Day 1 - Twink, Tom invited to Conjo Island - Love Magnet breaks,
  Shaggy Man takes it to Conjo to be repaired - Conjo takes Magic
  Compass at night - Shaggy Man, Twink, Tom, Twiffle flee in Airmobile
Day 2 - Shaggy's party arrives in Hightown - they lose Airmobile,
  visit Valley of Romance - Shaggy enchanted- at the evening play,
  Twink interrupts - they find Shaggy at night
Day 3 - Tom discovers that Twink has been enchanted - Tom rouses
  the castle at evening by using the Love Magnet - grand banquet 
Day 4 - The party leaves for the Deadly Desert - they meet the
  Fairy Beavers - night in Beaver King's castle
Day 5 - They begin the trip under the Desert - Flame Folk - barrier
  of invisibility - night in tunnel
Day 6 - Conjo steals Wizard's magic bag - Shaggy's party reaches EC
  - Beaver King defeats Conjo - Twiffle & Conjo depart - Twink & Tom depart

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:53:31 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at tc.umn.edu>
Subject: shaggy man of oz

I enjoyed re-reading "Shaggy Man" over the weekend for discussion now. Some
assorted comments -- I wonder if Snow meant the Fairy Beaver King's comment
that he and his subjects live in a rocky spot because they are less likely
to be disturbed there to imply that the beavers had in fact before lived
somewhere else where they were disturbed -- specifically, on the Mifket
island where they appear in Baum's "John Dough." No doubt there could be
more than one tribe of the fairy beavers, or they could have more than one
territory, but a move from one territory to another is perhaps a more likely
possibility, and it's possible that Snow intended to imply it. Snow's
theatrical castle of Romance somewhere in Ev, though, seems more likely to
be both a different place and different people from the narrative-loving
Romance islanders. (A migration would be possible for them, too, but they
don't have the obvious motivation of Mifket neighbors to give them a reason
to want to move.)

Baum had some difficulty fitting the geography of "JD" into his world, as
his map showed the ocean only in the one corner, by Ev, and he accordingly
put the island of Phreex there, but he had Hiland and Loland over on the
other side of the map (and he made them part of the mainland, although in
the book they were an island -- the Martin/Haff map combines the two by
giving them a narrow strip of ocean running around the continental sides).
He also made the Mifket island part of the continent, on the south, and
evidently thought of John as journeying the long way round most of the
continent, although he didn't show the ocean for that part of the trip on
the map, and so didn't include the islands of Romance and Sport on the map.
(The Martin/Haff map gave John a shorter journey, putting all the "JD"
islands, including Phreex, on the Hiland/Loland side, and taking the
"Rinktink" reference to Phreex as near Pingaree as an error for Octagon
Island.)

Tactfully, Snow avoided saying what direction Ev was from Oz, just
describing the journey of Shaggy & al. in terms of going to and across Ev.
Amusingly, Frank Kramer, in his illo of the Magic Compass, proceeded to get
East and West reversed, thus continuing the confusion begun by Baum and his
map. (Or even begun by Denslow, depending on whether you think the weather
vane in one of his "Wizard" illos is being viewed from above or
below.)

In the past, there've been comments here about Snow's error in having the
Nome King's tunnel available for crossing the desert, when "Emerald City"
describes Ozma as having filled it up solid. It occurs to me that Snow may
have intended an explanation in having the Beaver King say that the tunnel
was left open and filled in only at the ends -- Snow may have meant the
reader to assume that the "EC" description was an error (perhaps the result
of an incorrect extrapolation by Baum on the statement that Ozma closed up
the tunnel?). Or perhaps Snow simply mis-remembered Baum's description and
didn't realize there was a small discrepancy involved.

It also occurs to me that in terms of the situation Snow has set up, all the
business of the Visibility Cloaks is unnecessary (although it's such a nice
twist on the more usual Invisibility Cloak that it would be a shame to give
them up) -- the characters are walking through a tunnel with no
side-passages, and they could simply keep a hand (or paw) on the tunnel wall
and keep walking until they got past the barrier. Perhaps it would help to
assert that there's some reason not to touch the tunnel wall -- maybe danger
of touching an outcropping of Deadly Desert sand (and perhaps getting a
serious burn, even if one doesn't assume it's as Deadly as some of the books
claimed)? Even then, though, a leather glove (or some such hand protection)
would seem to be enough to take care of the problem.

