Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:02:21 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] mcgraws' influences?

Over on the IWOC message board, a Jason has raised a question about
influences on the McGraws' "Rundelstone," and that might be a topic of
interest here. His suggestions are that Slyddwyn is like Slytherin ("Harry 
Potter"); there's a combination of transformation, discovering an evil plot,
getting mixed up with magic, getting arrested, and a Countess (individually,
these are all very common plot elements, and I don't know what particular
story he has in mind for the combination), having the villain jeer at the
Cowardly Lion as a "tame and toothless lion" (the reference is probably to
villains who jeer at Aslan in the Narnia books); and having one stone to
rule the other stones (as in Tolkien's "one ring to rule them all").

"VoVat" commented that he thought Slyddwyn was named in the earlier (around
1980) version of the story, which would be too early for any HP influence.
The resemblance of the names is maybe more than it looks if one assumes that
the Welsh-looking spelling includes pronouncing "dd" as the hard "th" of
words like "the." But I got the feeling (from some sentences that looked as
if they were meant to be alliterating -- I forget now just how they went)
that the McGraws were pronouncing it just "d," so the resemblance isn't all
that close, anyway. VoVat also commented that he thought influence on both
by Norse mythology might explain resemblances between EJM's work and
Tolkien's. Is there something in Norse mythology comparable to the control
of a group of magic items by a master-key sort of central item, though?
Anyone seriously active in fantasy-writing in the past half century is
likely to have read Tolkien and been influenced by his work, so this
particular resemblance might be an example of Tolkien's influence -- are
there other elements in EJM's books that suggest Tolkien's influence? I
can't seem to think of much of anything else offhand.

We talked here earlier about probable influence of Georgette Heyer in the
portrayal of Toby and his highwayman's slang in "Forgotten Fountain," and
there's certainly a lot of Anglophile attitude in such elements as an
aristocracy, heraldry, and fox-hunting (although, as was pointed out here,
there are US fox-hunting types, too). I seem to recall there was a kind of
British tone to her Easter bunny, too? (Although the other examples of
stories about Easter bunnies that I recall offhand are American -- is this a
figure more popular in US than in UK?) Poco the puppet probably is a bit
influenced not by an English story, but an Italian one -- a touch of
Pinocchio.

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:49:28 -0500
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] mcgraws' influences?

Ruth:
>VoVat also commented that he thought influence on both by Norse mythology
>might explain resemblances between EJM's work and Tolkien's. Is there
>something in Norse mythology comparable to the control of a group of magic
>items by a master-key sort of central item, though?

"VoVat" is my username on that board, and my mention of Norse mythology was
based more on the fact that both the Ring and the Rundelstone had runic
writing on them.  I would imagine that both magic rings and stones show up 
in mythology, as well as any other sources.  I really don't know whether
there are earlier occurrences of one magic item controlling others that
appear earlier than Tolkien's One Ring, but I don't think the Rundelstone
bears enough resemblance to the Ring to make a connection seem likely.  That
said, McGraw probably had read Tolkien, so it's possible that she took the
basic idea of one magic item controlling others from his work.

>Poco the puppet probably is a bit influenced not by an English story, but
>an Italian one -- a touch of Pinocchio.

Indeed, Poco says that his creator's name is Angeletto, which strikes me as
close enough to "Gepetto" to make the reference explicit.  Alos, all of the
Troopadours have Italian-sounding names.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:14:06 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] mcgraw influences, oz measurements, catch-up readings, newsnotes

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff"
<xornom at hotmail.com> wrote:
> my mention of Norse mythology was based more on the fact that both the
> Ring and the Rundelstone had runic writing on them.  I would imagine that
> both magic rings and stones show up in mythology, as well as any other
> sources.  I really don't know whether there are earlier occurrences of one
> magic item controlling others that appear earlier than Tolkien's One Ring, 
> but I don't think the Rundelstone bears enough resemblance to the Ring to
> make a connection seem likely.  That said, McGraw probably had read
> Tolkien, so it's possible that she took the basic idea of one magic item
> controlling others from his work. >

Oh, yes, I suppose the use of runes at all might be some Tolkienish
influence -- although your suggestion that it's more likely to be
acquaintance with Norse mythology sounds likely.

> Poco says that his creator's name is Angeletto, which strikes me as close
> enough to "Gepetto" to make the reference [to "Pinocchio"] explicit.
> Alos, all of the Troopadours have Italian-sounding names. <

Yes, that sounds likely. The Troopadours pretty much have to have Italianate
names, because they have names that are musical tempo indications (and
musical words for tempo are mostly Italian), but with a live puppet as the
main character, I'd guess that there was a touch of "Pinocchio" in there
first, and then they decided to make the names musical, although the other
way round would be possible, too.

(We should probably try to remember to think about  possible indications of
"Pinocchio" and Norse myth in "Rundelstone" -- and maybe Tolkien -- when it
comes up for discussion as book-to-discuss.)

