Day 1 - Ozma summons Dorothy and tells her of her impending conference
  at Burzee the next morning - she will be gone three days
Day 2 - Ozma & Glinda depart in the morning
Day 3 - "Several hours after midnight" Umb & Ra leave for Emerald
  City - they capture Dorothy & Wizard and carry them off - Scarecrow &
  Scraps suspect something is wrong - Dot & Wiz released by light
  after "hours" motionless - Hi-lo takes Wiz, Dot to top of Mt Illuso -
  Toto has dinner at 7 PM, causes Umb & Ra to lock themselves away - Dot, Wiz spend night in Hi-lo's cottage
Day 4 - Umb, Ra find spell, return to Mt Illuso in AM - Dorothy &
  Wizard arrive in Pineville after several hours' walk, meet Ozana -
  they visit Storybook Garden - night in Ozana's cottage 
Day 5 - Ra casts spell "after midnight" - Ozana, Dot, Wiz begin trip to
  EC in morning - Mimics begin trip to Oz - Ozma, Glinda arrive - Toto
  saves the day - Dot, Wiz, Ozana arrive - Mimics banished around noon
Day 6 - Ozana welcomed to Oz - grand banquet in evening

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:06:23 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at tc.umn.edu>
Subject: magical mimics

Discussion of "Magical Mimics" should be beginning now. I re-read part of it
over the weekend, but not all, yet. Some preliminary coments --

Someone asked a while back if Lurline has wings. I said then that "Mimics"
has her fly over Oz, but Frank Kramer's illustration of her doing it didn't
show any wings. Re-reading now, I see that Snow's text does mention wings.
Evidently Kramer either didn't catch that or felt that wings got in the way
of the composition. It seems kind of a pity that Neill didn't ever do an
illo of Lurline. (He did occasionally do illos of narrations-of-past-events,
such as the double-spread in "Tin Woodman" of the pre-tin Nick.) It's also a
curious oddity (I've mentioned it before, but it strikes me again) that
Snow, the only one who made Lurline a large enough part of the story to
result in illos of her, didn't include her in his "Who's Who."

Snow's background as a horror story writer shows clearly in his portrayal of
the Mimics. The they're-evil-because-that's-how-it-is-and-irrevocably-so
idea of evil typical of such portrayals seems so rigid as to get
implausible. The descriptions are visually striking, though.

More later.

Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:53:04 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at tc.umn.edu>
Subject: mimics ps

I finished re-reading "Magical Mimics," and don't actually have a lot to add
to the comment I sent yesterday. The most effective parts of it are the
horror-style descriptions of the Mimics themselves -- although I'm also fond
of the Storybook Garden. The absence of humor gives an odd sort of flatness
to the story, it seems to me.

Ruth Berman

From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne at ...>
Date: Wed Mar 17, 2004  8:23 am
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] magical mimics

Ruth Berman wrote:

> Snow's background as a horror story writer shows clearly in his portrayal of 
> the Mimics. The they're-evil-because-that's-how-it-is-and-irrevocably-so 
> idea of evil typical of such portrayals seems so rigid as to get 
> implausible. The descriptions are visually striking, though.

But there is nothing in that way in "Mimics" that is not in "Emerald 
City", is there?

--

John W. Kennedy 
"But now is a new thing which is very old-- 
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer, 
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake." 
    -- Charles
Williams.  "Judgement at Chelmsford"

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:09:09 -0500
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: RE: MAGICAL MIMICS vs. Phanfasms

Ruth:
>Snow's background as a horror story writer shows clearly in his portrayal
>of
>the Mimics. The they're-evil-because-that's-how-it-is-and-irrevocably-so
>idea of evil typical of such portrayals seems so rigid as to get
>implausible.

Isn't that pretty much what Baum did with beings such as the Phanfasms and
Awgwas?  On the other hand, Baum never focuses on these all-evil creatures

as much as Snow does on the Mimics, and the Mimics are able to get pretty
far along in their plot to conquer Oz.  The form-stealing ability seems to

be a common concept in horror and sci-fi, and one that is used pretty well
in MAGICAL MIMICS.  I'm not sure why Snow decided the Mimics were unable to
steal animals' forms, even though they can take the forms of animals under
normal situations.  It isn't really significant to the plot, since they tie
up all of the animals but Toto anyway.

The Mimics are apparently different enough from the Phanfasms that the
Wizard can immediately tell they aren't the same beings; he notes on p. 68
that the Phanfasms "bore no resemblance to the beings who had made Dorothy 
and him captives."  Since both types of Erbs are shape-shifters with no
apparent forms of their own, I'm unsure as to why the Wizard would think
this.

King Umb and Queen Ra are consistently referred to with gender-specific
titles and pronouns.  Perhaps the inability to change genders sets the
Mimics apart from the Phanfasms, since the First and Foremost changes from a
bear-man to a beautiful woman.  There's really no indication that this is
the case, however.

The Phanfasms seem to have powers that the Mimics do not, like the First and
Foremost's mind-reading ability, and the illusions that they create.  On the
other hand, the Phanfasms are apparently unable to cross the Deadly Desert
without the help of the Nome King's tunnel, while the Mimics are able to fly
over it.  Lurline seems to have considered the Mimics to be more of a threat
to Oz than the Phanfasms.

>The absence of humor gives an odd sort of flatness to the story, it seems
>to me.

When I first read MAGICAL MIMICS, I did laugh out loud at the weed's speech
on pp. 133-4, although, in retrospect, it comes off as slightly elitist. 
The Charlie McCarthy reference on p. 98 might also have been intended to
come off as humorous.  (Speaking of Charlie, there's really no indication as
to how the wooden Hi-Los could reproduce, but maybe Ozana created a son for them.)
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

From: "Joseph Bongiorno" <TheSithEmpire at ...>
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004  1:07 pm
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] Magical Mimics and Return to Oz DVD 

As regards Magical Mimics, I consider this book
in my top 10.  The "horror" elements in particular
were refreshing, especially after Thompson's very long and very
lighthearted run (which Neill's quirky tales did little to dispel).  Some
have felt it out of place in the Oz spirit, but I think that Baum planted the
seeds for darker elements very early on (as he did for the more whimsical
pun-filled stories), and upon first reading, I welcomed it.  If I had my
choice, this is the direction I would have taken -- and would be taking
-- the Oz stories in, not consistently perhaps, but had I been the
publisher, there would have been a lot more books in the spirit of Mimics. 
Oddly, Snow's follow-up, while excellent in its own right, doesn't match this
one IMO, or even follow through on it thematically.  One always
wonders what kinds of stories Snow would have told had he been able
to continue writing Oz books.  Of course, then we would have lost the
brilliant works of the McGraws and Cosgrove-Payes.  As it stands
then, Mimics is somewhat unique in the FF.  It really wasn't
until Eric Shanower stepped in many years later that we got another taste of a
slightly less-than-sunny approach to an Oz story, and the results demonstrated
how powerful and literate an Oz story could actually be when put in the right
hands.  

Joe B

(www.timelineuniverse.net)

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:05:59 -0500
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: MAGICAL MIMICS and Lurline's enchantment

MAGICAL MIMICS probably goes into more detail than any other FF book about
Lurline's enchantment of Oz.  Snow's description seems to be an attempt to 
reconcile the accounts of Ozma's origin in LAND and DOTWIZ (daughter of the
former King of Oz) with those in TIN WOODMAN and GLINDA (a fairy left behind
by Lurline to rule the country).  He presumably doesn't take Thompson into 
account, but the MAGICAL MIMICS story doesn't directly contradict anything
in Thompson's books, as far as I can recall.  There are a few mentions of
Ozma being 1000 years old (in KABUMPO and WISHING HORSE), but perhaps she
had been a baby for a long time.  On the other hand, it IS difficult to
reconcile with the later MERRY GO ROUND, in which Ozma recognizes the
Unicorn of Halidom from her time in Burzee, making it less likely that she
was a baby at that point.  Some people have proposed the idea that Ozma was
an adult fairy who was de-aged into a baby, which seems to be the most
logical way of making all of the FF statements fit, but still seems to be a
little too complicated.  Some people prefer the idea that Ozma is Pastoria's
biological daughter (an idea that has some appeal to me, I must admit),
proposing either that he and Lurline are Ozma's biological parents, or that
Lurline somehow impregnated Pastoria's wife with Ozma (which leaves open the
question as to what happened to said wife, who is mentioned nowhere in the
FF).

