
book" will be helpful in defining our terms as we proceed.  In a way,
it's like creating a rubric for grading, only there's not going to be a final
at the end!

  First of all, think Smith made an astute observation about the
therapeutic effect Oz has on its child visitors; their adventures nurture their
positive qualities, while the villains often exhibit the less desirable
qualities of the protagonists, although often in a highly exaggerated
form.  (For example, Dorothy can be single minded and stubborn, prone to
conquering, traits carried out to much fuller extent by the Wicked Witch of the
West and the Nome King).  Dori and Em both learn to be better versions of
themselves.  Dori becomes less dreamily selfish while Em learns to accept
the wonder and disorder in life.  Bastinda models their worst behavior:
she responds to a bad family situation by becoming bossy and unwilling to recognize
the feelings of others. 
  
  I also think it's significant the Smith chose to give the girls a
backstory of marital strife between their parents.  Dorothy was an orphan
which seems to me the quintessential dilemma for a child protagonist of the
tale 19th century, following in the tradition of Dickens or Twain.  For
readers of that time I imagine losing one's parents was a frightening prospect
because it was not an unlikely event.  It left the child unmoored,
shuttled into orphanages or into care of relatives.  And Dorothy is not
the only child protagonist from this era who, though her cheer and
determination, transforms the dour situation around her (Heidi, Pollyanna, Anne
of Green Gables).  
  
  Today becoming an orphan seems much less possible; additionally, the
cultural weight of being one has pretty much disappeared.  Instead, the
corresponding family situation seems to be divorce or the instability of the
parents' marriage.  Smith, I think, has simply, yet wisely, substituted
one convention for another. 
  
  Where she is less successful is when her characters come to Oz. 
The landscape is not particularly magical; in fact, after describing the
flowers that surround them -- "Crimson, pink, pale mauve, deep red that
was almost purple" -- Smith seems to define the Ozian landscape by what it
is not: 
  
  "There was no sign of their small house with its clapboard walls
and its tall roof.  There was no sign of any of the other houses on their
street, either whole or wrecked.  No cars in driveways -- no driveways. 
No sidewalk, no streetlamps or street signs.  Their block was gone; the
next block was gone. 
  
  "Everything was gone." 
  
  The girls make their way across some hills, expecting that they're still
in Kansas. And it's hard to blame them for not believing right away that
they're in magical territory when it's implied that Oz seems not very different
from Kansas. 
  
  Compare that with Dorothy's entrance to Oz in WIZARD where Baum cleverly
makes an item by item contrast between Kansas and Oz: brown grass to lush
grass, no trees to fruit trees, dry fields to hills and brooks.  (I'm
sorry I don't have a copy of WIZARD at hand for more precise examples.) 
Everywhere she turns she sees evidence that the drabness of Kansas has been left
behind and replaced by the magic of Oz.  Smith's repetition of the word
"gone" seems oddly parallel to Baum's use of "gray" in the
way that both words seem to negate any pleasure in the landscape.  The
difference is that Baum negates Kansas while Smith negates Oz. 
  
  Once arrived in Oz, most child protagonists almost immediately join
forces with a magical companion.  Dorothy has the Scarecrow; Trot has the
Ork, Betsy has the Shaggy Man, Peter has Jack Pumpkinhead.  Smith doesn't
give her characters a companion until a hundred pages in, and even then, Rik
isn't so much magical as he is mysterious.  It's not until page 149 that
Em meets Scraps and the reader gets a better idea of just how Oz magic
works. 
  
  These two omissions, I think, hobble any success Smith might have with
this book because without the feeling of joy that come from arriving in Oz,
without the sense of magical possibility one of the Oz celebrities provides,
there's no joy at coming to Oz, no feeling of relief from the drudgery of the
everyday life left behind.  As it stands, Dori and Em think rather too
much about their situation as home, a habit that drags down the
narrative.  Aside from a shrug of her shoulders at the beginning of her
adventures, Dorothy never seems to think much about home.  She wants to
get home, and it's the goal of many of her early trips to Oz, but she doesn't
dwell on her sorrow or her loneliness. 
  
  This lack of magical possibility at the beginning of Dori and Em's
journey also makes their later adventures feel less plausible.  Because
Dorothy finds a lunch pail tree early on, the seeds of magic have been planted,
and the reader is more inclined to believe that a girl who has found a magical
lunch can operate a magical belt.  Dori and Em don't have the benefit of this
introduction to expanded possibility, and as a result they seem to have a much
more tenuous relationship to magic when they do encounter it.  Even when
Em figures out how to use the Golden Cap, she doesn't use it to her
advantage. 
  
  That said, there seems to be a lot of magic in this book - the magic
food the children eat, the picture frame washing machines, the flying carpet,
even the water wands - although none of it seems particularly magical.  I
think it's because there's too much of it.  For all the trees with
surprising fruit that Baum planted and all the Soup Seas and marshmallow giants
of Thompson, I think both of them would have agreed that the inhabitants of Oz
probably did their own laundry.  Baum seems to suggest as much in the conversation
in GLINDA where Ozma reminds Dorothy that most people are happiest when they're
able to accomplish things using their own two hands. 
  
  Another hindrance to the girls' interaction with Oz is that they're
almost immediately made prisoners and remain so for nearly 70 pages.  This
forced inaction slows down the emotional growth necessary to overcoming
obstacles during future adventures. 
  
  The adventures of Robin in MERY GO ROUND make a useful counterpoint to
those in EMERALD WAND: both have their main characters arrive in the Quadling
Country of Oz, encounter animals who provide some direction, face capture by a
society more interested in itself than in visitors, and finally escape. 
Robin's adventures are handled much more swiftly, and to my mind, more
deftly.  He has Merry as his magical companion, there's a lot more humor,
and the sojourn in View Halloo, although somewhat more oppressive than the land
of the unicorns in EMERALD WAND, is over much sooner.  I think there's
also a troubling lack of compassion in the episode with the unicorns. 
Dori and Em end up being unkind to the unicorns while life among the fox
hunters allow Robin and Merry to develop the skills necessary to
escape.  
  
  Alan Wise

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:59:59 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Regalia Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16

David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com> wrote:
> I do remember discussing the point [Magic Belt power] with Sherwood,
> though I don't recall whether it was in the context of her asking if it
> sounded plausible or of her wondering how to get around the belt's
> apparent omnipotence and my suggesting the theory. >

Getting the more powerful magics of Oz out of the way is one of those
problems that a lot of Oz authors run up against. (And there's probably a
limit to how many times stealing them works as one of the solutions, so
having some of them need down-times is a useful addition.)

Ruth Berman

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:05:24 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Emerald Wand thoughts, part 1

On 11/20/05, Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  Compare that with Dorothy's entrance to Oz in WIZARD where Baum
cleverly makes an item by item contrast between Kansas and Oz: brown grass to
lush grass, no trees to fruit trees, dry fields to hills and brooks.  (I'm
sorry I don't have a copy of WIZARD at hand for more precise examples.)

>From an online version of WIZARD, here's the relevant passage (which
can found in Chapter 2):

"The cyclone had set the house down very gently--for a cyclone--in the
midst of a country of marvelous beauty. There were lovely patches of
greensward all about, with stately trees bearing rich and luscious
fruits. Banks of gorgeous flowers were on every hand, and birds with
rare and brilliant plumage sang and fluttered in the trees and bushes.
A little way off was a small brook, rushing and sparkling along
between green banks, and murmuring in a voice very grateful to a
little girl who had lived so long on the dry, gray prairies."

>  Once arrived in Oz, most child protagonists almost immediately join
forces with a magical companion.  Dorothy has the Scarecrow; Trot has the
Ork, Betsy has the Shaggy Man, Peter has Jack Pumpkinhead.

That isn't until Peter's second visit to Oz, though.  On his first,
his earliest companion is none other than Rik's father Ruggedo.  He
journeys to Oz in the old Nome King's company, and doesn't meet a
familiar character until coming to Patch.

>  That said, there seems to be a lot of magic in this book - the magic
food the children eat, the picture frame washing machines, the flying carpet,
even the water wands - although none of it seems particularly magical.  I
think it's because there's too much of it.  For all the trees with
surprising fruit that Baum planted and all the Soup Seas and marshmallow giants
of Thompson, I think both of them would have agreed that the inhabitants of Oz
probably did their own laundry.

Indeed, Thompson's GRAMPA has a tribe of washerwomen who don't employ
any magic at all in their tasks (although the fence around their
community is magical).  Smith's view of magic being used for common
household tasks is, in some ways, closer to Neill's view of Oz.  On
the other hand, we know that Glinda was responsible for setting up the
society in Unicorn Valley, and she might well have given them certain
kinds of magic that most Ozites don't have, simply because she knew
nothing would ever get done otherwise.

> Baum seems to suggest as much in the conversation in GLINDA where Ozma
reminds Dorothy that most people are happiest when they're able to accomplish
things using their own two hands.

Yes, while we know that Ozma, Glinda, and the Wizard are all capable
of conjuring food and shelter, they seem to only do it while
travelling, or to assist someone else who's travelling.  In their
everyday lives, the food they eat is apparently prepared by actual
cooks.

>  Another hindrance to the girls' interaction with Oz is that they're
almost immediately made prisoners and remain so for nearly 70 pages.  This
forced inaction slows down the emotional growth necessary to overcoming
obstacles during future adventures.
>
>  The adventures of Robin in MERY GO ROUND make a useful counterpoint
to those in EMERALD WAND: both have their main characters arrive in the
Quadling Country of Oz, encounter animals who provide some direction, face
capture by a society more interested in itself than in visitors, and finally
escape.  Robin's adventures are handled much more swiftly, and to my mind,
more deftly.  He has Merry as his magical companion, there's a lot more
humor, and the sojourn in View Halloo, although somewhat more oppressive than
the land of the unicorns in EMERALD WAND, is over much sooner.  I think
there's also a troubling lack of compassion in the episode with the
unicorns.  Dori and Em end up being unkind to the unicorns while life
among the fox hunters allow Robin and Merry to develop the skills necessary to
escape.