David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com> wrote:
> In a talk she gave at a Winkie convention in 1993 or 1994, McGraw
> specifically stated that the character of Toby was a tribute she and
> Lauren paid to Heyer. I found a Heyerish atmosphere even in the
> fox-hunting section of Merry-Go-Round (which I read about the time I was
> also reading Heyer for the first time), so I was pleased to know that the
> McGraws were Heyer fans. <

Heyer seems odd as an influence on a fairyland so distinctively American as
Oz, but the results seem to work well with the McGraws, don't they!

Ruth Berman

Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 22:22:36 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: RUNDELSTONE sources

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
>>Poco the puppet probably is a bit influenced not by an English story, but
>>an Italian one -- a touch of Pinocchio.
>
> Indeed, Poco says that his creator's name is Angeletto, which strikes me as
> close enough to "Gepetto" to make the reference explicit.  Alos, all of the
> Troopadours have Italian-sounding names.

I think the puppets' names are all musical terms--Italian indeed, but in
a particular way. Poco's full name is Pocotristi Sostenuto:
Little-Sad-Love-Song Sustained.

But maybe I'm thinking of similar characters, like "Allegro de Capo" and
(with a misspelling along the way) Condoleezza Rice?

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 23:01:18 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] Re: RUNDELSTONE sources

J. L. Bell:
>Nathan DeHoff wrote:
>>>Poco the puppet probably is a bit influenced not by an English story, but
>>>an Italian one -- a touch of Pinocchio.
>>
>>Indeed, Poco says that his creator's name is Angeletto, which strikes me
>>as close enough to "Gepetto" to make the reference explicit.  Alos, all of
>>the Troopadours have Italian-sounding names.
>
>I think the puppets' names are all musical terms--Italian indeed, but in a
>particular way. Poco's full name is Pocotristi Sostenuto:
>Little-Sad-Love-Song Sustained.
>
>But maybe I'm thinking of similar characters, like "Allegro de Capo" and
>(with a misspelling along the way) Condoleezza Rice?

The other puppets' names are Largo Doloroso, Scherzo Con Brio, Allegra
Arpeggia, Bravado Solo, and Dame Andante.  Their leader is Maestroissimo
Pizzicato Furioso.  I'm not familiar with all of those words, but the ones I
recognize are indeed musical terms.  I wonder if Eloise McGraw had the
Musicker in mind when she named these characters.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:45:03 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] dwj, marconi, ozmapolitan, bugle, rundelstone

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com> wrote:
> The other ["Rundelstone"] puppets' names are Largo Doloroso, Scherzo Con
> Brio, Allegra Arpeggia, Bravado Solo, and Dame Andante.  Their leader is
> Maestroissimo Pizzicato Furioso.  I'm not familiar with all of those
> words, but the ones I recognize are indeed musical terms.  I wonder if
> Eloise McGraw had the Musicker in mind when she named these characters.
<

Yes, they're all musical terms -- slow sad, jokingly with spirit, cheerfully
in broken-harp-like-chords, boldly alone, Slow (but not the Dame part, which
is an English-from-French title), and greatest master pluckingly-furiously.
I don't think their carver Angelotto has a musical name, although
"angel-like" would probably be accepted on a musical score as implying
something comprehensible about how to play the passage. But it isn't a
standard musical term, so far as I recall.

Ruth Berman

Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 15:32:12 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] rundelstone, central oz, doubles

So I re-read "Rundelstone" this weekend, and enjoyed it a lot. Poco is quite
an attractive protagonist -- a sort of un-Pinocchio. Where :Pinocchio is
irresponsible and adventure-loving and longs to be a Real Boy (and at least
in the Disney version hates being on the stage under the bossy director -- 
but I don't remember if there's a corresponding episode in Collodi's book),
Poco is dutiful, shy, needing more self-esteem, but is very happy being a
live puppet, and loves the life of a traveling theater-troop. I also like
his analyses of his fellow-puppets in figuring out who's been transformed
into which, the peacock being obvious to him as their star actor, and the
darning-egg at first not obvious at all but finally clear to him as the
unobtrusive helpfulness of Dame Andante. (Must be the first time since
"Ozma" that an Oz story had made use of a darning egg.) The story doesn't
explain how he and the others come to be alive, but I suppose we can guess
that the carver Angeletto (their Gepetto equivalent) mixed a bit of magic in
the carving.

A discussion over the the IWOC bulletin board quite a while back mentioned
Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" as an influence on the story -- one
rundelstone, rather than one ring, to rule the other ones and obtain ruling
power over the realm involved, and an inscription in an ancient alphabet
incised on it. I think there may indeed be a bit of Tolkien influence
involved there, but it seems rather slight -- the rundelstone does not have
any particular tendency to evil, or to control of its user, and that makes a
big difference in mood and plotting.

As in her other Oz books, there's a strong Anglophile aspect to the
portrayal of Oz society, with an aristocracy presented as important both in
Ozma's court and in ruling the territories, with a larger element of
snobbish pride among the aristocrats (as compared, say, to RPT's jollier,
more democratic rulers, who do more mixing among the people and look to the
people rather to an aristocracy for their friends and assistants). And, as
with her other Oz books, it seems an un-Ozzy aspect to me, but the
characterizations and the writing are so entertaining that I'm not really
put off by this one somewhat out-of-key element.