Where is it stated in MAGICAL MIMICS that the enchantment of Oz occurred 200
years before the events of the book?  People have said that there was a
reference of this sort in the book, and I seem to recall reading it before,
but I can't find it now.

According to the Snow's account, "there was always an abundance of
everything" in Oz even before the enchantment, and "destructive and terrible
wars were unknown in Oz even in the olden days." [p. 19]  The desert was
also deadly before Lurline: "For the fumes and gasses that rose from the
shifting sands of the desert were deadly poison to all living things, and
for a human to have set foot on the desert would have meant instant and
terrible death." [p. 18]  On the other hand, p. 21 implies that there were
no magic-workers in Oz until after the enchantment, which, if this event
really DID happen about 200 years prior to the events of the Oz books, would
contradict the references to such characters as Wunchie and the Sultan of
Samandra having worked magic long before that.

Overall, Snow's story is a nice attempt to tie together some apparently
contradictory references in earlier books, but it raises just about as many
questions as it answers.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:01:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: magical mimics

--- "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne at attglobal.net> wrote:
> Ruth Berman wrote:
> > Snow's background as a horror story writer shows
> clearly in his portrayal of the Mimics.
>
> But there is nothing in that way in "Mimics" that is
> not in "Emerald City", is there?


While I think it's true that both the Mimics and the
Phanfasms are portrayed as equally horrifying, Baum
and Snow's treatment of them seem vastly different.
In EMERALD CITY, we see the Phanfasms largely through
the eyes of General Guph and, later, of Ruggedo
himself, both of whom are typical Baumian comic
villains -- more spoiled seeming than evil.  Both Guph
and Ruggedo are frightened by the Phanfasms which not
only makes them a bit more frightening, but also keeps
them at a certain remove from the reader.  Jack Snow,
on the other hand, tells the story directly from his
villains' point of view, subtly linking his readers
with the mind of evil.  That plus Snow actually allows
the Mimics to conquer Oz and violate its celebrities
-- something I'm certain Baum would never have done.
Even Thompson, when she allowed Oz to be conquered by
Skamperoo in WISHING HORSE, didn't allow the essential
nature of Oz to be harmed.  But perhaps the most
horrifying element of Snow's vision of Oz is how
vulnerable the Emerald City and its inhabitants seem.
Dorothy natters on endlessly about being a little girl
and liking kittens, never showing the pluck that
usualy makes her such an excellent heroine.  And her
friends in the Emerald City seem almost etherized,
never guessing that the evil-seeming and plotting pair
of Dorothy and the Wizard might not be the genuine
article.  Glinda and Ozma also seem particularly
ineffectual.  (Wouldn't Lurline, in all her power,
have sensed something was up before she sent them back
to Oz?)  It seems strange to me that Snow who
recognized the power and draw that Oz has over the
imagination of its readers could make it seem so
precarious. 

Alan Wise

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:16:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: MAGICAL MIMICS and Lurline's enchantment

--- Nathan Mulac DeHoff <DinnerBell at tmbg.org> wrote: 
> Where is it stated in MAGICAL MIMICS that the
> enchantment of Oz occurred 200
> years before the events of the book? 

I don't think it does.  It's the gathering in Burzee
that takes place every 200 years, and Ozma's
nonchalance about the event suggests to me that she's
been to it before, presumably before she was left as
an infant with Pastoria and was still a member of
Lurline's band.  200 years, however, seems an oddly
long time to go between meetings.  I suppose Snow was
trying to suggest that fairies exist on a differant
notion of time than do mortals, although it seems that
anything the fairies needed to discuss would have
occurred and resolved itself before the council next
met. Even the Hundred Years War could have slipped by
unnoticed. 

Alan Wise

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:32:35 -0500
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: RE: MAGICAL MIMICS darkness and villains

Joe Bongiorno:
>As regards Magical Mimics, I consider this book in my top 10.  The "horror"
>elements in particular were refreshing, especially after Thompson's very
>long and very lighthearted run (which Neill's quirky tales did little to
>dispel).

I don't know that I really found MAGICAL MIMICS "dark" as such, but I'll
agree that there's a certain horror-style element to his work that isn't
really found in Thompson and Neill.  That's not to say that there weren't
serious dangers in these two authors' books, but the fun, breezy writing
style (especially prevalent in Thompson) seems to make the darker parts less
memorable to readers.  Regarding Neill, I think a living, fighting house
might be rather scary to someone living in or around it, but he presents the
fighting houses as something that the Emerald Cityites are used to, although
Number Nine's example seems to suggest that they typically seek cover while
the fights are occurring.

A lot of it also comes down to personal views.  I know some people have said
they found Langwidere's heads and Nick Chopper's conversation with his own
head to be on the scary side, but I don't really find a disembodied head to
be scary in and of itself (at least not to read about).

 Dave Hardenbrook:
>VILLAINS:
>Isn't pretty much a trait of all Ozzy baddies that, since
>Darth Vadar/Lord Voldemort-type villains that do truly evil things
>are verboten (unlike Ozma and Jellia's virginity, this is a
>commandment of Oz storytelling that even I observe), they all
>have to resort to massive posturing, mustache-twirling, and otherwise
>going around espousing the "we're-evil-because-that's-how-it-is"
>point of view.

I wouldn't say ALL villains in the Oz books are like that.  There's
certainly a fair amount of that in the series, but there are other villains
who don't even consider themselves to be evil.  The Nome King, at least on

his first appearance, attempts to rationalize his actions, as does Ugu, at
least to himself.  It's also common for Oz villains to enchant other
characters in ways that aren't painful or irreversible, yet certainly aren't
mere bluster, either.  Examples of this are numerous transformations
throughout the series, as well as the Mimics' form-stealing, and Skamperoo's
imprisoning prominent Ozites in Thunder Mountain.  Then there are villains

who ATTEMPT serious harm, but are stopped before they can actually achieve
it.  The invaders in EMERALD CITY certainly intend to cause serious
destruction in Oz, but the Water of Oblivion takes effect before they can do
anything.  The Scarecrow, in his own book, is saved from destruction at the
last minute by the Orks.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:27:50 -0500
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: MAGICAL MIMICS magic and technology

Snow says on p. 168 that "[n]ext to Ozma's Magic Picture, Glinda's Great
Book of Records is the most valuable treasure in Oz," a judgment that I
can't recall any earlier authors making.  The Magic Belt is identified by
the Wizard of Wutz in HANDY MANDY as the most powerful magical item in Oz,
but that isn't exactly the same thing, and there are different types of
power anyway.  Snow's writes of the Record Book:

Perhaps I should explain that Glinda's Great Book of Records is the a
marvelous book in which everything that happens, from the slightest detail
to the most important event taking place anywhere in the world, is recorded
the same instant that it happens.  No occurrence is too trivial to appear in
the book.  If a naughty child stamps its foot in anger, or if a powerful
ruler plunges his country into war, both events are noted in the book, as of
equal importance.

This description is similar to this one from TIK-TOK, p. 29:

The smallest things and the biggest things are all recorded in this book. 

If a child stamps his foot in anger, Glinda reads about it; if a city burns
down, Glinda finds the fact noted in her book.

Baum's description seems to imply that things in between the smallest and
biggest are not recorded, which fits with the suggestion made by someone
(the Scarecrow, possibly) in OJO that the title character is not important
enough to be mentioned in the book.  On the other hand, the previous page in
TIK-TOK has Baum speak of "a wonderful magic Record Book, in which is
printed every event that takes place anywhere, just as soon as it happens,"
which is closer to what Snow says.  Really, I think saying that everything 
is recorded in the book is hyperbole, but I like the idea that the book
mentions some small things in addition to the big ones.

According to Snow, the Magic Belt is simply sitting around in Ozma's Chamber
of Magic, which is apparently not locked.  This is much less security than 
we find surrounding the Belt in Thompson's later books.  WISHING HORSE,
HANDY MANDY, and OZOPLANING place the talisman in a safe.  On p. 205, Queen
Ra tries to use the Belt against Ozana, but it is ineffective, and the
Guardian of Oz refers to it as "simple magic."  As far as I can recall, this
is only the second time when the Belt is specifically stated not to work on
someone, the other time being when Roquat tries to enchant the Sawhorse in
OZMA.