Yes, I think the main problem with the imprisonment in Unicorn Valley
isn't that it happens, but that it happens for such a large portion of
the story.  I could sort of imagine a place like Unicorn Valley in the
Thompson books, and definitely in the McGraw books, as it sort of
seems like a combination of View-Halloo and Good Children's Land.
Neither of those authors would have let the imprisonment drag on for
so long, though.
--
Brick is red, and Hitler's dead,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org or fablesto at gmail.com

Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:08:04 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Emerald Wand thoughts, part 1

I received my copy of the Autumn 2005 BAUM BUGLE this week (I have the
type of Oz Club membership that gets things by first-class mail). It
includes, among other things, an article about LOST KING by Ruth Berman
and book reviews by Marcus Mebes, Joe Bongiorno, and myself.

So now that I've reminded myself what I thought about EMERALD WAND, I
figure it was safe to respond to some of Alan Wise's comments about the
book.

Alan wrote:
<<it's difficult for long-time Oz fans to evaluate her work because
we have certain expectations of how the characters act and how the
various accoutrements of the standard Oz formula integrate with any new
author's plot.>>

Indeed, and I think we might respond more energetically to details that
don't seem right than to those which do--because the latter are, after
all, only to be expected. In my review I commented on how Scraps,
showing a concern for polite behavior, seems off in EMERALD WAND. I
touched on, but didn't make a big deal about, how effectively Smith uses
our fondness and faith for Ozma and Glinda to ratchet up the sense of
danger in the book.

<<First of all, think Smith made an astute observation about the
therapeutic effect Oz has on its child visitors; their adventures
nurture their positive qualities, while the villains often exhibit the
less desirable qualities of the protagonists, although often in a highly
exaggerated form. (For example, Dorothy can be single minded and
stubborn, prone to conquering, traits carried out to much fuller extent
by the Wicked Witch of the West and the Nome King).>>

This is certainly the case in Thompson's books about Peter; he's tempted
by the dark lure of being a Nome general, a battling baron, a pirate.
And it makes an interesting lens for viewing Dorothy's battles with the
Wicked Witch, Langwidere, the Nome King, Ugu, and others.

But I don't think the same pattern applies in most Oz books. Many don't
have a single or even standout villain to mirror the hero; there's a
series of obstacles instead, some natural instead of directed by an
antagonist. Sometimes the hero is fairly characterless (Betsy in
TIK-TOK). And even when there is a clear young hero and a nasty villain,
they may not reflect much of each other. Woot and Mrs. Yoop have little
in common, for instance.

I think it's true that Smith, unlike many previous Oz novelists, tries
to tie the adventure in Oz to some character growth for her young
protagonists. Often it seems that Dorothy is /too/ close to perfect at
the start of an adventure for her to get anything from it. Some later
authors' attempts at instilling life lessons seem too heavy-handed
(COWARDLY LION, WONDER CITY).

<backstory of marital strife between their parents. Dorothy was an orphan
which seems to me the quintessential dilemma for a child protagonist of
the tale 19th century, following in the tradition of Dickens or Twain.
. . . Today becoming an orphan seems much less possible; additionally, the
cultural weight of being one has pretty much disappeared. Instead, the
corresponding family situation seems to be divorce or the instability of
the parents' marriage. Smith, I think, has simply, yet wisely,
substituted one convention for another.>>

The parents' divorce did feel a lot like a modern convention, and I'm
not sure why. Maybe because the lesson of "it's not your fault" seems so
familiar.

<<Where she is less successful is when her characters come to Oz. The
landscape is not particularly magical; in fact, after describing the
flowers that surround them -- "Crimson, pink, pale mauve, deep red that
was almost purple" -- Smith seems to define the Ozian landscape by what
it is not. . . . Compare that with Dorothy's entrance to Oz in WIZARD
where Baum cleverly makes an item by item contrast between Kansas and
Oz: brown grass to lush grass,...>>

To be fair, the parts you're quoting describe the rural Ozian
countryside, which in most of the books seems rather like rolling grassy
hills anywhere. Most kids from America don't tumble to the fact that
they're in Oz or fairyland until they meet somebody--three little men, a
talking animal--that they couldn't meet at home.

Smith is contrasting the sisters' suburban neighborhood, with its houses
and cars and street lamps, with the lack of any artificial structures in
sight. It's indeed not as poetic as Baum's eventual emphasis on color as
opposed to the grayness of Kansas in WIZARD.

<<Once arrived in Oz, most child protagonists almost immediately join
forces with a magical companion. Dorothy has the Scarecrow; Trot has the
Ork, Betsy has the Shaggy Man, Peter has Jack Pumpkinhead. Smith doesn't
give her characters a companion until a hundred pages in, and even then,
Rik isn't so much magical as he is mysterious. It's not until page 149
that Em meets Scraps and the reader gets a better idea of just how Oz
magic works.>>

An interesting point. This may be a result of Smith's emphasis on the
sisters' feuding relationship, and how much they have to work through
with each other. Focusing on that may not leave an author much room to
bring in a new character (or, rather, bringing in a new character might
have distracted from that drama).

The sisters' disagreements also play out in their different ideas about
Oz. Dori knows the books backward and forward while Em knows the MGM
movie. At some points Em insists on maintaining her movie-based idea
about how Oz works, such as that the adventure there will take only a
few hours and not days. Each is thus viewing the land where they've
landed through her own cultural lens.

<<As it stands, Dori and Em
think rather too much about their situation as home, a habit that drags
down the narrative. Aside from a shrug of her shoulders at the beginning
of her adventures, Dorothy never seems to think much about home. She
wants to get home, and it's the goal of many of her early trips to Oz,
but she doesn't dwell on her sorrow or her loneliness.>>

It might be more accurate to say that Dori and Em think about the issues
they've brought from home while Dorothy doesn't feel any such issues.
She doesn't seem to mourn the loss of her parents or resent her family's
poverty. At several points in WIZARD Dorothy speaks or thinks of Aunt Em
and wanting to return home, however. She cries when the Wizard's balloon
proves a disappointment.

<<This lack of magical possibility at the beginning of Dori and Em's
journey also makes their later adventures feel less plausible. Because
Dorothy finds a lunch pail tree early on, the seeds of magic have been
planted, and the reader is more inclined to believe that a girl who has
found a magical lunch can operate a magical belt. Dori and Em don't have
the benefit of this introduction to expanded possibility, and as a
result they seem to have a much more tenuous relationship to magic when
they do encounter it. Even when Em figures out how to use the Golden
Cap, she doesn't use it to her advantage.>>

The girls do figure out how to use the landscape where the unicorns live
and their habits to escape. That episode takes up quite a number of
chapters, but it is well plotted out.

<<The adventures of Robin in MERY GO ROUND make a useful counterpoint to
those in EMERALD WAND: both have their main characters arrive in the
Quadling Country of Oz, encounter animals who provide some direction,
face capture by a society more interested in itself than in visitors,
and finally escape. Robin's adventures are handled much more swiftly,
and to my mind, more deftly. He has Merry as his magical companion,
there's a lot more humor, and the sojourn in View Halloo, although
somewhat more oppressive than the land of the unicorns in EMERALD WAND,
is over much sooner.>>

Another factor in MERRY GO ROUND and many of the more beloved Oz books
is that the child hero becomes a parent figure for a newly-animated and
thus childlike creature. Dorothy had the Scarecrow, Tip had Jack, Ojo
had Scraps, Speedy had Terrybubble, and Robin had Merry. There's no
equivalent for Dori and Em. They have each other, but that's been (what
they perceive as) their problem all along.

Nathan DeHoff commented:
<<> Once arrived in Oz, most child protagonists almost immediately
  > join forces with a magical companion.  Dorothy has the Scarecrow;
  > Trot has the Ork, Betsy has the Shaggy Man, Peter has Jack
  > Pumpkinhead.

That isn't until Peter's second visit to Oz, though.  On his first,
his earliest companion is none other than Rik's father Ruggedo.  He
journeys to Oz in the old Nome King's company, and doesn't meet a
familiar character until coming to Patch.>>

I think Ruggedo counts as a "magical companion" for Peter in GNOME KING,
as well as someone familiar to Oz readers. (I forget whether Peter
recognizes him.) Peter and the Nome King even act as allies for a while,
even though each plans to betray the other. Ruggedo helps orient Peter
toward life in the magical region in ways that Dori and Em might have
benefited from.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:03:00 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: Emerald Wand thoughts, part 1

On 12/12/05, J. L. Bell <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> The parents' divorce did feel a lot like a modern convention, and I'm
> not sure why. Maybe because the lesson of "it's not your fault" seems so
> familiar.

I have to agree on this one.  It just seems like there are so many
books out there with this moral that there isn't much need to put it
in an Oz book.  I don't know.  My parents are divorced, and I never
thought it was my fault when it happened.  My experience wasn't
necessarily typical, though.

> I think Ruggedo counts as a "magical companion" for Peter in GNOME KING,
> as well as someone familiar to Oz readers. (I forget whether Peter
> recognizes him.)