In this re-reading, I noticed a couple of small plot glitches that hadn't
occurred to me before. In chapter 14, Poco worries that he may turn himself
green if he uses the rundelstone by daylight to turn Counsin Mal and the
other gillihens back into their aristocratic selves -- but he's already
turned all his fellow Troopadors back into themselves, including several by
daylight, so he should already know that Slyddwyn was lying in saying that
the transformations had to be done in the middle of the night on penalty of
turning green.  Also, when Poco tells Ozma & co. what's been going on
(chapter 13), Dorothy exclaims "So _that's_ what the Great Book meant!" -- 
but so far as the story tells, we have no idea that Dorothy consulted
Glinda's Great Book or what it said. Chapter 1 had left hanging Pernilda's
worry over the long silence from her family, with only Ozma's promise that
they could look in the Magic Picture to find out what's wrong. And when Ozma
& co. arrive, they make reference to having so looked, but there's no
explanation of when or why they consulted Glinda as well. Eric Shanower,
however, supplied a picture of the implied scene, showing Dorothy and the
Lion on the "this book belongs to" page consulting the Great Book.

Probably more comments later.

Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:38:53 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] Various RUNDELSTONE matters

Ruth:
>A discussion over the the IWOC bulletin board quite a while back mentioned
>Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" as an influence on the story -- one 
>rundelstone, rather than one ring, to rule the other ones and obtain ruling 
>power over the realm involved, and an inscription in an ancient alphabet
>incised on it. I think there may indeed be a bit of Tolkien influence
>involved there, but it seems rather slight -- the rundelstone does not have 
>any particular tendency to evil, or to control of its user, and that makes
>a big difference in mood and plotting.

Well, this fits with the general theme of magical items in Oz being
inherently neutral.  People can use them for good or evil, but they don't
corrupt people like Tolkien's One Ring did.  I think this might have been
something that Robert Pattrick pointed out in his essay on Oz magic, and
I've seen it other places as well.

>As in her other Oz books, there's a strong Anglophile aspect to the
>portrayal of Oz society, with an aristocracy presented as important both in 
>Ozma's court and in ruling the territories, with a larger element of
>snobbish pride among the aristocrats (as compared, say, to RPT's jollier,
>more democratic rulers, who do more mixing among the people and look to the 
>people rather to an aristocracy for their friends and assistants).

Ozma having ladies in waiting sort of seems to come out of nowhere, although
there's some precedent for it.  There are the nobles in WIZARD who "had
nothing to do but talk to each other, but they always came to wait outside
the Throne Room every morning, although they were never permitted to see
Oz."  Ojo's trial in PATCHWORK GIRL is attended by "many of the nobility of
the Emerald City, lords and ladies in beautiful costumes, and officials of
the kingdom in the royal uniforms of Oz."  Since these nobles don't seem to
have any real function, though, I have to wonder why Lady Pernilda says her
husband's future was in the Emerald City.  What, exactly, is Sir Nevilard
doing there?

One other thing I noticed about RUNDELSTONE was that there was more of a
hint to a Gillikin national identity than in many previous books.  Pernilda
comes from a "very old Gillikin family."  The Gillikins have their own
newspaper (mentioned in Chapter 5), and Poco recognizes Shmodda as a
"Foreign Fella" because he doesn't dress like a Gillikin.

I enjoyed Shmodda's history of Fyordi-Zik, and mentions of the various fauna
that live there.  Considering that the two clans he mentions by name (Aximok
and Trumm-nun) are included in the Rundel, I'm guessing it's simply a list
of the names of all the clans.

I think this has been discussed before, but the passage in Chapter 6 saying
that a lot of Ozian animals don't bother talking strikes me as somewhat out
of place.  In all other Oz books, it's quite rare to see an animal that
doesn't talk.  I do recall a mention in GLINDA that a lot of fish are too
stupid to talk, but this never seems to apply to dogs, rabbits, or chickens.
  The implication is that Slyddwyn made it so the animals couldn't talk, but
I think Poco and Rolly should have found this to be suspicious long before
they actually did.

The reference to Rolly's Pa "sitting over a mug of plum wine with a couple 
of vagabond friends" is probably the most blatant mention of alcohol in Oz. 
It's not at all unlikely that the "courage" the Cowardly Lion drinks in
WIZARD is an alcoholic beverage, but it's never specifically stated.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:49:01 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] courtiers, animals, drinks, etc.

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ozma having ladies in waiting sort of seems to come out of nowhere,
> although there's some precedent for it.  There are the nobles in WIZARD
> who "had nothing to do but talk to each other, but they always came to
> wait outside the Throne Room every morning, although they were never
> permitted to see Oz."  Ojo's trial in PATCHWORK GIRL is attended by "many
> of the nobility of the Emerald City, lords and ladies in beautiful
> costumes, and officials of the kingdom in the royal uniforms of Oz."
> Since these nobles don't seem to have any real function, though, I have to 
> wonder why Lady Pernilda says her husband's future was in the Emerald
> City.  What, exactly, is Sir Nevilard doing there? >

Historically speaking, the courtiers hanging around a court are usually
people hoping to get a job there or hoping to ask the monarch for some
special favor if they can just get an appointment to talk to said monarch.
(Special favors tend to be such things as permission to take on some
lucrative post, like administering taxes, where you get to skim off a lot
before turning the takings over  to the government.) Neither of these
situations really seems to apply in Oz. Ozma has lots of people in the
palace who have jobs there (Jellia Jamb only the most notable of them), but
their jobs don't seem to parlay into the kind of influence and power that
made it so desirable in our world to be Master or Mistress of the King's or
Queen's Bedchamber, Stables, Kitchen, and such. Sir Nevilard might be doing
or hoping to do something of the sort, but there's no real indication in the
books that Ozma's court works that way, and assorted indications that it
doesn't.