Ozma herself uses her wand to transport herself and Glinda to Burzee, and
apparently back as well.  She also extinguishes the flames with which Ra
tries to burn the Scarecrow, using the same wand to do this.

In terms of technology, Mount Illuso has an elevator, a kind of technology
with which Ojo is familiar in his book.  The Wizard has a radio that
receives American stations in his tower room (where Snow, like Neill, places
Ozma's Chief Magician).  And, on p. 59, in a passage that seems to suggest

that Snow seems to be familiar with science fiction and comics, Scraps tells
the Scarecrow that she doesn't have X-ray eyes.  Superman is probably the
most famous character to have X-ray eyes, but are there any other
appearances of this ocular power in media with which Snow would have been
familiar?
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:14:26 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: MAGICAL MIMICS and evil

John W. Kennedy wrote:
>>Snow's background as a horror story writer shows clearly in his portrayal of
>>the Mimics. The they're-evil-because-that's-how-it-is-and-irrevocably-so
>>idea of evil typical of such portrayals seems so rigid as to get
>>implausible. The descriptions are visually striking, though.
>
> But there is nothing in that way in "Mimics" that is not in "Emerald
> City", is there?

The Phanfasms and Mimics are similar in their basic evil, but I see two
differences in the way they come across in the two books:
    1) Baum leavens the Phanfasms' fifty warriors with the silly Whimsies
      and occasionally over-the-top Nomes. Snow doesn't go for the same sort
      of comic relief.
    2) The Mimics get much closer to harming our friends from the Emerald
      City than the thirsty Phanfasms do.

In addition, for some readers the prospect of having one's identity
stolen, or of not knowing if one's friends and family have been replaced
in that way, might be scarier than the enslavement the Phanfasms talk about.

Dave Hardenbrook wrote:
<<Isn't pretty much a trait of all Ozzy baddies that, since
Darth Vadar/Lord Voldemort-type villains that do truly evil things are verboten..., they all
have to resort to massive posturing, mustache-twirling, and otherwise
going around espousing the "we're-evil-because-that's-how-it-is"
point of view.>>

This seems to be conflating two things:
    1) How much destruction or suffering an evil-minded character is shown
      to cause. In the Oz books it's indeed usually minimal, and repaired by
      the end of the book. In addition, the initial problem for the
      protagonist is as often a natural disaster (WIZARD, OZMA, DOROTHY &
      WIZARD, TIK-TOK, SCARECROW) or accident (PATCHWORK GIRL) as an action by
      the book's villain, showing that not all serious problems in the world
      can be ascribed to "evil."
    2) How subtle a motivation the books describe for those evil-minded
      characters. Do they simply enjoy causing destruction and suffering (like
      the Phanfasms), or are they actually motivated by something else and
      don't care about hurting people in their way?

In WIZARD, Baum simply presents the Wicked Witches as, well, wicked with
a capital W. But what do they do that's so evil? Not much compared to
what other books' villains are shown to have done. By labeling them as
"Wicked," he can make one into the story's villain when most of the
actions we actually see her do are motivated by defending herself
against people coming to "Kill the Wicked Witch of the West."

Thereafter, however, Baum usually provides more personality to his
villains, as symbolized by how he almost always gives them names. And
their personalities usually differ. Ugu has no idea he's wicked. Krewl
is greedy, Googly-Goo's in love. Kiki Aru's a bored teenager.
Roquat/Ruggedo is at first a fervent collector, then out for revenge.
That doesn't mean they're not evil, but they're not simply evil for
evil's sake.

Baum has Guph say, "I hate good people; I detest happy people; I'm
opposed to any one who is contented and prosperous." But even as a child
I never really believed him. I got the impression he was talking up his
villainy to please Roquat and get the job of general, the way Richard
Nixon's aides used to humor his paranoid vindictiveness. When Guph meets
someone who's truly, purely evil in the form of the First and Foremost,
even he's taken aback.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:43:14 -0500
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: Some more MAGICAL MIMICS comments

I can't really think of anything else to say about MAGICAL MIMICS as a
whole.  Maybe other Nonesticans' posts will inspire me.  I do have a few
comments about miscellaneous aspects of the book, however.

On pp. 63-4, Cap'n Bill mentions the Wizard's magic paint bucket and brush. 
The brush, which "paints any color you want from the same bucket o' paint,"
sounds similar to what the Ozites used to paint the castle walls in LUCKY
BUCKY.  This might well be a revised version of the same, with the bugs
worked out so that the paintings no longer come to life.  The fact that it 
has to be used with a bucket might be part of the new design.

On p. 74, we receive the first complete confirmation that Omby Amby is the
Soldier with Green Whiskers.  This is very strongly hinted in Baum's books,
but I don't think he ever actually refers to the character by both names in
a single book.  Thompson's alternate name of Wantowin Battles is ignored, as
is Snow's general way.  Oddly enough, though, Snow says that the Soldier is
also the Keeper of the Gates, when the Guardian is clearly a separate
character in previous Oz books.  I suppose it's possible that the Soldier is
watching the gates while the Guardian is on vacation, though.  Ozma suggests
just such an arrangement in SCALAWAGONS, after all.  Omby Amby's marriage to
Tollydiggle is something that has been discussed several times before, since
the Soldier's wife mentioned by Jinjur in LAND certainly doesn't sound like
the friendly Tollydiggle from PATCHWORK GIRL.  A few possible ways to
reconcile this are:

  1. The Soldier divorced his old wife and married Tollydiggle.  We never see
    any clear occasions of divorce in Oz, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.
  2. Tollydiggle behaves very differently in public than in private.  I
    believe this was suggested in "The Merchant of Oz," an OZIANA story.
  3. There's more than one Tollydiggle, and the Soldier's wife is a different
    person from the jailor.
  4. Since Snow has apparently confused the Soldier with the Guardian of the
    Gates, Tollydiggle might actually be the Guardian's wife (Ruth Berman's
    idea, I believe).
  5. Baum, Snow, and/or Jinjur made a mistake.  For that matter, I suppose
    that Jinjur's having heard rumors that the Soldier's wife is bad-tempered
    doesn't necessarily make those rumors true.

On p. 96, Dorothy and the Wizard, upon hearing Ozana's name, immediately
think that it might be an "Oz name," despite the fact that not too many
Ozites seem to have the word "Oz" in their names.  I suppose Dorothy could
have been thinking in terms of the royal family.  There's also Ozwold (GNOME
KING), Ozwoz (PURPLE PRINCE), and Oz Q. Later (WONDER CITY), not to mention
Ozga.  It turns out [p. 119] that Ozana does have a connection with Oz.  She
says, "I am called Ozana...because I am a member of Queen Lurline's Fairy
Band and first cousin of Princess Ozma of Oz."  But she presumably had the
name "Ozana" before Lurline made her Guardian of Oz, right?  Or did she? 
Maybe "Ozana" actually means "Guardian of Oz."  For that matter, was Ozma
called "Ozma" before being left with Pastoria?

Ozana's "tawny blossom with gay purple spots" [p. 132] wants to tell a story
about the Valley of Clowns in Merryland.  Dorothy "remembered reading in a
storybook about Merryland and the Valley of Clowns."  Perhaps she has read
DOT AND TOT, but it's also possible that she's read a book unique to the
Nonestican world.  Regardless, the mention of a storybook about Merryland
seems to be Snow's way of advertising a lesser-known Baum book (although I
don't know whether it was lesser-known back when MAGICAL MIMICS was
written).  There's also a mention of SANTA CLAUS on p. 24.  That Burzee is
the home of Queen Lurline seems to confirm that she is the Fairy Queen from
SANTA CLAUS, and quite possibly also the same as Lulea from QUEEN ZIXI.

I don't really understand Ozana's outburst on p. 147.  How have the Mimics 
outwitted her, and how does she find this out while flying to the Emerald
City?

Isn't it a neat coincidence that the spell that the Mimics are looking for
is in the second to last book they check [p. 158]?