He doesn't, and indeed specifically states that Ruggedo wasn't in the
Oz book he read.  On the other hand, he seems to know something about
Nomes, but that might be from non-Oz folklore.
--
Brick is red, and Hitler's dead,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org or fablesto at gmail.com

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:37:39 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] companions vs protagonists as title-holders

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> But I don't think the same pattern applies in most Oz books. Many don't
> have a single or even standout villain to mirror the hero; there's a
> series of obstacles instead, some natural instead of directed by an
> antagonist. Sometimes the hero is fairly characterless (Betsy in TIK-TOK).  
> And even when there is a clear young hero and a nasty villain, they may
> not reflect much of each other. Woot and Mrs. Yoop have little in common,
> for instance. >

Woot is different again from a pattern of contrast between a young hero and
an antagonist in that he isn't really the hero of "Tin Woodman," although
he's the viewpoint character. The Tin Woodman is really the central
character in the book -- which is something of a departure, as the Wizard,
Ozma, the Patchwork Girl, Tik-Tok, the Scarecrow, Rinkitink, and Glinda are
not the central characters in their title books. Of course, with Dorothy the
central character in so many Oz books, it would be impossible to have them
all named for her, and when the central character is a "young hero," it's
often the case that the most striking character, best suited to featuring in
the title, is not the protagonist. Often, it's the magical companion who's
the title character -- among the post-Baum titles, that pattern applies to
Kabumpo, even the Cowardly Lion and Hungry Tiger to some extent (although
they have the central moral problem to work through, unlike Bob Up and
Notta, and Betsy and Reddy, who have practical problems of getting back to
or winning or finding a home rather than a moral problem), Gnome King, Giant
Horse, Jack Pumpkinhead, Wishing Horse, and maybe Shaggy Man and
Merry-Go-Round. Pastoria is a companion part of the way, but is more the
title character because he's the object of the quest (lost king parallel in
that way to Ozma as lost princess -- I suppose Ozma is the only person who's
a title character twice, although the Wizard is the title one and a half
times?). Yellow Knight, Purple Prince, Ojo, Speedy, Captain Salt, Handy
Mandy, and Lucky Bucky are basically protagonists, although the knight and
the captain are accompanied by young heroes. And some of the titles, of
course, are named for groups or places (Emerald City as also the city of
wonder is title-place twice).

Interesting set of comments on "Emerald Wand." I suppose there'll be enough
follow-up discussion to make it sensible to wait a while before setting a
date for the next book.

Ruth Berman

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:14:59 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: who's the boss?

Ruth Berman wrote:
> Woot is different again from a pattern of contrast between a young hero and
> an antagonist in that he isn't really the hero of "Tin Woodman," although
> he's the viewpoint character. The Tin Woodman is really the central
> character in the book

I suppose that's true, given that the Tin Woodman drives the quest. Woot
is necessary at the outset to goad him into seeking out Nimmie Amee; he
may not be the fuel for the plot, but he's the ignition.

The point still stands: Is Mrs. Yoop a dark version of the Tin Woodman
himself? I don't see a lot of parallels. Of course, later in that book
Nick does meet other versions of himself: three of them, in fact.

> when the central character is a "young hero," it's
> often the case that the most striking character, best suited to featuring in
> the title, is not the protagonist. Often, it's the magical companion who's 
> the title character

This may be due to the publisher's recognition that young readers wanted
to see themselves in the children having adventures. As appealing as
Dorothy, Trot, or Peter are, they might represent the kids we wish to be
rather than people we wish to have adventures with. In contrast, we
might like imagining ourselves on adventures with the Scarecrow,
Patchwork Girl, and others who get their names in the titles.

> I suppose there'll be enough
> follow-up discussion to make it sensible to wait a while before setting a
> date for the next book.

I think the holidays will also keep a lot of people busy.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:49:09 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] companions vs protagonists as title-holders

On 12/14/05, Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
> Woot is different again from a pattern of contrast between a young hero and
> an antagonist in that he isn't really the hero of "Tin Woodman," although
> he's the viewpoint character. The Tin Woodman is really the central
> character in the book -- which is something of a departure, as the Wizard,
> Ozma, the Patchwork Girl, Tik-Tok, the Scarecrow, Rinkitink, and Glinda are
> not the central characters in their title books.

Well, Nick Chopper was left with what he saw as a duty to fulfill
(although he wouldn't have seen it that way if Woot hadn't talked him
into it).  In many of those other books, the title characters are
pretty much content with their lives, but are willing to help out
someone who does have a problem, or a quest to fulfill.  That isn't to
say that these characters can't also have problems or quests of their
own.  In ROYAL BOOK, it's the Scarecrow who's discontent, and sets out
in search of his past.

While Ozma isn't the main character in her own book, it IS her quest
that the characters are on.  It's just that we don't see it from her
viewpoint, and she isn't the one who emerges as the hero.  In
RINKITINK, the title character has issues of his own, but the story
doesn't focus on them.

> Pastoria is a companion part of the way, but is more the
> title character because he's the object of the quest (lost king parallel in
> that way to Ozma as lost princess -- I suppose Ozma is the only person who's
> a title character twice, although the Wizard is the title one and a half
> times?).

I think you're forgetting OZOPLANING, a title that the Wizard shares
with his invention, but not with any other characters.  So would that
work out to two and a half titles?

You could also make a case for Captain Salt being one of the title
pirates of PIRATES, and hence being a title character twice, but
that's a bit more of a stretch.
--
Brick is red, and Hitler's dead,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org or fablesto at gmail.com

Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:56:30 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] wizardly titles, discussion sked, dunkitons

Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com> wote:
> I think you're forgetting OZOPLANING, a title that the Wizard shares with
> his invention, but not with any other characters.  So would that work out
> to two and a half titles? >

Oops, yes. Maybe since the Ozoplanes share the title, that works out to two
titles with the Wizard as title character (or the halves could be counted as
wholes, and it could be called three, I suppose).

Ruth Berman

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:56:38 EST
From: AGannaway7 at aol.com
Subject: [Regalia] THE EMERALD WAND OF OZ comments

I know the scheduled date for discussion of QUEER VISITORS has already 
arrived, but I was finally able to finish reading EMERALD WAND and had numerous 
thoughts about it.

Way back on 7/26/05, J. L. Bell wrote:

<<There  are eight chapters devoted to decorating the manes and tails of 
candy-colored unicorns. The book shows both boys and girls participating 
in that inane activity, but the ads for My Pretty Pony(R) are clear that 
play is targeted for girls. Would many boys need this episode to tell 
them that combing a unicorn isn't really the most wonderful thing in the 
world? Will many boys get through it to where the book's plot really 
picks up?>>

This  boy nearly didn't.

The  first half of the book represents EMERALD WAND's most overwhelming
structural  flaw, as a number of people have already pointed out. In fact, a great
deal of  what I might have said has (unsurprisingly) already been discussed,
so I will  proceed with some more original ideas.

Alan  Wise, on 11/20/05, effectively covered a number of points concerning 
what  is most interesting about EMERALD WAND. The "therapeutic effect Oz has on
its  child visitors" is something Smith works with at length. I think it is 
far too heavily emphasized to keep things very Ozzy in many portions of the 
book, but, as anyone who's read SILVER SORCERESS would have picked up, it's also
a subject of interest to me. I will say, at the risk of sounding callous, 
that the "children learning that the divorce wasn't their fault"  plot has
become an easy psychological problem/cliche in both literature and  film.  Of
course, I am sure that many children continue to experience those feelings, and
that children's literary theme has been used quite creatively, effectively, and
affectingly elsewhere (e.g., in Gary Paulsen's  HATCHET).

I  agree that Smith's Ozian ethos largely lacks a "sense of magical 
possibility" and "joy at coming to Oz," both so important in the original  series. The
familiar Oz characters appear far too late in the story to turn this failure around.

That  said, the world that Smith *does* evoke, while not successful in terms
of  Ozziness, is not without its charms.

I  found the idea of Dori's being able to perceive magic, while Em
(initially)  could not, to be an interesting case study of subjectivity, the kind of
thing we  don't often see with such depth in an Oz book. It made me think of the 
scene in THE LAST BATTLE when Lucy is trying to explain to the dwarfs that
they  are in Narnia rather than in a filthy stable. (Of course, this idea goes 
back at least as far as Plato's cave allegory and, of  course, Christian
theology, but C.S. Lewis is what I first thought  of.)

The  unicorns, while deadly boring in most respects, are the first
demonstration of  an unusual knack that Smith displays throughout the book: she is quite
effective at capturing the essence of animal sounds in English
"translation."  For instance, the staccato-ness of continual neighing comes through in the 
following speech: "'Very pretty," Glory said, lipping the air.  'Prettier than
Starlight. She says she's prettiest'" (50). ("Lipping the air" is a 
wonderfully evocative little detail.) The "neighing" comes through even more  clearly
as Glory continues, "She wanted to own unicorns. Prettiest in the world!  Her
magician searched. Found us." There is another scene, in which birds are 
being fed, that sounds both right and funny: "Food! More food! Hungry!  What's 
that? What's that? Food! Hungry! Food!" (107)

I  must channel my inner English teacher and observe that there were some odd
phrases that gave me pause. To speak in the voice of the kind of crabby 
instructor we have all had at some point in our lives: How does blue smile? (70)
What makes a hill gentle, and how is a hand vague? (102) And,  most
importantly, what's with the Yoda-speak ("Scrawny he was..." [96])?  Then  again, I was
fond of such neologisms as "murmling" (126) and "snicked 
and snocked" (166).

There  are also some sharply observed details and effective phraseology, such
as the  two girls' "hopping when the gravel stung" (106) and Scraps "boiled
over  laughing" (155) (though somehow this verb is less effective, perhaps 
because it's less unexpected, when, on page 221, Bastina imagines  her former
classmates "boil[ing] with jealousy"). The Scarecrow has a fantastic  Baumian
line when he says, "There is the strange you expect, and then there's the
strange you don't expect" (174). It's also clever of Smith  to add the detail about
the magic carpet beginning to unravel (192); it's not  something I would have
thought of, but it seems perfectly logical.

There  are, unfortunately, moments when the book's logic begins to unravel.
On page 132  we are told that "an idea occurred to [Em], the sort of idea she
had never had  in her life: She would switch the wands!" I was left saying to
myself, "What  about the far more mischievous idea she had of sabotaging the
activities in  Unicorn Valley, just a few chapters earlier?"

Then  there is Scraps's sudden interest in developing good manners (151) and
the  statement that "she was always kind" (172). Since when?  Throughout the
series  Scraps has been loyal but heartless, which is clear from her
inappropriate  boisterousness during the gravest times (see, for instance, GLINDA OF 
OZ). I would go so far as to say that, more than anyone else in the book, Scraps
is the character that Smith gets most wrong.