> One other thing I noticed about RUNDELSTONE was that there was more of a
> hint to a Gillikin national identity than in many previous books.
> Pernilda comes from a "very old Gillikin family."  The Gillikins have
> their own newspaper (mentioned in Chapter 5), and Poco recognizes Shmodda
> as a "Foreign Fella" because he doesn't dress like a Gillikin.
>

It's usually the Munchkins, with their bell-brimmed hats and ancient
kingships, who seem to be more nationality-conscious in the other books,
isn't it?

> I think this has been discussed before, but the passage in Chapter 6
> saying that a lot of Ozian animals don't bother talking strikes me as
> somewhat out of place.  In all other Oz books, it's quite rare to see an
> animal that doesn't talk.  I do recall a mention in GLINDA that a lot of
> fish are too stupid to talk, but this never seems to apply to dogs,
> rabbits, or chickens. The implication is that Slyddwyn made it so the
> animals couldn't talk, but I think Poco and Rolly should have found this
> to be suspicious long before they actually did. >

Hmm. I kind of like the idea that Oz animals don't talk much on their own.
Some Oz animals are quick to speak up when they seem humans acting oddly and
ask what's doing (I think -- I can't seem to come up with examples, although
I vaguely recall that a fox initiates conversation to ask what Merry and
Robin are up to), but the idea that many might be more inclined not to speak
unless spoken to seems to me to fit with the tendency among the animal
characters to have descriptors (like Cowardly Lion) instead of personal
names (there are some, but not a lot).

> The reference to Rolly's Pa "sitting over a mug of plum wine with a couple
> of vagabond friends" is probably the most blatant mention of alcohol in
> Oz.  It's not at all unlikely that the "courage" the Cowardly Lion drinks
> in WIZARD is an alcoholic beverage, but it's never specifically stated.
<

Lacasa is specifically a non-alcoholic beverage, as I recall. And coffee
seems to have been Baum's drink of choice. Still, I suppose it's reasonable
to assume some assorted alcoholic beverages available, even though the
conventions of children's books tend to put authors off from saying so. At
least in Oz it's technologically (courtesy of widespread magic) plausible to
have a lot of non-alcoholic drinks available. There are a lot of YA books of
fantasy-adventure-in-a-sort-of-medieval-north-Eurpeanish places where the
authors scrupulously have their characters drinking grape juice or apple
juice in cultures that just wouldn't have grape juice or soft cider
available (except for a few weeks in the year before the grape or apple
harvest has fermented -- as it will do from the ambient wild yeasts even
without encouragement from humans adding yeasts selected to produce
particularly good wines/ciders ). The authors seem to be aware of
geographical problems of availability and don't generally offer these
characters lemonade or coffee or tea. To have soft drinks generally
available, you have to have a culture that can put airtight seals on their
bottles, and it takes a fairly advanced level of technology to do that. And
no one much seems to want a swashbuckling hero sitting around drinking milk
or buttermilk.

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:32:33 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] courtiers, animals, drinks, etc.

Ruth:
>>One other thing I noticed about RUNDELSTONE was that there was more of a
>>hint to a Gillikin national identity than in many previous books.  Pernilda
>>comes from a "very old Gillikin family."  The Gillikins have their own
>>newspaper (mentioned in Chapter 5), and Poco recognizes Shmodda as a
>>"Foreign Fella" because he doesn't dress like a Gillikin.
>
>
>It's usually the Munchkins, with their bell-brimmed hats and ancient
>kingships, who seem to be more nationality-conscious in the other books,
>isn't it?

It often seems that way.  Baum sometimes describes the Gillikin Country as 
the wildest of the four, and I get the impression that it's more of a loose
confederation than the other three (which are fairly loose themselves in
many ways, really).  That said, I don't think the idea of there being some 
patriotic Gillikin nobles in various parts of the country.

>>I think this has been discussed before, but the passage in Chapter 6
>>saying that a lot of Ozian animals don't bother talking strikes me as
>>somewhat out of place.  In all other Oz books, it's quite rare to see an
>>animal that doesn't talk.  I do recall a mention in GLINDA that a lot of
>>fish are too stupid to talk, but this never seems to apply to dogs,
>>rabbits, or chickens. The implication is that Slyddwyn made it so the
>>animals couldn't talk, but I think Poco and Rolly should have found this
>>to be suspicious long before they actually did. >
>
>Hmm. I kind of like the idea that Oz animals don't talk much on their own.
>Some Oz animals are quick to speak up when they seem humans acting oddly
>and ask what's doing (I think -- I can't seem to come up with examples,
>although I vaguely recall that a fox initiates conversation to ask what
>Merry and Robin are up to), but the idea that many might be more inclined
>not to speak unless spoken to seems to me to fit with the tendency among
>the animal characters to have descriptors (like Cowardly Lion) instead of
>personal names (there are some, but not a lot).