On p. 172, we learn from Queen Ra that salamanders can survive in the Deadly
Desert.  That makes sense, I suppose.  They presumably are not actually the
ONLY creatures that can survive there, though, since the Heelers from WONDER
CITY also live there.  There's apparently also an oasis called the Fountains
of Romany, where a gypsy band makes camp, as reported by Toby in FORBIDDEN
FOUNTAIN.  It might be argued that the Flame Folk of SHAGGY MAN don't count
as "creatures" as such, but the Snow's description of these people in WHO'S
WHO reports that scorpions can also survive the desert sands.

After their troubled night, the Emerald Cityites don't seem to be especially
worried on p. 179.  I suppose they're just trying to go about business as
usual, since they have no way of knowing what the Mimics will do without the
information that Uncle Henry is gathering from the Great Book of Records.

Snow has been accused of trying to emulate Baum's writing style too closely,
and I think the most blatant example of this appears on p. 217.  Compare the
following two passages, the first being from this page, and the second from
Chapter 25 of LOST PRINCESS:

"Dorothy and the Wizard related their adventures on Mount Illuso, and then 
the Scarecrow tried to make clear to Ozma, Glinda and Dorothy and the Wizard
everything that had happened in the Emerald City during their absence. 
Scraps helped him out, and Betsy Bobbin reminded him of things he had
forgotten, while Trot chimed in, and Button Bright wanted to tell the story
his way.  There was such a chatter it was a wonder Ozma and the rest
understood anything."

"Dorothy started to tell the story, and Trot helped her, and Button-Bright 
wanted to relate it in his own way, and the Wizard tried to make it clear to
Ozma, and Betsy had to remind them of important things they left out, and
all together there was such a chatter that it was a wonder that Ozma
understood any of it."

On p. 237, we see a list of "guests who came from great distances,"
including the Frogman, Dr. Pipt, Margolotte, and the GWN.  I seem to recall
some mentions in later Baum books of Pipt and his wife having settled in the
Emerald City, and some people have picked up on hints that the Frogman might
have also done so.  Snow identifies them as living elsewhere, however. 
Actually, if you believe Eric Shanower's "The Final Fate of the Frogman,"
the title character moved back to the Yip Country for a short while after
leaving the Emerald City, so, considering that he is accompanied by Cayke in
MAGICAL MIMICS, perhaps the book takes place during this period.  As for the
GWN, the best way I can think of to make this reference fit with what
Thompson wrote in GIANT HORSE is to assume that the character Snow calls the
GWN is Queen Orin, even though she is presumably no longer officially the
GWN.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 08:30:37 -0500
From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne at attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: MAGICAL MIMICS magic and technology

Nathan Mulac DeHoff wrote:
> And, on p. 59, in a passage that seems to suggest
> that Snow seems to be familiar with science fiction and comics, Scraps tells
> the Scarecrow that she doesn't have X-ray eyes.

Science-fiction, fantasy, horror, and comics were pretty much one big
happy family in those days.  Alfred Bester, author of "The Stars My
Destination" (UK title "Tyger, Tyger") and "The Demolished Man", also
wrote the Green Lantern Oath, and the late Julius Schwartz (1915-2004),
who, more than anyone else, made D.C. Comics what they are, was one of
the creators of organized Fandom, was Ray Bradbury's first agent, and
made H. P. Lovecraft's only top-market sale.  It would be most
extraordinary if Snow hadn't possessed a degree of familiarity with
them, though, in fact, I'm inclined to think that he /wasn't/
particularly /au courant/ with comics, for "Dick Superguy" is suggestive
more of 1938-1941 than of 1946.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
   -- Charles Williams.  "Judgement at Chelmsford"

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 07:58:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: MAGICAL MIMICS magic

--- Nathan Mulac DeHoff <DinnerBell at tmbg.org> wrote:

> Ozma herself uses her wand to transport herself and
> Glinda to Burzee, and
> apparently back as well. 

What else do we know about Ozma's magic wand?  I'm
curious because Snow seems to invest it with a lot
more power than we've seen before.  In GLINDA, Baum
suggests that while holding it, Ozma's fairy senses
are more acute; she can hear the warning bell atop of
the Flatheads' mountain long before she and Dorothy
arrive.  She also uses it as a light in the dark
staircase going to the top of the mountain (which
always confused me as a kid because if the Flatheads
used the stair to go back and forth from their
village, they certainly would have lit it themselves
rather than stumble along in the dark).  Earlier, Ozma
uses the wand to supply food and a tent during the
journey.  I don't recall any other descriptions of its
powers; usually it remains just a part of Ozma's
magical accouterments. 

> She also extinguishes the flames with which Ra
> tries to burn the Scarecrow, using the same wand to
> do this.

Snow is returning to a Baumian tradition here: making
a point of the Scarecow's construction by having him
threatened by fire.  Baum often dismantled the
Scarecrow during adventures (WIZARD, LAND, SCARECROW,
TIN WOODMAN) or simply mentioned restuffing as part of
his general upkeep.  I can only recall Thompson using
the threat of physical danger to the Scarecrow in
ROYAL BOOK (the fireworks on the Silver Island), but
then that's his one real starring role in a Thompson
title. Mostly he and the Tin Woodman seem to hang
about the Emerald City either gasping at danger or
simply welcoming newcomers.  This may not be that far
afield from Baum, however; aside from the books
bearing their names, the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman act
more like stereotypical gossipy maiden aunts than the
comic protectors of Dorothy's well-being in the
WIZARD. 

Alan Wise

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:22:06 -0500
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: RE: MAGICAL MIMICS and evil

The last set of messages contained some interesting observations from Alan
Wise and John Bell about how the Mimics differ from previous invaders of Oz.
Here are some more specific comments on what they said:

Alan Wise:
>That plus Snow actually allows
>the Mimics to conquer Oz and violate its celebrities
>-- something I'm certain Baum would never have done.
>Even Thompson, when she allowed Oz to be conquered by
>Skamperoo in WISHING HORSE, didn't allow the essential
>nature of Oz to be harmed.

Indeed, Skamperoo's conquest of Oz was much more peaceful than that of the
Mimics.  The Mimics didn't really do any permanent damage to Oz, but they
certainly intended to, which Skamperoo really didn't.

>But perhaps the most
>horrifying element of Snow's vision of Oz is how
>vulnerable the Emerald City and its inhabitants seem.

It seems to be almost as vulnerable when Mogodore's army captures everyone
while they're playing a game, and when the Wizard of Wutz and his agent rob
Ozma's palace without much trouble.  Baum's LOST PRINCESS and Thompson's
WISHING HORSE seem to be the two books that show the Emerald Cityites as
reasonably competent, so that the invaders have to do quite a bit of magical
work to achieve their goals (or at least come close to achieving them, in
Ugu's case).

>Dorothy natters on endlessly about being a little girl
>and liking kittens, never showing the pluck that
>usualy makes her such an excellent heroine.  And her
>friends in the Emerald City seem almost etherized,
>never guessing that the evil-seeming and plotting pair
>of Dorothy and the Wizard might not be the genuine
>article.


Along those same lines, I was struck by how, as I mentioned in an earlier
post, the celebrities, after being "too worried over the plight of Dorothy 
and the Wizard to rest easily" [p. 169], seem to be perfectly calm and
off-guard the next morning.  We find Cap'n Bill carving a figurehead, and
Button-Bright and Scraps playing leapfrog [p. 179].  Then, when the Mimics 
arrive, we see Emerald City mob mentality at work again, when EVERYONE
leaves their houses to see the strange birds.  Only Toto seems to realize
that something might be up.

>Glinda and Ozma also seem particularly
>ineffectual.  (Wouldn't Lurline, in all her power,
>have sensed something was up before she sent them back
>to Oz?)

Yes, it might have been nice if Snow had explained this away.  Perhaps the 
fairies were so busy with the council that they didn't bother to check on
events in the rest of the world.

>It seems strange to me that Snow who
>recognized the power and draw that Oz has over the
>imagination of its readers could make it seem so
>precarious.

This was probably at least partially necessary in order to have Oz conquered
at all.  Baum leaves Ozma and her close friends with the Magic Belt, Magic 
Picture, and Great Book of Records, and Thompson only adds to this list of
magical treasures.  In order for invaders to pose any threat at all to the 
country, they either have to possess powerful unknown magic (like Ugu and
Skamperoo do), take advantage of lax security (Mogdore in JACK PUMPKINHEAD,
Wutz's Agent Number Five in HANDY MANDY) or strike at a time when key
members of Ozma's court are missing, whether through fortunate accident (the
Stratovanians in OZOPLANING) or intentional observation (Wutz).  The Mimics
combine several of these aspects, and thus pose a fairly serious threat.