There  are a few other discordant notes. Jack Pumpkinhead calls the Sawhorse
"[his]  oldest friend" (177), apparently forgetting Ozma. (Of course, he had
just  suffered "a little dent in the back of his big orange head" [175].) We
are told  that "the Scarecrow's painted eyes looked surprised" (173). Say what?
Then there  is the matter of the Sawhorse's "rac[ing] back with the slippers
in his wooden  mouth" (189). There is no indication in a previous book that the
Sawhorse's  mouth is anything but, as Baum describes it in LAND, "a place
[that] had  been chopped away that might easily be mistaken for the horse's
mouth" (42,  Books of Wonder edition). Perhaps the Sawhorse can move his "mouth" a
smidgen,  but it is virtually certain that his bark is worse than his
bite.

A handful  of details out of all the others rang the least true for me.  One 
involves William Stout's illustration on page 9, in which the unicorn book on 
the edge of Dori's bed defies several laws of physics. (I did like the fact
that  various non-Oz Baum books are strewn about the room.) Another is the 
crucial  scene in which Scraps distracts the gecko guards (208). I'm sorry, I
might  believe in a living patchwork girl, but not one who takes out two lines of
giant  gecko guards by throwing a couple of powder puffs across a bridge.  Ever
tried  throwing a powder puff? I imagine it doesn't carry that far,
especially when you  have a cotton-stuffed pitching arm. And, finally, there's this
small detail on  the next page: "The Scarecrow and Jack paused to winch the
drawbridge back up  and then followed the rest inside" (209). Oh, really?  Baum
describes, as far  back as WIZARD, how the Scarecrow can barely manage to gather
some nuts for  Dorothy with his flimsy hands; Smith herself says that Dori 
"could have picked  him up easily" (222). And Jack has twigs for fingers! It  is
little details like this that make or break the delicate suspension  of
disbelief essential to a successful fantasy.

Then  there is the matter of the Golden Cap. According to Smith, Bastinda
took  the cap from Glinda, who had been keeping it up until now (153, 228). This
did  not jibe with my memory of Baum, so I checked WIZARD. From page 256 of
the  Books of Wonder edition: "'My third command to the Winged Monkeys,' said
Glinda,  'shall be to carry [the Lion] to [his] forest. Then, having used up the
powers  of the Golden Cap, I shall give it to the King of the Monkeys, that
he and his  band may thereafter be free for evermore.'" Clearly there is a 
contradiction.

But  then I checked for another reference to the Golden Cap. From page 117 of
the  Books of Wonder edition of LAND: "'[T]he Winged Monkeys are now the
slaves of  Glinda the Good, who owns the Golden Cap that commands their services,'
said the  Scarecrow, reflectively.'" So this is a literal "he said/she said"
contradiction  originating with Baum. Smith is in the clear.

Random  observations:

The  name "Niki Noo" rhymes (sort of) with "Kiki Aru." Hmm.

Sentence  I never expected to see in an Oz book: "Nowhere in Oz was there a
single  torture-supply shop" (183).

Ninety-five  years and counting seems like an awfully long time for the Magic
Belt to  recharge (244). Haven't numerous visitors, such as Peter and Speedy,
been  sent back to America in the interim?

Also  on page 244, Scraps does not know what a movie is. But didn't she
befriend  Humpy, the motion-picture stunt dummy, in LOST KING?

I  have saved my most controversial analysis for last. It's Freud time!  There
have been precedents in "Ozzy Digest" and "Nonestica" discussions for such 
analysis (e.g., Langwidere's thirty-one heads and ruby-red key symbolizing a
menstrual cycle, and phallic imagery in YELLOW KNIGHT). But  you are forewarned.

The  book, as has been discussed, devotes considerable energy to the
character  development and the maturation of the two girls. Now, to the scene in 
question. In Unicorn Valley, Dori "found plenty of berries and stuffed her  shorts
pockets full," but directly afterward says, "Uh-oh." There are "crimson 
stains" on her hands. Her sister then says, "Be careful; don't let the others  see.
I'll go first and see if I can get you into the bath." Dori replies, "How 
can I hide the berries?" (84-85)

Taken  out of context, this sounds like a budding adolescent's typical
horrified  reaction to her menarche.

And  now I suppose I should run away. Fast.


Atticus  Gannaway

Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:16:28 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] therapy plot gimmick, visitor sizes

AGannaway7 at aol.com wrote:
> I know the scheduled date for discussion of QUEER VISITORS has already
> arrived, but I was finally able to finish reading EMERALD WAND and had
> numerous thoughts about it. >

Interesting set of comments.

> Alan Wise, on 11/20/05, effectively covered a number of points concerning
> what  is most interesting about EMERALD WAND. The "therapeutic effect Oz
> has on its child visitors" is something Smith works with at length. I

> think it is far too heavily emphasized to keep things very Ozzy in many
> portions of the book, but, as anyone who's read SILVER SORCERESS would
> have picked up, it's also a subject of interest to me. I will say, at the
> risk of sounding callous, that the "children learning that the divorce
> wasn't their fault"  plot has become an easy psychological problem/cliche
> in both literature and  film. <

I forget if this is something I've said before -- but I've come to dislike
almost every version of the therapeutic fantasy plot. Not that you don't
want characters in a story to learn something out of their experiences, but
the set-up of having a kid with a psychological problem who travels to a
fantasy land and comes away cured annoys me (in the MGM "Wizard" as well as
in many more recent). I suppose part of what's bothering me simply that the
gimmick has been over-used, but maybe even more it annoys me that the set-up
seems to imply that imagination is a retreat from real problems, and only to
be condoned if it leads to a proxy-confrontation and cure of the problems -- 
with the implication, apparently, that a child without psychological
problems will have no need for imagination.

> I  found the idea of Dori's being able to perceive magic, while Em
> (initially) could not, to be an interesting case study of subjectivity,
> the kind of thing we don't often see with such depth in an Oz book.<

Baum's ferryman in "Lost Princess" (I think that's the one) who was punished
by having the ability to hear what the animals said as speech taken away
from here is a related sort of figure.

> There are a few other discordant notes. Jack Pumpkinhead calls the
> Sawhorse "[his] oldest friend" (177), apparently forgetting Ozma. <

Perhaps he's thinking of Ozma as more his father than his friend.

> We are told  that "the Scarecrow's painted eyes looked surprised" (173).
> Say what? <

Well -- The Scarecrow can get some kinds of expression by wrinkling his face
(or by larger gestures, such as suddenly moving one's head), and the change
in position/context of the eyes in such cases might give the viewer the
impression that the eyes themselves are showing the expression. For that
matter, I suppose if the cloth is stretchy to some degree, it might even be
possible for the Scarecrow to show expression by widening his eyes.

> Then there is the matter of the Sawhorse's "rac[ing] back with the
> slippers in his wooden  mouth" (189). There is no indication in a previous
> book that the Sawhorse's mouth is anything but, as Baum describes it in
> LAND, "a place [that] had  been chopped away that might easily be mistaken
> for the horse's mouth" (42,  Books of Wonder edition). Perhaps the
> Sawhorse can move his "mouth" a smidgen, but it is virtually certain that
> his bark is worse than his bite. >

Is it any easier to move unjointed legs that are firmly fixed in sockets
than to move an unjointed jaw? However the Sawhorse moves his legs, maybe
that applies to his jaw, too? Then again, maybe the legs aren't all that
firm in the sockets, and that's where the "give" for motion comes.  Still,
even if the mouth doesn't close, he could probably pick something up in it
by packing it in enough to wedge it?

> The  name "Niki Noo" rhymes (sort of) with "Kiki Aru." Hmm. >

-oo names are quite popular in Oz. See also Oogaboo, Sizeroo, Pinkerbloo,
and so on.

Ruth Berman

Date: Tues, 03 Jan 2006 19:57:31 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: THE EMERALD WAND OF OZ comments

Atticus Gannaway wrote:

> Alan Wise, on 11/20/05, effectively covered a number of points concerning 
> what is most interesting about EMERALD WAND. The "therapeutic effect Oz has on 
> its child visitors" is something Smith works with at length. I think it is  
> far too heavily emphasized to keep things very Ozzy in many portions of the  
> book, but, as anyone who's read SILVER SORCERESS would have picked up, it's also 
>  a subject of interest to me.

I tend to resist a "therapeutic" approach to plotting or interpreting Oz 
stories. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that having an 
adventure in Oz can have a psychological effect on a person. For 
instance, Dorothy develops increasing levels of confidence with each 
journey. Adventures can bring out young people's psychological strengths 
and weaknesses, the way they make Ojo deal with his mood swings or Peter 
notice his attraction to the dark side of machismo.  

But I see that growth or insight or struggle as internal to the 
characters, not intrinsic in Oz. Going to Oz can have a therapeutic 
effect just as going to California can, but I don't think that's why Oz 
exists any more than that's why California exists.  Then again, if Oz 
doesn't exist in the same way that California does, then any approach is 
equally valid.  

> I found the idea of Dori's being able to perceive magic, while Em 
> (initially)  could not, to be an interesting case study of subjectivity, the kind of 
> thing we don't often see with such depth in an Oz book.  

In part, I believe, that's the effect of Smith's modern take on 
point-of-view in storytelling. Where Baum tended to jump around, 
explaining different characters' thoughts as needed, Smith almost always 
sticks to one character per chapter/scene. Most authors are encouraged 
to write that way these days.  

(One notable exception these days is Philip Pullman. There's a brief 
discussion of his views on narration in this recent NEW YORKER profile:

<

>)

Staying within the sisters' points of view lets Smith keep Rik's 
scheming secret, but it also produces passages like the one in which Em 
refuses to see the magic of Oz. As I wrote in my BUGLE review of this 
book, I'm not sure what Smith was saying in that passage. Could Em 
really not see Oz until she believed in it?  ("Do you believe in 
fairylands? Clap your hands!") Or is she simply being a stubborn 
stick-in-the-mud, leaving the "reality-based community" when it doesn't 
fit her preconceptions? I lean toward the latter.  Then again, if Oz 
doesn't exist in the same way that California does,...