Yes, I think that makes sense.  Still, most Ozian animals seem to talk to
humans when they're spoken to, so a few animals that won't is a bit of a
suspicious matter.

>Lacasa is specifically a non-alcoholic beverage, as I recall.

It's described as a kind of nectar.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 14:08:01 -0500
From: David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Gillikins

Nathan:
> Ruth:
>>> One other thing I noticed about RUNDELSTONE was that there was more
>>> of a
>>> hint to a Gillikin national identity than in many previous books.
>>> Pernilda
>>> comes from a "very old Gillikin family."  The Gillikins have their
>>> own
>>> newspaper (mentioned in Chapter 5), and Poco recognizes Shmodda as a
>>> "Foreign Fella" because he doesn't dress like a Gillikin. >
>>
>> It's usually the Munchkins, with their bell-brimmed hats and ancient
>> kingships, who seem to be more nationality-conscious in the other
>> books,
>> isn't it?
>
> It often seems that way.  Baum sometimes describes the Gillikin
> Country as
> the wildest of the four, and I get the impression that it's more of a
> loose
> confederation than the other three (which are fairly loose themselves
> in
> many ways, really).  That said, I don't think the idea of there being 
> some
> patriotic Gillikin nobles in various parts of the country.

In MAGIC Gugu is transformed into "a fat Gillikin woman." This implies
to me that there's something - presumably clothing - distinctive enough
about Gillikins to single them out among the other Oz nationalities.
(Maybe just wearing purple? I don't accept the idea in Neill that the
regional colors extend to the skin color of their human inhabitants.)
Since the Cowardly Lion is transformed into "a Munchkin boy" in the
same sequence it's presumably not just that they're in the Gillikin
country when the transformation occurs.

David Hulan

Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 02:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Location, location, location

Nathan Mulac DeHoff <xornom at hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't think any other FF or QF Oz book is as confined in place as
RUNDELSTONE. Probably the closest would be WONDER CITY, which has most of
its action take place in the Emerald City itself. GLINDA sticks to a small
area, but visits multiple locations within that area (Flathead Mountain, the
Skeezers' island, Reera's hut).

If I'm remembering correctly, in an article for the BUGLE, Eloise McGraw wrote
about how much she admired OZMA OF OZ for the sustained action in the Nome
King's palace.  A single setting seems to be useful in creating tension, a
sense of a mystery, that oppresses the characters as they attempt to solve a
puzzle.  Agatha Christie did it in AND THEN THERE WERE NONE, and it happens
pretty frequently in haunted mansion movies, and even in the Chinese restaurant
episode of Seinfeld which used the trope in a slightly different way. 

Alan Wise

Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:12:03 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: RUNDELSTONE setting

Joe Gardner wrote:
> RUNDELSTONE was also very
> enjoyable, and I thought it was interesting that the
> setting was basically the same for the entire book. I
> can't remember another Oz book like that

Indeed, while most Oz books involve leaving home, involuntarily or not,
Poco's problem is that he feels he *can't* leave.

In one "classic" Oz book structure, there could have been another plot
thread involving a more familiar character having separate adventures
that eventually bring her or him to Slyddwyn's corner of Oz.

Instead, after the first chapter to introduce the possibility of Ozma
intervening (like the opening scene of STAGECOACH, showing the cavalry
that will arrive many reels later), we stay in one place. And the party
from the Emerald City arrives without incident, rather than wandering
all over having adventures.

Not that the book would have been better along those other lines.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:12:15 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Various RUNDELSTONE matters

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> I think this has been discussed before, but the passage in Chapter 6 saying
> that a lot of Ozian animals don't bother talking strikes me as somewhat out
> of place.  In all other Oz books, it's quite rare to see an animal that
> doesn't talk.  I do recall a mention in GLINDA that a lot of fish are too
> stupid to talk, but this never seems to apply to dogs, rabbits, or chickens.
>   The implication is that Slyddwyn made it so the animals couldn't talk, but
> I think Poco and Rolly should have found this to be suspicious long before 
> they actually did.

I made this point when I reviewed the book edition of RUNDELSTONE for
the BUGLE. At the recent Munchkin Convention, publisher David Maxine
told me he'd hoped to address this and other quirks of the book with
Eloise McGraw between its publication in OZ-STORY and the final form.
But alas, the disease that she'd been striving against caught up with
her, and the book was posthumous.