J. L. Bell:
>In addition, for some readers the prospect of having one's identity
>stolen, or of not knowing if one's friends and family have been replaced
>in that way, might be scarier than the enslavement the Phanfasms talk
>about.

The prospect of close friends being replaced by evil doubles is indeed a
frightening one, and one that Snow might intentionally downplay so as not to
scare children.  We know the Mimics' plans, and that Dorothy and the Wizard
are really Ra and Umb in disguise.  The other inhabitants of the Emerald
City pick up on hints that something might be wrong fairly quickly, and it
doesn't take Toto long to realize that Dorothy and the Wizard are not their
true selves.  If the Mimics' deception were something that we found out
gradually, along with the Emerald City celebrities, and the Mimic monarchs
were able to do more harm while in disguise, the story might have ended up
coming across as more horrific.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004  1:43 pm
Subject: mimics, parents

"John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne at ...> wrote re: my comment
>> Snow's background as a horror story writer shows clearly in his portrayal
of the Mimics. The they're-evil-because-that's-how-it-is-and-irrevocably-so
idea of evil typical of such portrayals seems so rigid as to get
implausible. The descriptions are visually striking, though. <<
> But there is nothing in that way in "Mimics" that is not in "Emerald
City", is there? <
 
Baum doesn't posit that evil beings cannot possibly change their nature. And
he portrays them as comic, something that is difficult to do when working,
as Snow was, from a background of writing horror stories.
 
and "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote re: my comment:
>> The absence of humor gives an odd sort of flatness to the story, it seems to me. <<
> When I first read MAGICAL MIMICS, I did laugh out loud at the weed's
speech on pp. 133-4, although, in retrospect, it comes off as slightly
elitist.  The Charlie McCarthy reference on p. 98 might also have been
intended to come off as humorous.  (Speaking of Charlie, there's really no
indication as to how the wooden Hi-Los could reproduce, but maybe Ozana
created a son for them.) <
 
Yes, the weed and the Charlie McCarthy bit are intended to be funny -- but
they fall kind of flat, as your comment suggests. I expect you're right in
suggesting that Ozana created the Hi-Los as a family group, rather than
getting into the heavy-duty magic that would be needed for wooden beings to
reproduce sexually.
 
Ruth Berman

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004  3:50 pm
Subject: more Mimics points

Alan Wise <alanmacwise at ...> and "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> and "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at ...>
 
Nice discussions of Mimic/Phanfasm differences.
 
Alan's suggestion that the idea that the enchantment of Oz occurred 200
years before "Mimics" is a misreading of the statement that Lurline holds
bicentennial meetings sounds plausible.
 
Nathan's comment that Snow's judgment of Ozma's Magic Picture and Glinda's
Great Book of Records as the first and second most valuable treasures seems
debatable --
 
Yes, seems as if from different points of view there could be a good deal of
argument. Snow's feeling might have been that the Picture and the Book give
the information needed to take action, whereas the Belt isn't useful until
you know what actions you need to take, and from that point of view his
judgment seems reasonable.
 
[Nathan] > Baum's description [of the Book as "The smallest things and the
biggest things are all recorded in this book"] seems to imply that things in
between the smallest and biggest are not recorded, which fits with the
suggestion made by someone (the Scarecrow, possibly) in OJO that the title
character is not important enough to be mentioned in the book.  On the other
hand, the previous page in TIK-TOK has Baum speak of "a wonderful magic
Record Book, in which is printed every event that takes place anywhere, just
as soon as it happens," which is closer to what Snow says.  Really, I think
saying that everything is recorded in the book is hyperbole, but I like the
idea that the book mentions some small things in addition to the big ones. <
 
"Smallest and biggest" could imply "and nothing in between," but it could
also imply "and everything in between," and the other description you quote
suggests that it's an everything-book. As you say, there must be some degree
of hyperbole in such a claim, but the various references that other books
make to the brevity of the descriptions (so that *understanding* the
everything is a difficiult matter indeed) go a long way toward making it
possible. I think some of the non-R&L books have also said that the Book
doesn't keep things permanently on record, but erases things after a while
(I don't think any of the R&L books offer this suggestion?), and that also
would make the Book's comprehensiveness more possible-sounding.
 
> I don't know whether it ["Dot and Tot"] was lesser-known back when MAGICAL
MIMICS was written <
 
Bobbs Merrill had let it go out of print a good many years before. The only
non-Oz Baum books that were available when "Mimics" came out, so far as I
recall, were the Bobbs Merrill reprints of "Mo" (with illos by Evelyn
Copelman), and of "The Father Goose Songbook." I think they must have been
keeping the latter available right along -- at least, it still had Denslow's
artwork. Come to think of it, "Mo" must have been available pretty much
right along, too, because Bobbs Merrill licensed the Donohue Company to
reprint it somewhere in there, and that edition was probably available
during most of the years between the two Bobbs Merrill versions. And Bobbs
Merrill, not having any of the Oz sequels available to them to publish,
probably wanted to take advantage of their only possibilities for building
on the "Wizard" sales, especially once the MGM movie appeared. I would
imagine that they would have kept "D&T" in print if the color hadn't been so
important an element in the story. (With the Songbook, they kept Denslow's
illos, but dropped the color early on. The Donohue edition eliminated some
of Verbeck's color, and going over to Copelman let Bobbs M start from fresh
plates and not have to worry about adequate repro of the old -- about the
same sequence of versions as with the Bobbs M/Donohue editions of "Wizard.")
 
By contrast, R&L, with all those Oz books, had let all their non-Oz Baum go
out of print by the time of "Mimics." At Snow's urging, they went on to
arrange to print one of the "Animal Fairy Tales," "Jaglon and the Tiger
Fairies" (with the addition of a good deal of material by Snow -- does
anyone know if the changes were Snow's suggestion or R&L's request?), which
had never had a book edition before, and I think it was also Snow's lobbying
that resulted in the R&L edition of selections (with significant re-writing
by Jean Kellogg) from Baum's "Queer Visitors" comic page.
 
> I don't really understand Ozana's outburst on p. 147.  How have the Mimics
outwitted her, and how does she find this out while flying to the Emerald
City? <
 
Seems to be a plot glitch there, doesn't it?
 
> Snow has been accused of trying to emulate Baum's writing style too
closely, and I think the most blatant example of this appears on p. 217.
Compare the following two passages, the first being from this page, and the
second from Chapter 25 of LOST PRINCESS <
 
Yes, the example does seem to carry emulation rather too far.
 
> On p. 237, we see a list of "guests who came from great distances,"
including the Frogman, Dr. Pipt, Margolotte, and the GWN.  I seem to recall
some mentions in later Baum books of Pipt and his wife having settled in the
Emerald City, and some people have picked up on hints that the Frogman might
have also done so.  Snow identifies them as living elsewhere, however.
Actually, if you believe Eric Shanower's "The Final Fate of the Frogman,"
the title character moved back to the Yip Country for a short while after
leaving the Emerald City, so, considering that he is accompanied by Cayke in
MAGICAL MIMICS, perhaps the book takes place during this period. <
 
Considering that there's probably something like 30 years between the books
involved, the characters might have chosen to move back and forth several
times. (Or they might consider themselves as having dual residences,
spending some months each year in the EC and some not?)
 
> As for the GWN, the best way I can think of to make this reference fit
with what Thompson wrote in GIANT HORSE is to assume that the character Snow
calls the GWN is Queen Orin, even though she is presumably no longer
officially the GWN. <
 
She could be, easily enough. She's replaced as the ruler of the northland at
the end of "Giant Horse," but not as a resident magic-worker. As Orin,
although she'd have to be "north" in a sense that included northern
Munchkinland, not just Gillikins, she could probably still go on practising
good-witch-craft if she chose.
 