> The unicorns, while deadly boring in most respects, are the first 
> demonstration of  an unusual knack that Smith displays throughout the book: she is quite 
> effective at capturing the essence of animal sounds in English 
> "translation."  For instance, the staccato-ness of continual neighing comes through in the  
> following speech: "'Very pretty," Glory said, lipping the air. 'Prettier than 
> Starlight. She says she's prettiest'" (50).  

Interesting point. Animals in Oz don't seem to speak differently based 
on their species except when they're speaking in their own tongues. Like 
humans, they don't seem to have accents, as I recall.  

Sometimes Baum will have an animal's /personality/ reflect traditional 
notions of its species: Eureka and Bungle are cattish, rabbits generally 
timid, some fish in GLINDA rather stupid, many fish in SEA FAIRIES 
caricatures based on their names. But just as often he skips that as 
well: Hank isn't noticeably mulish, the foxes of Foxville no foxier than 
any other species, etc. And then there are the animals who behave the 
opposite of their stereotype: Cowardly Lion, Wise Donkey, etc.  

I like many characters to have distinct speech patterns, and can recall 
examples from my own writing when those patterns reflect species as well 
as personality. I also recall wanting other Oz writers to do the same.  
So, whether those unicorns snort orders because they're unicorns or 
because they're selfish beasts, I agree that this is a nice touch by Smith.  

> It's also clever of Smith  to add the detail about 
> the magic carpet beginning to unravel (192); it's not  something I would have 
> thought of, but it seems perfectly logical.  

That reminded me of the "Hole in the Carpet" episode in the middle of E.  
Nesbit's brilliant THE PHOENIX AND THE CARPET. But I also recall feeling 
vaguely annoyed that Smith had solved a plot problem (how to get to 
Bastinda's castle) by bringing in something magical from another 
tradition rather than seeking an Ozian solution. So Glinda's chariot 
wasn't available? The Sawhorse couldn't pull a wagon?  

Opinion among authors seems to be divided on how well magical fabrics 
work when they aren't intact. Nesbit's carpet still flies, but children 
fall through the weak spot. In both ZIXI and GNOME KING there are magic 
cloaks that don't quite work when they're not whole. The invisibility 
cloak in the latter book does work after it's been patched, but the 
patch itself remains visible.  

> Then there is the matter of the Sawhorse's "rac[ing] back with the slippers 
> in his wooden  mouth" (189). There is no indication in a previous book that the 
> Sawhorse's mouth is anything but, as Baum describes it in LAND, "a place 
> [that] had been chopped away that might easily be mistaken for the horse's 
> mouth" (42,  Books of Wonder edition). Perhaps the Sawhorse can move his "mouth" a 
> smidgen, but it is virtually certain that his bark is worse than his bite.  

Hmmm. I've always imagined the Sawhorse moving his mouth when he talks.  
He picks up his own broken leg in his mouth in SCALAWAGONS [87].

Neill's drawings put plenty of wiggle room in that chopped-away part.  
That may have influenced Baum's own picture. In LITTLE WIZARD STORIES he 
refers to "a gash that formed a mouth"; in PATCHWORK GIRL he says, "the 
mouth was a gash chopped in the log," and in MAGIC, "its mouth was sawed 
in the end of the log." The chopped-away gash seems to grow from what 
could merely be mistaken for a mouth to a true moving jaw.  

> tried throwing a powder puff? I imagine it doesn't carry that far, 
> especially when you  have a cotton-stuffed pitching arm. And, finally, there's this 
> small detail on  the next page: "The Scarecrow and Jack paused to winch the 
> drawbridge back up  and then followed the rest inside" (209). Oh, really? Baum 
> describes, as far  back as WIZARD, how the Scarecrow can barely manage to gather 
> some nuts for  Dorothy with his flimsy hands; Smith herself says that Dori 
> "could have picked  him up easily" (222). And Jack has twigs for fingers! 

As with the Sawhorse, your take on Scraps, the Scarecrow, and Jack seems 
to emphasize their bodily infirmities. Of course, Baum does that as 
well, especially with the Scarecrow (who seems more fragile than the 
other two, Jack's heads notwithstanding). But they all do manage such 
tasks as hiding a six-leafed clover and carving one's own head.  

The Scarecrow and Jack have poor fine motor control early in their 
lives, we know. But do they have enough gross motor control and strength 
to turn the winch? How the winch works seems key to that question.  

> Then there is the matter of the Golden Cap.  

I also jumped on that one as an error, and then had to retreat when I 
reread LAND's hint that Glinda hadn't fulfilled her plan to return the 
Cap to the Winged Monkeys. I couldn't decide whether Smith (and her 
editors and advisors) was being unusually subtle about the Golden Cap or 
just got lucky about missing a detail at the end of WIZARD.  

I can easily imagine the Monkeys doing something that irks Glinda or 
convinces her that she'd better keep the Golden Cap a while longer. Both 
the Queen of the Field Mice and the King of the Winged Monkeys himself 
acknowledge that the monkeys are "full of mischief." But we really don't 
see that side of them in WIZARD. The only damage they do is to the 
Scarecrow and Tin Woodman, and the Wicked Witch has ordered them to do 
that. The King is as solemn and earnest with Dorothy as everyone else in 
that book (except Mr. Joker). But maybe the prospect of freedom caused 
them to go wild at just the wrong time.  

> Sentence I never expected to see in an Oz book: "Nowhere in Oz was there a 
> single torture-supply shop" (183).  

Well, I never thought I'd wish I could read that same sentence about my 
own government. Oz continues to reflect a utopian take on America, it seems.  

> Ninety-five  years and counting seems like an awfully long time for the Magic 
> Belt to recharge (244). Haven't numerous visitors, such as Peter and Speedy, 
> been sent back to America in the interim?

Yes, the Magic Belt has definitely been used in the intervening time. In 
Thompson's books (e.g., YELLOW KNIGHT) it seems to move people around by 
swooping them through the air instead of transporting them 
instantaneously. If we accept that detail (and I'm not sure I do), it 
might be a sign that it's recharging.  

On that same page, Dori refers to EMERALD CITY as "the last time Rik's 
father tried to conquer Oz." We know that Ruggedo's tried several more 
times, including in some Baum books and some public-domain Thompson 
books. EMERALD CITY was the last time he tried to conquer Oz by 
overwhelming military force, so maybe that's what Dori refers to.  

Because Dori interrupts, Ozma never explicitly says the Belt is still 
recharging from EMERALD CITY. We could read that exchange to indicate 
the Belt is recharging from another, more recent major use. I don't 
think that's what Smith intended, though.  

> Also on page 244, Scraps does not know what a movie is. But didn't she 
> befriend Humpy, the motion-picture stunt dummy, in LOST KING?  

Scraps simply asks, "Movie?" after Em uses the word. That could mean 
that she doesn't know what a movie is, which is probably what Smith had 
in mind. We could also read the question to mean Scraps doesn't know 
what movie Em is referring to when she mutters, "Oh, that's right. Ruby 
ones were just the movie." (Given the difficulty of parsing that 
sentence, Scraps may not be the only person with questions.) Scraps's 
and the Glass Cat's comments at the bottom of that page respond to the 
idea of a movie about themselves, not a movie per se.  

In any event, consensus seems to hold that Smith's characterization of 
Scraps is her least successful in EMERALD WAND. So maybe we should treat 
all her comments with skepticism.  

> The book, as has been discussed, devotes considerable energy to the 
> character development and the maturation of the two girls.Now, to the scene in  
> question. In Unicorn Valley, Dori "found plenty of berries and stuffed her shorts 
> pockets full," but directly afterward says, "Uh-oh." There are "crimson  
> stains" on her hands. Her sister then says, "Be careful; don't let the others see.  
> I'll go first and see if I can get you into the bath." Dori replies, "How 
> can I hide the berries?" (84-85) 
>  
> Taken out of context, this sounds like a budding adolescent's typical 
> horrified reaction to her menarche.

Interesting reading. At first I was going to ask whether this isn't Em's 
typical fastidiousness--she's the neat sister, after all, as well as the 
younger and therefore probably the farther from her first period. But on 
rereading the lines I see that it's Dori, the older and the one less 
concerned about neatness, who expresses such anxiety.  

Obviously, in the context of the scene Dori's concerned that the 
unicorns or their enthralled young grooms will notice signs of the 
berries, and thus foil her and Em's escape. But on a symbolic level, the 
interpretation holds up. In this scene the sisters are trying to move 
beyond bickering and playing with candy-colored unicorns--the scene /is/ 
about maturing, and Dori has been reluctant to do so.  

And then the sisters go off with a bad boy and play with squirting 
wands. No Freudianism there, thank goodness.  

J. L. Bell       
          JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 23:57:49 EST
From: AGannaway7 at aol.com
Subject: [Regalia] Re: EMERALD WAND

On 1/3/06, Ruth Berman wrote:

<<I forget if this is something I've said before -- but I've come to  dislike 
almost every version of the therapeutic fantasy plot. Not that you  don't 
want characters in a story to learn something out of their  experiences, but 
the set-up of having a kid with a psychological problem who  travels to a 
fantasy land and comes away cured annoys me.>>

Agreed. What interests *me* about "therapeutic fantasy," and the sense of  
"therapeutic" I intended, is a situation in which the fantastical allows a  
character the opportunity for self-revelation and growth. (In my own fiction,  
I've treated the result not as a "cure" but as a step toward greater  
self-actualization.) This kind of character development doesn't have to be  in the realm 
of fantasy, certainly, but there are broader, less  reality-bound 
possibilities in that genre.  

<<Baum's ferryman in "Lost Princess" (I think that's the one) who was 
punished by having the ability to hear what the animals said as speech  taken away 
from here is a related sort of figure.>> 

Certainly, although that is a case of someone who is a victim of magic  
rather than a denier of it.  