In RINKITINK, Bilbil doesn't explain that he's been transformed from a
man because he's ashamed, and doesn't think he can regain his original
shape. In LOST KING, Pajuka will suffer an even worse fate if he tells
someone in authority about his real shape. Given more time, I'm sure
McGraw could have come up with an explanation along those lines for the
silent animals, and perhaps an even more logical one.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:12:25 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: RUNDELSTONE courtiers

Ruth Berman wrote:
> Historically speaking, the courtiers hanging around a court are usually
> people hoping to get a job there or hoping to ask the monarch for some
> special favor if they can just get an appointment to talk to said monarch.  
> (Special favors tend to be such things as permission to take on some
> lucrative post, like administering taxes, where you get to skim off a lot
> before turning the takings over  to the government.) Neither of these 
> situations really seems to apply in Oz. Ozma has lots of people in the
> palace who have jobs there (Jellia Jamb only the most notable of them), but
> their jobs don't seem to parlay into the kind of influence and power that
> made it so desirable in our world to be Master or Mistress of the King's or
> Queen's Bedchamber, Stables, Kitchen, and such. Sir Nevilard might be doing
> or hoping to do something of the sort, but there's no real indication in the
> books that Ozma's court works that way, and assorted indications that it
> doesn't.

Some analyses of Louis XIV's reign say he built the palace at Versailles
as a way to keep his nobles away from Paris and busy doing meaningless
court things. As a young king, he had been threatened with some revolts,
and creating court society supposedly drained

Ozma wouldn't have the same difficulties, but she too suffered a
deposition in her youth. Having lunch with courtiers on a regular basis
might be a small price to pay for securing their loyalty and their
closeness to the Emerald City, as opposed to their own little kingdoms.
And those courtiers might actually be useful as a sort of ambassador or
representative from their respective corners of the empire.

They'd also round out a party. Much as we think that the royal palace
must be getting very crowded and even more so at the end of every Baum
and Thompson Oz book, the palace still doesn't house anywhere close to
enough named people to fill Mrs. Astor's ballroom, the source of "the
400" at the top of New York society in Baum's time.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Rundelstone Poco's POV

Part of what is so interesting to me about RUNDELSTONE is that it is one few Oz
books that come to mind that spends most of its time describing the action of
the plot from a non-human character's point of view.  Baum was pretty
scrupulous in using children as his main characters, and even Thompson who
occasionally used a non-human to begin a book (like Benny in GIANT HORSE or
Scraps in GNOME KING) reverted pretty quickly to a child character's
view.  Neill's RUNAWAY would be the only other example I can think of that
does this in an extended way.  But Poco is unique, I think, in that he's a
non-human character who actually learns and grows during his adventure so it
seems necessary that we spend most of our time close to his thoughts. 

Looking back at the series, it at first is surprising that non-human characters
are not protagonists more often because they are often readers' favorites and
part of what makes Oz so special.  But Baum, as talented as he was at
creating these celebrities, seemed especially anxious not to use them as leads,
or when he did, he was careful not to give them too human a character. 
Tik Tok speaks specifically about not being human, and even in a book like TIN
WOODMAN where Nick and the Scarecrow are at the center of the action, Baum is
careful to supply Woot who seems to have very little personality of his own
beyond reacting to the adventures of the leads.  Baum, I suspect, liked
his creations very much, but never allowed himself to forget that they were
mostly tongue-in-cheek creations he used to illustrate human foibles. 

Thompson has a slightly different relationship to these characters largely
because, I'd suggest, she grew up with them and believed in the reality of the
Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, et al, more than did Baum. 

Benny's quest to become human, although initially the driving force of one
thread of adventures in the book, largely disappears as a motivation when Trot
becomes involved, only to reoccur at the end.  Benny then drops from
prominence in the series. 

Scraps' adventures in GNOME KING and in RUNAWAY use her point of view, but
she's not interested in becoming "real."  She just wants to have
fun and not be yelled at for her boisterousness. 

Poco, on the other hand, acts very much like a traditional child lead in an Oz
book.  He finds himself in a dire situation and has to use his wits and
luck to escape his problems.  He feels lonesome for his friends, feels
frustration, then joy when things are happily resolved.  But he never
longs to become "real" or human (as one might expect from the
similarities to Pinocchio), and possess some of the satisfaction (albeit
without the smugness) that Baum's non-humans have about being what they
are. 

Alan Wise

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:37:54 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] subverting fantasy, rundelstone details

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Nathan DeHoff wrote:
>>   The implication is that Slyddwyn made it so the animals couldn't talk,
>> but I think Poco and Rolly should have found this to be suspicious long
>> before they actually did. >
> I made this point when I reviewed the book edition of RUNDELSTONE for the
> BUGLE. ... Given more time, I'm sure McGraw could have come up with an
> explanation along those lines for the silent animals, and perhaps an even
> more logical one. >

I think there's an explanation implicit in the assumption that Oz animals
don't usually talk much, in the same way that they don't use names much. It
would be different if Poco and Rolly had thought to ask the rabbits and the
dog, "Why are you hanging around us so much?" But I don't think they would
necessarily find it suspicious that the animals find their activities
interesting enough for kibitzing, and I don't think they would find it
suspicious that the animals don't bother to speak to them to tell them why
they find their activities interesting -- it could be an idle, friendly
curiosity. EJM did know that Oz animals in general can talk -- the donkeys
do a little talking in the opening chapters, after all, and there are other
non-transformed animals talking in the story. So it's not that she forgot
entirely that Oz animals can talk. She did pretty clearly mean readers to
assume that the rabbits and dog don't talk because that was part of the
enchantment they were under, and I think she might have intended readers
also to assume that Poco and Rolly wouldn't find that kind of silence
suspicious all by itself.

Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Part of what is so interesting to me about RUNDELSTONE is that it is one
> few Oz books that come to mind that spends most of its time describing the 
> action of the plot from a non-human character's point of view. Baum was
> pretty scrupulous in using children as his main characters, and even
> Thompson who occasionally used a non-human to begin a book (like Benny in
> GIANT HORSE or Scraps in GNOME KING) reverted pretty quickly to a child
> character's view.  Neill's RUNAWAY would be the only other example I can
> think of that does this in an extended way.  But Poco is unique, I think,
> in that he's a non-human character who actually learns and grows during
> his adventure so it seems necessary that we spend most of our time close
> to his thoughts.  >

Interesting point. As you comment, Poco is in effect a child character
himself, someone who is learning and growing, but having him be so from a
non-human-child perspective is an enjoyable variation on the usual pattern,
with some interesting differences in the kinds of learning and growing he
does.

Ruth Berman

Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:45:13 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] subverting fantasy, rundelstone details

J. L. Bell:
>In one "classic" Oz book structure, there could have been another plot
>thread involving a more familiar character having separate adventures that
>eventually bring her or him to Slyddwyn's corner of Oz.

An interesting thing about that is that an earlier draft of FORBIDDEN
FOUNTAIN apparently included Ozma and Dorothy (both with their memories lost
due to the Water of Oblivion) coming to Whitheraway and joining Poco on his
adventures.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:52:12 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: RUNDELSTONE point of view

Alan Wise wrote:
> Part of what is so interesting to me about RUNDELSTONE is that it is
one few Oz books that come to mind that spends most of its time
describing the action of the plot from a non-human character's point of
view. Baum was pretty scrupulous in using children as his main
characters, and even Thompson who occasionally used a non-human to begin
a book (like Benny in GIANT HORSE or Scraps in GNOME KING) reverted
pretty quickly to a child character's view.>>

An interesting point. There are some crucial passages in KABUMPO that
bring us into Peg Amy's head while she's still a wooden doll--like Poco,
of course. But eventually she turns out to be a real girl, and a much
less interesting one at that.

> Looking back at the series, it at first is surprising that non-human
characters are not protagonists more often because they are often
readers' favorites and part of what makes Oz so special. But Baum, as
talented as he was at creating these celebrities, seemed especially
anxious not to use them as leads, or when he did, he was careful not to
give them too human a character.>>

I think Baum was less attached to a tight point of view than the writers
of today and the last few decades. As early as LAND, he leaves Tip in
the dust for a couple of chapters and follows Jack Pumpkinhead instead.
(There are much shorter passages in WIZARD that are not from Dorothy's
point of view, but she's usually nearby.) And within single scenes, even
when a child-hero is on the scene, Baum might describe the emotions or
thoughts of another character, including a villain.

By today's writing standards, that's a no-no, even though some leading
writers (Philip Pullman) manage the trick just fine. Beginning writers
today are told to stick closely to one character's perspective in each
scene.

> Poco, on the other hand, acts very much like a traditional child lead
> in an Oz book. He finds himself in a dire situation and has to use his
wits and luck to escape his problems. He feels lonesome for his friends,
feels frustration, then joy when things are happily resolved. >>

As I recall, Poco is somewhat cowed and passive compared to most Oz
heroes. He's tied down not just by his circumstances but also by his
psychology. Most of the meat children in the books don't act that way,
perhaps because they're meat.

On my way to and from Princeton, I listened to Eloise McGraw's last
Newbery Honor-winner, THE MOORCHILD. It's a very different story in a
different magical world, but there are some overlaps in terms of mood
and the hero's situation. In both cases, the hero feels trapped in a
situation of grim but inescapable inferiority, and the scene doesn't
shift far geographically.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Gardner <hermiemunster at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] which books for discussion?

--- Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:

> We seem to have run out of Rundelstone ruminations.

I guess I have a few, pertaining to the illustrations
of the mortal girls (and also in WICKED WITCH, which I
also finished somewhat recently). I wasn't a big fan
of the T-shirt and shorts look that Dorothy and them
had. I know their attire did change with the years in
the FF's illustrations, but for me it never seemed to
be this glaring of a change. I think it might have to
do with that this new look seems much more casual than
style of clothes seen in Neill's books (or that casual
clothes just seemed more "nice looking" to me?). One
thing I've always loved about Oz is its
turn-of-the-century/antiquey feeling (or at least,
what my mind perceives to be that feeling, which
probably includes the 1900s-1930s), so these sorts of
things with clothes seem out of place. I think I feel
similarly about technology in Oz... Ozoplanes,
Scalawagons or turntables look (or are drawn) and seem
"old timey" enough for me to be in Oz, but computers,
air conditioners or stereo systems would seem too new
and out of place.

Joe G.

Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:31:44 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] which books for discussion?