Ruth Berman

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004  1:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] MAGICAL MIMICS Ozma's wand and the Scarecrow

 

Alan Wise:
>--- Nathan Mulac DeHoff <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
>
> > Ozma herself uses her wand to transport herself and
> > Glinda to Burzee, and
> > apparently back as well.
>
>What else do we know about Ozma's magic wand?  I'm
>curious because Snow seems to invest it with a lot
>more power than we've seen before.  In GLINDA, Baum
>suggests that while holding it, Ozma's fairy senses
>are more acute; she can hear the warning bell atop of
>the Flatheads' mountain long before she and Dorothy
>arrive.  She also uses it as a light in the dark
>staircase going to the top of the mountain (which
>always confused me as a kid because if the Flatheads
>used the stair to go back and forth from their
>village, they certainly would have lit it themselves
>rather than stumble along in the dark).
 
Maybe they carried lanterns, or they have better night vision than Ozma and
Dorothy.
 
>Earlier, Ozma uses the wand to supply food and a tent during the
>journey.
 
I believe the same book has Ozma use it to turn herself and Dorothy
invisible, in order to escape from the Flatheads.  She also uses it in
breaking Mrs. Yoop's transformations in TIN WOODMAN, to transport herself
and her friends from Glinda's palace to the Emerald City in OZOPLANING, and
to banish the Mifkit from Oz in SCALAWAGONS.  Its powers are never clearly
spelled out, but I like Robert Pattrick's idea that it directs and amplifies
Ozma's natural fairy magic (or something along those lines, anyway).
 
> > She also extinguishes the flames with which Ra
> > tries to burn the Scarecrow, using the same wand to
> > do this.
>
>Snow is returning to a Baumian tradition here: making
>a point of the Scarecow's construction by having him
>threatened by fire.  Baum often dismantled the
>Scarecrow during adventures (WIZARD, LAND, SCARECROW,
>TIN WOODMAN) or simply mentioned restuffing as part of
>his general upkeep.  I can only recall Thompson using
>the threat of physical danger to the Scarecrow in
>ROYAL BOOK (the fireworks on the Silver Island), but
>then that's his one real starring role in a Thompson
>title.
 
GIANT HORSE is also a starring role for the straw man in an Thompson book.
This book has the Scarecrow afraid of Quiberon's sparks, and severely
hindered by being soaked in the waters of Lake Orizon.  OZOPLANING also
mentions the Scarecrow's fear of fire and water, although his mention that
"[f]ire's almost as bad for me as water" is presumably an error on
Thompson's part, as fire is obviously much worse for the Scarecrow.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:22:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Magical Mimics and Wicked Witches

--- "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne at attglobal.net> wrote:
> Alan Wise wrote:
> > Even Thompson, when she allowed Oz to be conquered
> > by Skamperoo in WISHING HORSE, didn't allow the
> > essential nature of Oz to be harmed.
>
> What about "Pirates"?

I think there's a very distinct difference between
Ruggedo's comic villainy and the sinister evil of the
Mimics.  We've seen Ruggedo transform the Ozites
before (OZMA), even achieve a kind of magical prowess
(MAGIC) and yet the threat he poses is always undercut
by his own blustery need for revenge.  The Mimics are
motivated purely by the desire to cause harm and
watching them abduct the bodies of the Ozites and then
promise to execute them one by one seems infintely
more horrifying than anything Ruggedo might hope to
do.  In fact, as she prepares to burn the Scarecrow,
Queen Ra seemed very much like Margaret Hamilton's
Wicked Witch when she has Dorothy and her friends
trapped in the tower room.  Both are the stuff of
nightmares. 

Alan Wise

From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at ...>
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004  2:38 pm
Subject: Great Book of Records

I don't think that when Baum wrote "The smallest things and the biggest
things are all recorded in this book" he meant that intermediate-sized
events weren't covered by the Great Book of Records. Rather, he was
making a point about the types of events it does record and (especially
with the earlier comments on its inclusiveness) expecting readers to
fill in the middle of that range.
 
I take the series' rhetoric about the Great Book recording EVERYTHING
that ever happened as hyperbole. But the Book still offers Oz tremendous
protection because it COULD include everything. Take an analogy to the
increased airport security in the US in the past two years. Some
potential weapons still get through the machines and human screeners,
and occasionally make the papers. But at the same time that security is
a deterrent because the system catches those same weapons most of the
time. It doesn't have to be 100% effective, but a plan to evade it still
faces daunting odds. Similarly, a villain's every move might not show up
in the Book, but she could never be certain when one move would do so
and give her whole scheme away.
 
J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at ...

From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at ...>
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004  2:41 pm
Subject: Re: MAGICAL MIMICS Ozma's wand

Nathan DeHoff wrote of Ozma's wand:
<<Its powers are never clearly spelled out, but I like Robert Pattrick's idea that it directs and
amplifies Ozma's natural fairy magic (or something along those lines, anyway).>>
 
I find it significant that when Polychrome works magic in TIN WOODMAN
while transformed into a canary, she picks up a twig in her beak. Even
when not in her regular fairy form, she uses the equivalent of a wand.
And apparently this twig wasn't magical before she chose it.
 
J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at ...

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:47:30 -0000
From: "Michael Vincent" <kuma_party at yahoo.com>
Subject: Enchanted for 200 years

"I have dwelt on this forsaken mountain top with no human companions
for more than two hundred years." Ozana (Magical Mimics p. 123)

Lurline left Ozana to monitor the Mimics after enchanting Oz and
leaving the infant Ozma with King Pastoria, so it seems that Snow is
implying that the enchantment took place more than 200 years before
the events of Magical Mimics.

If so, did Ozma remain in infant form until she was given by O.Z.
Diggs to Mombi? Diggs was born in Omaha and that city was first
settled by Mormons in the late 1840's and was originally called
Winter Quarters. The city wasn't incorporated until 1857.

Diggs was a young man when he arrived in Oz... (circa 1870?) Between
his arrival and departure (circa 1900) he had built the Emerald City,
been forced out of the Winkie Country by the Winged Monkeys, reunited
the kingdoms of Oz, and had given the baby Ozma to Mombi. (Not
necessarily in that order.)

I believe Thompson indicated that Ozma lived with Mombi for about 9
years (I can't recall the exact quotes... I think one mention is in
Jack Pumpkinhead of Oz). Roughly, one could say Ozma/Tip was in
Mombi's care from around 1890 until she was restored.

So for about 145 years the fairy Ozma remained an infant? If indeed
no one aged in Oz from the time of the enchantment, I suppose this
isn't too unusual. Aging seems to have been in effect during the
Wizard's, the Scarecrow's, and Jinjur's reigns, so this would have
allowed her to grow up.

I'd never really thought about this until I reread Mimics, and it
puts a slight change on my theories of ancient Oz history. The dates
I used are just estimates (except for the dates regarding Omaha).

One side note: Snow mentions that there were no wars in ancient Oz,
but Thompson's Silence Stone was used by "the ancient Emperors of Oz
to keep their wives quiet in times of war."

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:09:39 -0500
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: RE: Enchanted for 200 years

Michael Vincent:
>"I have dwelt on this forsaken mountain top with no human companions
>for more than two hundred years." Ozana (Magical Mimics p. 123)
>
>Lurline left Ozana to monitor the Mimics after enchanting Oz and
>leaving the infant Ozma with King Pastoria, so it seems that Snow is
>implying that the enchantment took place more than 200 years before
>the events of Magical Mimics.

Nice catch, Michael.  In fact, p. 34 says, "On that far away day those many
years ago, when Queen Lurline had left the baby Ozma to become the ruler of
Oz, Queen Lurline did not pause, for she knew the most important part of her
work was still to be done."  She then "left Oz and flew straight to the
bleak land of the Phanfasms.  Singnalling to one of her Fairy Maidens to
accompany her, Queen Lurline flew down to grim Mount Illuso, home of the
dread Mimics."  The suggestion seems to be that she left Ozma in Oz and
Ozana on Mount Illuso on the same day.

Incidentally, p. 39 says that both Lurline and "her fairy companion"
(presumably Ozana) "both spread their fairy wings and flew straight to the

very summit of the hollow mount," yet Ozana is never described as having
wings later in the book, and she needs her swans to help her cross the
Deadly Desert.  If this "fairy companion" WAS Ozana, what happened to her
wings?

>If so, did Ozma remain in infant form until she was given by O.Z.
>Diggs to Mombi? Diggs was born in Omaha and that city was first
>settled by Mormons in the late 1840's and was originally called
>Winter Quarters. The city wasn't incorporated until 1857.

It's possible that the Wizard was using the name Dorothy would have been
familiar with, even if it wasn't the proper name for the place at the time
he was born.