<<Is it any easier to move unjointed legs that are firmly fixed in  sockets 
than to move an unjointed jaw? However the Sawhorse moves his legs,  maybe 
that applies to his jaw, too? Then again, maybe the legs aren't all  that 
firm in the sockets, and that's where the "give" for motion comes.  Still, 
even if the mouth doesn't close, he could probably pick something up  in it 
by packing it in enough to wedge it?>> 

I always envisioned the Sawhorse's running as a kind of swift rocking,  
balanced among all four legs. Inevitably they will be of slightly different  
lengths, which would facilitate such action. I just don't see how a gash chopped  
out of a log could bite down on anything. I'd thought of wedging as a  
possibility, but would a pair of slippers really stay wedged in throughout a  swift 
gallop (one whose particular swiftness Smith does, in fact, emphasize  [189])? 

Maybe. In my previous post I could also have mentioned, but didn't, the  fact 
that Dori and Em are forever stuffing slippers and snowglobes and the  like into 
shorts pockets and shirts, as though such things would fit. It's  like one of 
those video games in which the character has a large inventory of  magical 
items that all fit into some tiny leather pouch.  

<<-oo names are quite popular in Oz. See also Oogaboo, Sizeroo, Pinkerbloo, and so on.>>

Kimbaloo, Hoochafoo, Menankypoo....troo enough.  

Atticus Gannaway

Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:22:37 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] donkeys, monkeys, jaws

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Sometimes Baum will have an animal's /personality/ reflect traditional 
> notions of its species: Eureka and Bungle are cattish, rabbits generally 
> timid, some fish in GLINDA rather stupid, many fish in SEA FAIRIES 
> caricatures based on their names. But just as often he skips that as well: 
> Hank isn't noticeably mulish, the foxes of Foxville no foxier than any 
> other species, etc. And then there are the animals who behave the opposite 
> of their stereotype: Cowardly Lion, Wise Donkey, etc. > 

Interesting point. The Dunkiton donkeys believe themselves to be wise, but 
are only donkeys with large vocabulary.  

> I can easily imagine the Monkeys doing something that irks Glinda or 
> convinces her that she'd better keep the Golden Cap a while longer. <

I don't think irksomeness would be a factor? The question is: did Glinda use 
up the three wishes she had coming to her by the terms of the Golden Cap's 
magic, and, if she did, whether she kept the Cap or not, how could the 
Scarecrow be correct in saying that the Monkeys "are now [her] slaves"? If 
she didn't (perhaps because the Lion said he'd just as soon find his own way 
back to the forest?), then she might reasonably hang on to the Cap to get in 
her third wish sometime later. It probably wouldn't make any particular 
difference to the Monkeys to be called on later rather than sooner for the 
third required service, and such a situation might explain why they are 
"still" her slaves without being really any extra burden to them. In that 
case, both her description of her intentions and the Scarecrow's description 
of the situation could be entirely accurate. On the other hand, her 
intentions sounded pretty well set, and there's no obvious reason for the 
Lion (or any of the others) to want her to change them, so it seems more 
likely that she used up her wishes, in which case the Monkeys are no longer 
her slaves, regardless of who's hanging on to the Cap. I wonder if Glinda 
might have decided that her security was better than the Monkeys', and they 
were in less danger of having some passerby get hold of the Cap and their 
services if she stashed it away, rather than leaving it with them. In that 
case, the Scarecrow's comment is inaccurate, but might be his 
misunderstanding of what it meant for Glinda to keep the Cap.(I suppose they 
might then be her "slaves" in the sense that if they riled her enough, she 
might penalize them by turning the Cap over to someone else, but such a 
reaction would be more vindictive than fair, and as such out of character 
for Glinda, surely?) 

>> Sentence I never expected to see in an Oz book: "Nowhere in Oz was there 
>> a single  torture-supply shop" (183). > 
> Well, I never thought I'd wish I could read that same sentence about my 
> own government. Oz continues to reflect a utopian take on America, it 
> seems. <

!

 

AGannaway7 at aol.com wrote:

> I just don't see how a gash chopped out of a log could bite down on 
> anything. < 

Maybe the magic involved gives a little "give" to function where a live 
thing would expect to have joints? The examples of characters like Tik-Tok 
and Jack Pumpkinhead seem to suggest that joints are necessary, but, then, 
the Scarecrow and Scraps don't have joints as such.  Straw and cotton are 
easier to bend than wood, but a magic that gives them the power to cause 
that bending might also work to put some flexibility into wood, too, in the 
spots where something alive would be expected to have powers of bending?  

Ruth Berman 

Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:01:51 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: THE EMERALD WAND OF OZ comments

On 1/3/06, J. L. Bell <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I tend to resist a "therapeutic" approach to plotting or interpreting O
> stories. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that having an
> adventure in Oz can have a psychological effect on a person. For
> instance, Dorothy develops increasing levels of confidence with each
> journey. Adventures can bring out young people's psychological strengths
> and weaknesses, the way they make Ojo deal with his mood swings or Peter
> notice his attraction to the dark side of machismo.
>
> But I see that growth or insight or struggle as internal to the
> characters, not intrinsic in Oz. Going to Oz can have a therapeutic
> effect just as going to California can, but I don't think that's why Oz
> exists any more than that's why California exists. Then again, if Oz
> doesn't exist in the same way that California does, then any approach is
> equally valid.

Yes, I think the approach of making Oz itself therapeutic in nature
trivializes the stories somewhat.  It's like saying that the
adventures in Oz are totally unimportant in themselves, except for the
effect they have on one or two protagonists.  I'm sure I've mentioned
before how I don't like stories that make Oz seem less real or less
significant than the world we know.  Mind you, I don't think Smith
DOES do that, but I do think Dori and Em's learning to deal with the
divorce is rather cliched.

> But I also recall feeling
> vaguely annoyed that Smith had solved a plot problem (how to get to
> Bastinda's castle) by bringing in something magical from another
> tradition rather than seeking an Ozian solution. So Glinda's chariot
> wasn't available? The Sawhorse couldn't pull a wagon?

I don't find it at all unlikely that Ozma would have either created or
obtained a flying carpet at some point, considering how many magical
items she accumulates throughout the series.  In fact, there's an
OZIANA story where she recovers her great-grandfather's old flying
carpet, so Smith isn't the first one to think of the idea.  Still, it
would have been nice if she'd explained where it had come from.  I
could see someone reading the original Oz books after reading EMERALD
WAND, and being confused because the carpet had never been mentioned.

> On that same page, Dori refers to EMERALD CITY as "the last time Rik's
> father tried to conquer Oz." We know that Ruggedo's tried several more
> times, including in some Baum books and some public-domain Thompson
> books. EMERALD CITY was the last time he tried to conquer Oz by
> overwhelming military force, so maybe that's what Dori refers to.

True, although he has an army in PIRATES, as well.  I suppose it's
possible that Dori hasn't read that book, though.
--
Brick is red, and Hitler's dead,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org or fablesto at gmail.com

Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:20:15 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] movie movie

Atticus Gannaway's comment on the movie background of LOST KING got me
thinking. That book was published in 1925, the same year of the Larry
Semon WIZARD movie. Did Thompson include a trip to Hollywood and a movie
stunt dummy in her plot because she knew about that film?

Reilly & Lee and Thompson were aware of the upcoming release of the MGM
movie in 1939. The publisher insisted that the new Oz book for that year
include WIZARD in its title, and Thompson struggled to meet her deadline
in time to take advantage of the cross-marketing.

Semon was working for a much lower-profile studio than MGM, and may not
have been in the top tier of movie comedians in America. Furthermore,
Reilly & Lee had never had a share in the rights to WIZARD, and Maud
Baum may not have controlled them, either. Frank J. Baum was connected
to the Semon production, but he was at times estranged from his mother.
So Reilly & Lee might not have known that the Semon WIZARD was on its
way. Then again, the firm might have been quite aware.

The 1925 WIZARD contains some (quite unnecessary) high falls and other
stunts of the sort that Humpy describes as his job. Coincidence?

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:16:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Hutchins <scottandrewhutchins at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] movie movie

It's possible.  I know Thompson noted that she got a number of complaints
from children who didn't like the 1925 film, but she might not have known about
it before the fact.  I understand the film was barely released because it
bankrupted the studio.  It played in New York and Los Angeles, but I don't
know where else it played.  I remeber reasding some Oz fan (Wagenknecht?)
who anticipated it and the theatre that was supposed to play it never got it,
telling him that the company went bankrupt and couldn't get a print to that
theatre.
  
  Scott

Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 13:16:36 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] carpets & dummies

Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't find it at all unlikely that Ozma would have either created or
> obtained a flying carpet at some point, considering how many magical items 
> she accumulates throughout the series.  In fact, there's an OZIANA story
> where she recovers her great-grandfather's old flying carpet, so Smith
> isn't the first one to think of the idea.  Still, it would have been nice
> if she'd explained where it had come from.  I could see someone reading
> the original Oz books after reading EMERALD WAND, and being confused
> because the carpet had never been mentioned. >

Seems as if all the most famous flying carpets come from the "Arabian
Nights" or from works influenced by them (such as the E. Nesbit "The Phoenix
and the Carpet" already mentioned, or Diana Wynne Jones' "Castle in the
Air," which is a sort of a sequel to her "Howl's Moving Castle," placing an
Arabian Nights-like kingdom somehwere to the south of the Britain-like
country where Howl lives). The importance of carpet-making in the economies
of a lot of Middle Eastern countries is probably a factor, along with the
importance of the influence of the "Nights" in this association of carpets
with culture I wonder -- are there any flying carpet stories that don't show
"Arabian Nights" influence? Baum had the "Nights" in mind in giving Button
Bright some ancestral Arabian magic in "Sky Island," but he seemed to be
having a lot more fun making it an original flying umbrella than he would
have done making it just another flying carpet? (I suspect it's coincidence
that P.L. Travers' Mary Poppins has a flying umbrella -- don't think there's
much in the way of similarities otherwise between them? Marvin Kaye's
cheerfully eclectic umbrella stories, though, have a lot of Button
Brightening.)