Joe Gardner:
>--- Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
>
> > We seem to have run out of Rundelstone ruminations.
>
>I guess I have a few, pertaining to the illustrations
>of the mortal girls (and also in WICKED WITCH, which I
>also finished somewhat recently). I wasn't a big fan
>of the T-shirt and shorts look that Dorothy and them
>had. I know their attire did change with the years in
>the FF's illustrations, but for me it never seemed to
>be this glaring of a change. I think it might have to
>do with that this new look seems much more casual than
>style of clothes seen in Neill's books (or that casual
>clothes just seemed more "nice looking" to me?).

While I don't know much at all about early twentieth century styles, I get
the impression from the Oz books that the gingham dresses we often see
Dorothy wearing were considered casual wear at the time.

>One thing I've always loved about Oz is its
>turn-of-the-century/antiquey feeling (or at least,
>what my mind perceives to be that feeling, which
>probably includes the 1900s-1930s), so these sorts of
>things with clothes seem out of place. I think I feel
>similarly about technology in Oz... Ozoplanes,
>Scalawagons or turntables look (or are drawn) and seem
>"old timey" enough for me to be in Oz, but computers,
>air conditioners or stereo systems would seem too new
>and out of place.

What about electric lights and elevators?

I agree to an extent that Oz should maintain somewhat of a quaint image by
our standards.  I mean, Baum and his successors introduced some aspects of 
modern (to them) technology into Oz, but left out others.  There's never
been any indication that Oz has railroads or steamships, for instance.  When
things like Ozoplanes and Scalawagons appear, they're usually Outside World
technology with a twist.  The Ozoplanes, with their balloon attachments and
magical controls, don't operate like the airplanes we know.  The Scalawagons 
are pretty weird in their design, and no post-Neill authors used them
anyway.  In some cases, I get the impression that Ozian magic makes certain
Outside World advances unnecessary.  I wouldn't be surprised, for instance,
to find that Ozma's palace has a magical cooling system that would make our
air conditioning obsolete.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:10:04 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] technology in oz

Joe Gardner <hermiemunster at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I guess I have a few [Rundelstonings], pertaining to the illustrations of
> the mortal girls (and also in WICKED WITCH, which I also finished somewhat 
> recently). I wasn't a big fan of the T-shirt and shorts look that Dorothy
> and them had. I know their attire did change with the years in the FF's
> illustrations, but for me it never seemed to be this glaring of a change.
> <

I had a similar feeling initially, but the shirt/shorts look in Eric S.'s Oz
illos has come to look increasingly attractive to me as I've gotten used to
it. As various people have pointed out, shorts (or slacks) are so
overwhelmingly more comfortable and practical for trekking around, that it
seems highly likely that Dorothy and other girls in Oz would take up the
fashion, once they became aware of the shift in US social standards that
made such wear generally acceptable.

> I think it might have to do with that this new look seems much more casual 
> than style of clothes seen in Neill's books (or that casual clothes just
> seemed more "nice looking" to me?). <

I think Nathan is right that gingham dresses are equivalently casual.

> One thing I've always loved about Oz is its turn-of-the-century/antiquey
> feeling (or at least, what my mind perceives to be that feeling, which
> probably includes the 1900s-1930s), so these sorts of things with clothes
> seem out of place. I think I feel similarly about technology in Oz...
> Ozoplanes, Scalawagons or turntables look (or are drawn) and seem "old
> timey" enough for me to be in Oz, but computers, air conditioners or
> stereo systems would seem too new and out of place. >

There's a difference here between the technology and the look. Presumably
computers and the rest could be drawn/described in ways that would
look/sound appropriate to Oz, even though the underlying technology would be
recent. Baum liked to put up-to-date technological references (like the live
phonograph, or the mentions of radium and electricity) into the stories.

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree to an extent that Oz should maintain somewhat of a quaint image by 
> our standards.  I mean, Baum and his successors introduced some aspects of
> modern (to them) technology into Oz, but left out others.  There's never
> been any indication that Oz has railroads or steamships, for instance.
> When things like Ozoplanes and Scalawagons appear, they're usually Outside 
> World technology with a twist.  The Ozoplanes, with their balloon
> attachments and magical controls, don't operate like the airplanes we
> know.  The Scalawagons are pretty weird in their design, and no post-Neill
> authors used them anyway.  In some cases, I get the impression that Ozian
> magic makes certain Outside World advances unnecessary.  I wouldn't be
> surprised, for instance, to find that Ozma's palace has a magical cooling
> system that would make our air conditioning obsolete. <

I suppose Samuel Salt's magical balloon sails are as efficient as steam, and
appropriately Oz-flavored in their technological style. You'd think that
with crops to gather to Ozma's central storehouses ("Emerald City") and
distribute there'd be a need for something equivalent to railroads for
freight, even if there's not enough population density to make passenger
travel likely. What the equivalent would be and how different it would look
and how it would work might make an interesting premise for a story.

The "magical cooling system" reminds me of my amusement in realizing in one
of Neill's color plates (for one of RPT's books, but the narrative doesn't
need the scene as such) of a group eating oz cream that he was assuming the
use of a non-electrical (and apparently non-magical) icecream-maker. I don't
think home freezers were available at the time (come to think of it, I don't
know if industries were using them at that point, either), but if the
usefulness of home freezing had occurred to him, you'd think he might have
had fun drawing something Ozzish in that line.

Ruth Berman