>I believe Thompson indicated that Ozma lived with Mombi for about 9
>years (I can't recall the exact quotes... I think one mention is in
>Jack Pumpkinhead of Oz).

Actually, I think that's the ONLY mention.  In Chapter 1, Jack is telling
Peter about Tip.  Thompson writes, "For nearly nine years, Tip had lived in
Mombi's hut, entirely ignorant of the fact that he was the real ruler of
Oz."  This isn't presented as a quote, but, from context, it appears to be
part of the story that Jack is relating to Peter, so it's possible that the
figure is a mistake.  Jack admits a few pages earlier that he is "not very
good at remembering," and, slightly later, that his current head is "still a
bit green."  If we take the figure at face value, however, Ozma must have
remained a baby throughout most of the Wizard's reign, and it was some years
after the Wizard arrived that he gave Ozma to Mombi.

>So for about 145 years the fairy Ozma remained an infant? If indeed
>no one aged in Oz from the time of the enchantment, I suppose this
>isn't too unusual. Aging seems to have been in effect during the
>Wizard's, the Scarecrow's, and Jinjur's reigns, so this would have
>allowed her to grow up.

This seems to be buying into the theory that some effects of the enchantment
were suspended during the reigns of usurpers, which I believe Michael
Patrick Hearn first suggested.

>I'd never really thought about this until I reread Mimics, and it
>puts a slight change on my theories of ancient Oz history. The dates
>I used are just estimates (except for the dates regarding Omaha).

The definite suggestion given by MAGICAL MIMICS is that 200 years passed in
between the enchantment and the events of the book itself.  This number
might well be approximate, but I find it doubtful that it refers to, say,
less than 150 or more than 250 years.  It certainly wouldn't be the 700
years that some researchers have suggested, although maybe there was more
than one enchantment.

If the enchantment DID take place in the mid-eighteenth century, then it
wouldn't have been responsible for all magic in Oz, as Robert Pattrick seems
to assume in his essay about early Ozian history.  Ironically, Pattrick
might well have taken this assumption from MAGICAL MIMICS itself, where Snow
writes (on p. 21), "From the time of Lurline's visit, Oz became a fairyland,
abounding in enchantments and strange happenings.  Indeed, several of the
inhabitants of Oz fell to studying the magic arts and became witches and
magicians, very nearly preventing Ozma from becoming the rightful ruler of
the fairyland."  TIN WOODMAN, on the other hand, says (on p. 158), "Also,
when Oz first became a fairyland, it harbored several witches and magicians
and sorcerers and necromancers, who were scattered in various parts."  The
implication seems to be that the magicians were already there when Oz became
a fairyland, and this fits with the Scarecrow's statement on p. 207 that the
WWE "was very old and was all dried up and withered before Oz became a
fairyland."  So, regardless of Snow's oversimplified statement (obviously
not ALL of the magicians were trying to prevent Ozma from becoming the ruler
of Oz; Glinda, for instance, was probably the person most instrumental in
having her restored to the throne), I think there must have been
magic-workers in Oz before the enchantment.

What DID the enchantment do, though?  According to TIN WOODMAN, it prevented
people from aging and dying.  There doesn't seem to be any indication of
this in MAGICAL MIMICS, however, and Snow actually writes (on p. 20),
"When the baby fairy attained her full age of girlhood (no fairy ever appears to
be older than a young girl of fourteen or fifteen) she was to be crowned
Princess Ozma of Oz."  The "fourteen or fifteen" fits with what we're told
of Ozma's apparent age in TIN WOODMAN, but Lurline expects Ozma herself to
age.  Also, is she supposed to replace the old king (Pastoria?) when she
reaches this age, or does Lurline expect him to die before then?  Neither
turns out to be true, but Lurline presumably wouldn't have anticipated the
events described in LOST KING (although that book suggests that she made
sure Pastoria would not be restored until Ozma's reign had been firmly
established).

According to YELLOW KNIGHT, the Corumbians and Samandrans were immortal
about 700 years before the events of that book, and there are hints in
PURPLE PRINCE and WONDER CITY that people in other parts of Oz have lived
considerably more than 200 years.  On the other hand, these references seem
to be the exception rather than the rule.  If they are the results of an
earlier enchantment, then this enchantment presumably did not affect all
parts of the country in the same way, or at the same time.

None of the FF accounts of the enchantment (TIN WOODMAN, GLINDA, and MAGICAL
MIMICS) give any indication that it was responsible for such aspects of Oz
as talking animals and flora like book trees, but some people seem to assume
that it was.  I made two polls some time ago about when the enchantment took
place and what it did, and the results, as might be expected, were so
scattered as to be totally inconclusive.  Really, it's difficult to come up
with an account of the enchantment that fits all of the references in the
FF, let alone apocryphal stories.

I believe the HACC has Pastoria becoming King in 1826, which seems contrary
to the idea that he ruled 200 years prior to MAGICAL MIMICS.  Was this year
based on anything in particular?

>One side note: Snow mentions that there were no wars in ancient Oz,
>but Thompson's Silence Stone was used by "the ancient Emperors of Oz
>to keep their wives quiet in times of war."

The actual reference, on p. 20, says, "Hence destructive and terrible wars
were unknown in Oz even in the olden days."  We see several wars (or events
that certain characters refer to as wars, anyway) in the Oz series, but I
can't remember any of them being particularly "destructive and terrible,"
and the ones fought by the ancient Emperors might not have been, either. 
Also, the period of the "ancient Emperors" might predate the "olden days"
mentioned by Snow.  Neither is very precise, after all.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:57:45 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Enchanted for 200 years

Michael Vincent wrote:
<<"I have dwelt on this forsaken mountain top with no human companions
for more than two hundred years." Ozana (Magical Mimics p. 123)

Lurline left Ozana to monitor the Mimics after enchanting Oz and
leaving the infant Ozma with King Pastoria, so it seems that Snow is
implying that the enchantment took place more than 200 years before
the events of Magical Mimics.>>

It's possible to read Ozana's statement to mean that it's been over 200
years since she had a human companion on her mountain, even though she's
been on the mountain for longer than that.

Are there other remarks in MAGICAL MIMICS that indicate Ozana has NEVER
had a human visitor since Lurline stationed her there?

When it comes to time, I'm always wary of trying to compare the
experience of immortals like Ozana with our human scale. Which is not to
say that 200 years isn't the same for both fairies and humans. Rather,
what could seem to us like an immensely long time to be an infant or to
guard a mountain or to be shut inside an egg could be a mere whiff of
time to an immortal. Then again, Baum was quite clear that immortals can
eventually get bored.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:03:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: MIMICS illustrations

I have never been much of a fan of Frank Kramer's
illustrations for either of the two Oz books he worked
on, although I have to admit that occasonally I find
individual pictures (or, even, elements of pictures)
enjoyable.  Most of the work I find dark and stilted,
and while he obviously patterned himself after John R.
Neill's example, he rarely achieved the beauty or wit
Neill was capable of in his best work.  Of the two
books, I consider Kramer's efforts in SHAGGY MAN more
successful (there's more ease in the style), but of
course the task in MIMICS must have been daunting--to
be the first new Oz illustrator in forty years--and
that may account for the art's inconsistant tone. 

I like the picture of the Scarecrow and his squirrel
companion puzzling over a retreating Dorothy, even
though Dorothy herself seems awkward with rubbery arms
(p. 60). 

On p. 65, there's a good picture of Trot, Cap'n Bill,
Scraps and the Scarecrow eavesdropping on the false
Dorothy and Wizard, but Cap'n Bill appears to be
wearing a pith helmet rather than his usual sailor's
cap. 

The Sawhorse looks very much himself, speeding along
on p. 164. 

There's great drama in the picture of the Scarecrow
bound and threatened by fire (p. 191), but our stuffed
friend seems to have sprouted a pair of odd, beak-like
lips.  (Both Scraps and the Scarecow have similar lips
on p. 155.) 