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Atticus Gannaway's comment on the movie background of LOST KING got me
> thinking. That book was published in 1925, the same year of the Larry
> Semon WIZARD movie. Did Thompson include a trip to Hollywood and a movie
> stunt dummy in her plot because she knew about that film? >

Interesting possibility. Some of Humpy's material is such as comes out of
movies generally (I don't think the Semon "Scarecrow" involves any kings
dressed like Humpy, or the commanding gesture of stretching out a hand with
the first 2 fingers pointing?), and probably all of it could, but some
specifically Semonish would be possible, even so.

Ruth Berman

Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 14:15:00 EST
From: AGannaway7 at aol.com
Subject: [Regalia] Re: THE EMERALD WAND OF OZ comments

On 1/3/06, J. L. Bell wrote:
<<I tend to resist a "therapeutic" approach to plotting or interpreting Oz 
stories. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that having an 
adventure in Oz can have a psychological effect on a person. For 
instance, Dorothy develops increasing levels of confidence with each 
journey. Adventures can bring out young people's psychological strengths 
and weaknesses, the way they make Ojo deal with his mood swings or Peter 
notice his attraction to the dark side of machismo.>>

As I commented to Ruth Berman, I meant
"therapeutic" in the sense that you're "perfectly comfortable
with," in terms of influencing some kind of personal growth through the
experience of an adventure in Oz. I don't think it's intrinsic to Oz, either,
although, as I also said to Ruth, I think a fantasy environment affords
less-bounded opportunities in that vein.

<<That reminded me of the "Hole in the Carpet" episode in the middle of E.  
Nesbit's brilliant THE PHOENIX AND THE CARPET. But I also recall feeling 
vaguely annoyed that Smith had solved a plot problem (how to get to 
Bastinda's castle) by bringing in something magical from another 
tradition rather than seeking an Ozian solution. So Glinda's chariot 
wasn't available? The Sawhorse couldn't pull a wagon?>> 

I do agree that the inclusion of the
magic carpet struck me as odd. It seems almost like the Scarecrow's personal
conveyance, though we've never seen such a thing before. I'd prefer him to have
a flying beanpole or a winged corncob, personally. Or even a giant crow, to
indicate his ultimate triumph over his long-ago failure to perform before
Dorothy took him off the pole. Talk about "therapeutic"!

<<Hmmm. I've always imagined the Sawhorse moving his mouth when he talks.  
He picks up his own broken leg in his mouth in SCALAWAGONS [87].>>

I can't say that I've ever envisioned the Sawhorse's mouth moving. Nor do I consider SCALAWAGONS the
most trustworthy of reference works....  

<<As with the Sawhorse, your take on Scraps, the Scarecrow, and Jack seems 
to emphasize their bodily infirmities.  Of course, Baum does that as 
well, especially with the Scarecrow (who seems more fragile than the 
other two, Jack's heads notwithstanding). But they all do manage such 
tasks as hiding a six-leafed clover and carving one's own head.>>

My take on Scraps, the Scarecrow, and
Jack does emphasize their infirmities, and, yes, Baum did so as well. That's
one reason his characters achieved a certain level of verisimilitude--the
reader does not forget that a scarecrow is still a scarecrow. It is
the quotidian details that often matter most in fantasy. I don't
see much of a problem with even a clumsy-handed being hiding a clover, although
you do have a point about the pumpkin-carving.  

<<And then the sisters go off with a bad boy and play with squirting 
wands. No Freudianism there, thank goodness.>> 

Everything you always wanted to know
about Oz but were afraid to ask.... Well, since we've gone into the whole
sordid business, I may as well quote the following from page 100: "'Won't
be a next time,' Rik muttered, thrusting a hand into one of his tattered
patched pockets. He didn't pull anything out, but his face eased a little, as
if in relief." 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is enough of that.  

Atticus Gannaway

Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 16:14:32 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: THE EMERALD WAND OF OZ and personal conveyances

On 1/7/06, AGannaway7 at aol.com <AGannaway7 at aol.com> wrote:
> On 1/3/06, J. L. Bell wrote:
> <<That reminded me  of the "Hole in the Carpet" episode in the middle of E.
> Nesbit's brilliant THE PHOENIX AND  THE CARPET. But I also recall feeling
> vaguely annoyed that Smith had  solved a plot problem (how to get to
> Bastinda's castle) by bringing in  something magical from another
> tradition rather than seeking an  Ozian solution. So Glinda's chariot
> wasn't available? The Sawhorse  couldn't pull a wagon?>>
>
> I do agree that the inclusion of the magic carpet struck me as odd.  It  seems
> almost like the Scarecrow's personal conveyance, though we've never seen
> such a thing before.

Like Scraps's Spoolicle, or Tik-Tok's mechanical handcar from WISHING
HORSE?  I must admit that I like the idea of the Oz characters having
their own individual vehicles, but maybe that's just because I grew up
in the era of action figures.  I wonder what the other famous Ozites
would use.  Does Jack Pumpkinhead have his own Pumpkin-Mobile?  What
about the Tin Woodman or the Wogglebug?
--
Brick is red, and Hitler's dead,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org or fablesto at gmail.com

Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:12:45 EST
From: AGannaway7 at aol.com
Subject: [Regalia] Re: THE EMERALD WAND OF OZ and personal conveyances

On 1/7/06, Nathan DeHoff wrote:

<<I must admit that I like the idea of the Oz characters having
their own individual vehicles, but maybe that's just because I grew up
in the era of action figures.  I wonder what the other famous Ozites
would use.  Does Jack Pumpkinhead have his own Pumpkin-Mobile?  What
about the Tin Woodman or the Wogglebug?>>

Jack Pumpkinhead might have a pumpkin-turned-coach, though he wouldn't mind being
out after midnight. And of course, there is the Wogglebug's line in LAND:
"For instance, were I to ride upon this Saw-Horse, he would not only be an
animal--he would become an equipage. For he would then be a
horse-and-buggy" (160, Books of Wonder edition). Puns that bad could lead
to other kinds of conveyances for the Wogglebug--for instance, his students'
hands, which conveyed him to the bottom of a river in MAGIC.

Atticus
Gannaway

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:47:19 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: personal conveyances

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> I  must admit that I like the idea of the Oz characters having
> their own  individual vehicles, but maybe that's just because I grew up
> in the era of  action figures.

For some reason, this reminds me of Happy Meals toys. Collect 'em all!

It strikes me as significant that Baum rarely gave his characters
wheeled vehicles. There are a number of steeds that children ride on,
starting with the Cowardly Lion. And there are vehicles for travel on
water (rafts, ferries, chicken coops) and air (Gump, balloon, aerial
chariots).

But land vehicles seem rare. Ozma apparently has one at a time:  her
golden chariot in OZMA through ROAD and her red wagon from EMERALD CITY
on. Each each of those might be as much of a unique treasure in Oz as
her Magic Picture or Magic Belt or Sawhorse. And in LOST PRINCESS and
GLINDA, the wagon has to be left behind pretty early in the adventures.
The This have their mechanical dragons, but are there other examples to
be found?

WIZARD mentions wagons bringing lumber for Uncle Henry's farmhouse,
Dorothy and Billina know about automobiles, and Jim pulls his cart into
Oz. Those details highlight this contrast between Oz and the Great
Outside world. And how do the Oz visitors react to vehicles in America?

Things change by the late Thompson books--especially under Neill's
influence, it seems. He added a car to a townscape in OJO, as I recall,
which isn't mentioned in the text. His incidental art for the front
pages of Oz books show roller skates, bicycles, and the earliest version
of Scraps's spool vehicle. And of course he created the Scalawagons and
(in his RUNAWAY manuscript) the spoolicle.

That change reflects changes in American society, of course. Perhaps
Baum's readers didn't find it quaint for his adventurers to do so much
of their travel on foot. Or, in that age of bicycles and trains and the
first autos, they might have liked the old-fashioned pace.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:54:40 -0500
From: mspote at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: personal conveyances

J. L. Bell wrote:

<< WIZARD mentions wagons bringing lumber for Uncle Henry's farmhouse
>>

Another wheeled vehicle in that first book is the "truck" or cart
that the Tin Woodman builds for the Field Mice to pull the Lion out of the poppy
field.  It sticks in my mind because I had to explain to my four-year-old
that the story didn't mean a truck with big wheels!

As far as each character having his or her own vehicle, it certainly does sound
perfect for the worst kind of Happy Meal McMarketing -- and I would probably be
a sucker for it (especially if they were closely modelled on the Neill
illustrations), just like I was a sucker for the Narnia toys the last two
months.

Mike Poteet

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:14:54 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: personal conveyances

Mike Poteet wrote:
<<Another wheeled vehicle in that first book is the "truck" or cart
> that
the Tin Woodman builds for the Field Mice to pull the Lion out of the poppy field.>>

Good point. That shows the Ozians have the technology for wheeled
carriers (I bet there are a few wheelbarrows and the like as well). They
just chose not to use wheels for much personal transportation.

After more consideration of this topic, I realized that while Baum
didn't give his grotesque characters their own appropriate vehicles, he
did move toward giving them special houses. OZMA moves Prof. Wogglebug
into the Royal Athletic College. ROAD introduces the Tin Woodman's tin
castle and Jack Pumpkinhead's pumpkin house. EMERALD CITY brings us the
Scarecrow's corn palace.

Baum never got around to houses for Scraps, the Tin Soldier, the
Frogman, etc., and in his second series of Oz books seems to have
forgotten about the Scarecrow's home. But then again, those later books
don't emphasize the theme of home as much as the first ones.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:23:57 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] wogglebug armature

J. L. Bell:
> Baum never got around to houses for Scraps, the Tin Soldier, the
> Frogman, etc., and in his second series of Oz books seems to have
> forgotten about the Scarecrow's home.

He does mention the Scarecrow's tower when describing the search
party's route through the Winkie Country in LOST PRINCESS, but that
might just have been because it was on the map he was using when
writing that part of the story.

I would imagine the Tin Soldier would have his own home somewhere in
the Gillikin Country, since his job is to keep the peace there.  What
it would be like, though, I don't know.  Some kind of tin barracks?
--
Brick is red, and Hitler's dead,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org or fablesto at gmail.com

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 23:03:30 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Re: THE EMERALD WAND OF OZ comments

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
>>On that same page, Dori refers to EMERALD CITY as "the last time Rik's
>>father tried to conquer Oz." We know that Ruggedo's tried several more
>>times, including in some Baum books and some public-domain Thompson
>>books. EMERALD CITY was the last time he tried to conquer Oz by
>>overwhelming military force, so maybe that's what Dori refers to.
>
>
> True, although he has an army in PIRATES, as well.  I suppose it's
> possible that Dori hasn't read that book, though.

Probably not, and Smith apparently didn't have the license or the mandate to refer to it.

I think of the invasion in PIRATES as a small special-forces operation,
however, rather than a full army invasion.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:00:09 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at UMN.EDU>
Subject: [Regalia] swift messengers & stay-at-homes

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Mike Poteet wrote:
<<Another wheeled vehicle in that first book is the "truck" or cart that the
Tin Woodman builds for the Field Mice to pull the Lion out of the poppy field.>>
> Good point. That shows the Ozians have the technology for wheeled carriers 
> (I bet there are a few wheelbarrows and the like as well). They just chose 
> not to use wheels for much personal transportation.>

I suppose having magic around and maybe fairly easily available when speed
was needed for emergencies might mean that there wouldn't be as much
interest in wheels. The "swift messenger" the Munchkins sent the Good Witch
of the North when Dorothy's house fell must have reached her within minutes.
(Maybe if it was a particularly fast-flying swift, it could get to her that
quickly without magic, though?) The Witch says she "came at once," and her
journey probably involved magic.

> while Baum didn't give his grotesque characters their own appropriate
> vehicles, he did move toward giving them special houses. OZMA moves Prof.
> Wogglebug into the Royal Athletic College. ROAD introduces the Tin
> Woodman's tin castle and Jack Pumpkinhead's pumpkin house. EMERALD CITY
> brings us the Scarecrow's corn palace.Baum never got around to houses for
> Scraps, the Tin Soldier, the Frogman, etc., and in his second series of Oz 
> books seems to have forgotten about the Scarecrow's home. But then again,
> those later books don't emphasize the theme of home as much as the first
> ones. >

Not entirely forgotten. There's a little bit about the Scarecrow's Corn
Castle in "Lost Princess." and in "The Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman"
"Little Wizard" story. It also shows up briefly in RPT's "Royal Book" (and
her "Scarecrow" verse in the 1926 "Ozmapolitan"), Neill's Lucky Bucky," and
Martin's "Ozmapolitan." The Tin Woodman's Tin Castle seems to be more 
popular as a destination, though, maybe on the theory that he has enough in
the way of duties there to keep him there a fair amount of time, whereas the
Scarecrow doesn't have to live at home, and is much more likely to be seen
in the Emerald City (where he has duties as one of Ozma's advisors) or
visiting the Tin Woodman. Maybe the fun of writing about the glitter of all
that shiny tin is more of an attraction than a Corn Palace such as anyone
can go see in Mitchell SD. (Hmm -- I wonder if Baum did. A website -- 

-- on the CP says that it was first set up for
what I suppose was a multi-state fair, "The Corn Belt Exposition," in 1892.
The present building, the third, went up in 1921.)

Ruth Berman

Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:31:26 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: corn palace

Ruth Berman wrote:
> Maybe the fun of writing about the glitter of all
> that shiny tin is more of an attraction than a Corn Palace such as anyone
> can go see in Mitchell SD. (Hmm -- I wonder if Baum did. A website -- 
> 

-- on the CP says that it was first set up for
> what I suppose was a multi-state fair, "The Corn Belt Exposition," in 1892.
> The present building, the third, went up in 1921.)

I should acknowledge that I call the Scarecrow's seat a "corn palace" in
homage to the tourist site in South Dakota. Baum never used that phrase,
so I don't think he was trying to point readers to it.

As I read the <cornpalace.org> website and others, the "Corn Belt
Exposition" was the original name of the building eventually called the
Corn Palace. There doesn't seem to have been a larger event around it
like the Louisiana Purchase Expo or the Chicago World's Fair. And the
Dakota corn display lasted only a couple of years the economic doldrums
of the 1890s.

As a civic-minded South Dakotan early in that decade, Baum was probably
aware of plans for this building. Did it influence his fantastic
thinking? It's not, of course, in the shape of an ear of corn like the
Scarecrow's palace. Rather, it's an ordinary large exposition hall
decorated with lots of corn. And in the 1890s much of the corn may have
been on the /inside/ making the point that South Dakota was fertile
farmland. So it might have more in common with Ozma's warehouses than
with the Scarecrow's home.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:52:36 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] homes fauna flags illos extras

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I should acknowledge that I call the Scarecrow's seat a "corn palace" in
> homage to the tourist site in South Dakota. Baum never used that phrase,
> so I don't think he was trying to point readers to it. <

Baum's map says "corn castle," and the meanings of "castle" and "palace"
have so much fallen together in modern English, that I think one would
almost certainly suggest the other. I'm not sure that Baum intended readers
to make the connection, and maybe wasn't consciously making it himself, but
I suspect he'd have been likely to know about the Palace and maybe
unconsciously was likely to have been influenced by the Palace in referring
to the Castle?

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:30:38 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] yonder lies de palace

Ruth Berman wrote:
<<the meanings of "castle" and "palace" have so much fallen together in modern English>>

True. I see that Baum always wrote "tin castle," never "tin palace," and
always "Ozma's palace" or the "royal palace," and never "Ozma's castle."

On the other hand, in different books he refers to to "Glinda's palace"
and "Glinda's castle." And I always think (and write) of that building
as a castle because of the large army attached to it. Ozma can live in a
palace since it's protected by the city walls, but Glinda would have
chosen the fortification of a castle.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:21:54 -0500
From: Nathan DeHoff <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] yonder lies de palace

On 1/19/06, J. L. Bell <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ruth Berman wrote:
> <<the meanings of "castle" and "palace"
> have so much fallen together in modern English>>
>
> True. I see that Baum always wrote "tin castle," never "tin palace," and
> always "Ozma's palace" or the "royal palace," and never "Ozma's castle."
>
> On the other hand, in different books he refers to to "Glinda's palace"
> and "Glinda's castle." And I always think (and write) of that building
> as a castle because of the large army attached to it. Ozma can live in a
> palace since it's protected by the city walls, but Glinda would have
> chosen the fortification of a castle.

Ozma's palace is described in several books as having its own wall,
but it doesn't seem to be very heavily fortified.
--
Brick is red, and Hitler's dead,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org or fablesto at gmail.com

Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:12:50 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Regalia Digest, Vol 18, Issue 19

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> True. I see that Baum always wrote "tin castle," never "tin palace," and
> always "Ozma's palace" or the "royal palace," and never "Ozma's castle."
> On the other hand, in different books he refers to to "Glinda's palace"
> and "Glinda's castle." And I always think (and write) of that building as
> a castle because of the large army attached to it. Ozma can live in a
> palace since it's protected by the city walls, but Glinda would have
> chosen the fortification of a castle. >

Interesting point -- and the Tin Woodman and the Scarecrow, living outside
city walls, perhaps also need fortifiable castles? Perhaps neither one has
enough use for any luxury of surrounding to have the kind of decorative
splendor that made Glinda's home, although defensible, seem palatial to Baum
in some contexts?

Ruth Berman

Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:18:41 -0500
From: Blair Frodelius <blair at frodelius.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: yonder lies de palace

I checked the OED. The primary definition of a palace is the *residence*
of a monarch, bishop or other royalty. So the main criterion is that it
is a residence. Castles are derived from military fortifications which
might have also been residences, but might also have been simply
garrisons. I think a rule of thumb would be fortified vs. not fortified.

Blair Frodelius
ozproject.egtech.net

Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:32:58 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: yonder lies de palace

Blair Frodelius wrote:
> I checked the OED. The primary definition of a palace is the *residence*
> of a monarch, bishop or other royalty. So the main criterion is that it
> is a residence. Castles are derived from military fortifications which
> might have also been residences, but might also have been simply
> garrisons. I think a rule of thumb would be fortified vs. not fortified.

Yes, that was the distinction between "palace" and "castle" that I was
working with. And by and large Baum seems to have followed the same
rule. The buildings he calls "castles" tend to be more heavily protected
than those he calls "palaces," which are often located among other homes 
within cities.

Ugu has a "wicker castle" with magical defenses. In SCARECROW, Krewel 
lives in a "royal castle" that has armed guards. Mrs. Yoop lives in
"YOOP CASTLE," which the Tin Woodman and his companions break into.

In contrast, Langwidere lives in a palace with no guards or walls. the
Mangaboos lives in glass palaces that are broken by stones. The King of
Bunnybury has a palace within his realm's walls with some soldiers, but
they're rabbits and seem to be mostly ceremonial.

The Pingaree royal family live in a palace that's easily taken by
invaders. The rulers of Regos and Coregos also live in palaces--perhaps
because they think no one would be foolish enough to attack them.

There are, of course, some exceptions and muddles, like Glinda's
castle/palace. In GLINDA, Coo-ee-oh's building is called a palace, but
the whole Skeezer dome is occasionally referred to as a castle. The
homes of the fairy kings on the other side of the globe are called both
palaces and castles; there may be a gender difference between what noun
is used for whom.

Of course, the Nome King lives in a palace. He apparently feels no need
to build fortifications since mountains serve just as well.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net