The endpapers are quite attractive even though I find
it an odd choice to dramatize such a terrifying moment
from the story.  The space is well utilized and
there's some action which makes it surprising that
rest of Kramer's double page illustrations are so
static and filled with empty space.  Part of what
makes the endpapers so nice is the attention Kramer
pays to the architechture of Ozma's palace.  That
said, the rest of the buildings in the book feel
particularly unappealing to me.  Ozana's cottage (pp.
114-5) must be the least romantic place a fairy has
ever lived, looking more like an out-building at a
dilapidated summer camp than anything else.  And I
can't imagine the meticulous Mr. and Mrs. Hi-Lo being
very happy in the rough-hewn interior of the cabin
Kramer provides for them (pp. 90-1). 

A number of the illustrations seem directly lifted
from Neill's earlier work.  The stately wing of Ozma's
palace in the endpapers looks very much like the left
wing of the palace of Ev (OZMA pp.73 & 97).  And isn't
another view of the palace (p. 234) really just the
facade of Wogglebug College from EMERALD CITY?  The
picture of Ozana on p. 230, almost could have been
traced from Neill's portrait of Gloria of Jinxland
(SCARECROW p. 150). 

Oddest of all are the occasions when Kramer's
illustrations contradict the known habits of the
Ozites.  He shows both the Tin Woodman and the
Sawhorse sleeping (pp. 54 & 220), the Scarecrow and
the Tin Woodman about to drink liquid (p. 240), and
Toto seems to change breed and color throughout. 

In his afterword to the Oz Club edition of MIMICS,
Michael Gessel suggests that while he had some
reservations about Kramer's work, overall Snow liked
it and fought for him to be his illustrator.  There
must have been other artists more qualified, and I'd
be curious to see some of Kramer's other, non-Oz, work
to see what made him so appealing to Snow. 

Alan Wise

Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:32:46 -0500
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: RE: MAGICAL MIMICS Book of Records, odd illustrations, and Ozana

J. L. Bell:
>Thanks, Nathan DeHoff, for sharing the quote from GARDENER'S BOY,
>reflecting Phyllis Ann Karr's thoughts on how the Great Book of Records
>could work. I'm not won over by the idea that the book would run out, or
>erase old material; Glinda (in my conception) wouldn't like to lose any
>information!

Well, maybe she has a way to copy the old information into other reference
books.

>For an equally noncanonical viewpoint, here's an approximation from one
>of my manuscripts of what a page in the Book would be like to read.

There is something similar in RED REERA THE YOOKOOHOO AND THE ENCHANTED
EASTER EGGS OF OZ.  By the way, I noticed that you apparently consider
Swift's Lilliput to be a real place within the confines of your Oz fiction.

>As you'll see, I don't trust Ruggedo's statement that the Book doesn't
>record animals' actions. (How would he know, after all?)

I don't think he would, but he must have gotten that impression from
somewhere.

Alan Wise:
>Oddest of all are the occasions when Kramer's
>illustrations contradict the known habits of the
>Ozites.  He shows both the Tin Woodman and the
>Sawhorse sleeping (pp. 54 & 220), the Scarecrow and
>the Tin Woodman about to drink liquid (p. 240), and
>Toto seems to change breed and color throughout.

The Scarecrow and Nick Chopper making a toast doesn't necessarily mean
they're planning on drinking the liquid.  It could just be symbolic. 

Remember in ROAD, when the party guests who couldn't drink raised their cups
to their lips to be polite?

John Bell again:
>It's possible to read Ozana's statement to mean that it's been over 200
>years since she had a human companion on her mountain, even though she's
>been on the mountain for longer than that.
>
>Are there other remarks in MAGICAL MIMICS that indicate Ozana has NEVER
>had a human visitor since Lurline stationed her there?

Well, we know from her statement on p. 123 that "apparently the Mimics took
no captives they thought important enough to occupy the Cavern of the Doomed
until they made you [Dorothy and the Wizard] prisoners."  That doesn't
necessarily mean that other companions couldn't have come to the mountain
top by means other than the cavern and the elevator.  I don't think anyone

would do so willingly, however, except possibly a fellow fairy.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004  4:10 pm
Subject: mimics & kramer & records book & courage

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> Incidentally, p. 39 [of "Magical Mimics"] says that both Lurline and "her
fairy companion" (presumably Ozana) "both spread their fairy wings and flew
straight to the very summit of the hollow mount," yet Ozana is never
described as having wings later in the book, and she needs her swans to help
her cross the Deadly Desert.  If this "fairy companion" WAS Ozana, what
happened to her wings? <
 
Perhaps being winged or non-winged is a matter of choice, and Ozana had
found she felt more comfortable using swan-transport. Or perhaps it's a
matter of choice, and it isn't that she needed swan-tranport on her own, but
she figured it would be a lot more comfortable than sprouting out her wings
(like the peers and private Willis at the end of "Iolanthe") and hefting a
mortal under each arm all the way to Oz.
 
TIN WOODMAN > says (on p. 158), "Also, when Oz first became a fairyland, it
harbored several witches and magicians and sorcerers and necromancers, who
were scattered in various parts."  The implication seems to be that the
magicians were already there when Oz became a fairyland, <
 
It could be meant to imply that, but it could also be meant to imply that
during the first few years following the enchantment there were many such
magicians there, without necessarily giving information about whether they
were already magicians and living there at the first moment of the
enchantment. First moment seems the more natural reading, but
first-years-following-enchantment would be possible, too.
 
Alan Wise <alanmacwise at ...> wrote:
> I have never been much of a fan of Frank Kramer's illustrations for either
of the two Oz books he worked on, although I have to admit that occasonally
I find individual pictures (or, even, elements of pictures) enjoyable.  Most
of the work I find dark and stilted, and while he obviously patterned
himself after John R. Neill's example, he rarely achieved the beauty or wit
Neill was capable of in his best work.  Of the two books, I consider
Kramer's efforts in SHAGGY MAN more successful (there's more ease in the
style), but of course the task in MIMICS must have been daunting--to be the
first new Oz illustrator in forty years--and that may account for the art's
inconsistant tone.  <
 
I think my feelings about Kramer's artwork are about the same.
 
Ruth Berman

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004  10:35 am
Subject: mimics illos

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> The Scarecrow and Nick Chopper making a toast doesn't necessarily mean
they're planning on drinking the liquid.  It could just be symbolic.
Remember in ROAD, when the party guests who couldn't drink raised their cups
to their lips to be polite? <
 
Sounds lilke a good solution to that point. Any thoughts on the other oddity
Alan mentioned, of illos of Twin Woodman and Sawhorse asleep? (I don't
recall the illos clearly enough to comment -- maybe I can remember to look
at them again.) (And for the other oddity, of Toto's changing appearance,
Kramer could probably argue that he was just following Neill's example!)
 
Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:57:00 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at tc.umn.edu>
Subject: mimics illos

Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oddest of all are the occasions when Kramer's illustrations contradict the
known habits of the Ozites.  He shows both the Tin Woodman and the Sawhorse
sleeping (pp. 54 & 220) <

I forgot to check the Sawhorse example, but I looked at the Tin Woodman, and
I don't think Kramer was necessarily thinking of him as sleeping. He's
leaning back in a chair with his eyes closed, and a meat person you saw like
that would probably be asleep, but might possibly be just relaxing (or, as
the euphemism has it, "resting his eyes" -- which in practical terms means
asleep in a moment even if not quite there yet). It occurs to me to wonder
if the Tin Woodman could have dreams in such a state of relaxation, although
not asleep. Studies of dreams have found that a person sitting quietly,
without other stimuli about, is likely to start dreaming, although the
dreams are usually less vivid and complex than sleep-dreams.

Paging through, I noticed again and was tickled by the illo of Toto as
Sherlock Holmes, with deerstalker and pipe and magnifying glass,
investigating suspicious footprints. (As a Sherlockian, I enjoy noticing
such references.)

Ruth Berman

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004  12:38 pm
Subject: mimics, emerald city, dragons

I looked again at the illo of the Sawhorse asleep, and I think that's a more
difficult case than the one of the Tin Woodman with eyes closed. In both, it
could be suggested that the character is relaxing, not asleep -- but the
Sawhorse's pose doesn't look particularly relaxed, stretched out that way. A
dog in that position would be comfortable and probably asleep, but horses
don't lie down to sleep, and it doesn't actually look as if it would be
comfortable for sawhorses, either. (I can't really think of what Kramer
might have drawn instead that would make it visually clear that the Sawhorse
was not paying attention to Uncle Henry's researches -- maybe leaving the
Sawhorse out of the illo would have been the only other possibility.)
 
Ruth Berman