Snow has Ozma make a claim about the origin of the Magic Picture that seems
unlikely -- she says it is "my own fairy creation." But when it first shows
up in "Ozma" she doesn't seem to know much about magic (as others have
commented, it is "Tin Woodman" where she first is shown doing magic of her
own, instead of relying on Glinda or the Magic Belt, which is definitely not
her own workmanship, or the Magic Picture). I suppose it's possible that
there's enough variability in working different kinds of magic to mean that
Ozma could have the kinds of inexperience with magical tools shown in her
early books and still be able to create the Magic Picture. (Or maybe "my own
fairy creation" should be read as meaning "a fairy creation and belonging to
me.") Various possible other sources of the Magic Picture have been
suggested at various times, but the Beaver King is one such possibility, as
he owns what seems to be the same kind of Magic Picture in "JD," and might
perhaps have given it or another of the same kind to the new young queen as
a gift.

Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:04:56 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: RE: shaggy man of oz (some minor JOHN DOUGH spoilers)

Ruth:
>I enjoyed re-reading "Shaggy Man" over the weekend for discussion now.

I re-read it recently, but I don't have it with me just now, so most of the
comments I have now are just going to be general.

>Some assorted comments -- I wonder if Snow meant the Fairy Beaver King's
>comment
>that he and his subjects live in a rocky spot because they are less likely
>to be disturbed there to imply that the beavers had in fact before lived
>somewhere else where they were disturbed -- specifically, on the Mifket
>island where they appear in Baum's "John Dough."

That's certainly a possibility, and one that might make an interesting
story.  I was actually considering writing something tying the Fairy
Beavers' move in with Captain Salt's further voyages, but so far I haven't
really done anything with that.  I believe the King mentions in JOHN DOUGH 
that the Mifkets are unable to enter the Beavers' lair, however.

>Snow's theatrical castle of Romance somewhere in Ev, though, seems more
>likely to
>be both a different place and different people from the narrative-loving
>Romance islanders.

The basic plot of SHAGGY MAN, as has been mentioned several times in the
past, is heavily based on JOHN DOUGH, and it isn't as good as Baum's book,
as least as far as I'm concerned.  Some aspects of SHAGGY MAN work better
than their JOHN DOUGH counterparts, however.  I thought the Magic Airmobile,
with its gravity resistor plates, was a clever creation, and somewhat more
interesting than Imar's bird-shaped flying machine.  I also liked the detail
about how the Airmobile wouldn't work in Hightown, since there was no
gravity there.

The original Palace of Romance seemed to be a take-off on the Scheherazade
legend--visitors are forced to die unless they can continue to come up with
stories.  There is no threat of death in the Valley of Romance, but there is
the threat of being turned into a zombified actor.  While the one episode is
definitely based on the other, they aren't the same by any means, and the
people are clearly different.  For that matter, I don't think there's any
indication that the JOHN DOUGH Palace has a king or queen.

>Baum had some difficulty fitting the geography of "JD" into his world, as
>his map showed the ocean only in the one corner, by Ev, and he accordingly
>put the island of Phreex there, but he had Hiland and Loland over on the
>other side of the map (and he made them part of the mainland, although in
>the book they were an island -- the Martin/Haff map combines the two by
>giving them a narrow strip of ocean running around the continental sides).
>He also made the Mifket island part of the continent, on the south, and
>evidently thought of John as journeying the long way round most of the
>continent, although he didn't show the ocean for that part of the trip on
>the map, and so didn't include the islands of Romance and Sport on the map.

Dick Martin's OZMAPOLITAN introduces Jinx, a Mifket from the Great Sandy
Waste area.  The best way to reconcile the two locations for the Mifkets
would probably be to say that they live both on an island AND on the
mainland to the south of Oz, and that seems to be what Martin was implying.

>It also occurs to me that in terms of the situation Snow has set up, all
>the
>business of the Visibility Cloaks is unnecessary (although it's such a nice
>twist on the more usual Invisibility Cloak that it would be a shame to give
>them up) -- the characters are walking through a tunnel with no
>side-passages, and they could simply keep a hand (or paw) on the tunnel
>wall
>and keep walking until they got past the barrier.

Baum never seemed to be entirely clear as to how the barrier worked. 
EMERALD CITY suggests that Glinda made all of Oz totally invisible to the
eyes of outsiders, and that that would stop outsiders from coming into Oz. 
I've always wondered about this, since I'm sure someone flying above an area
that looks like nothing at all would be tempted to investigate.  I suppose 
it would have been easy to get lost in that area, however.  PATCHWORK GIRL 
implies that the Ozites can't see the Great Outside World, either.  Dorothy
says that, once an Ozite reaches the border of Oz, they'll see nothing at
all.  We never find out for sure whether she's correct about this, however,
since no one goes anywhere near the borders in this book.  TIK-TOK mentions
an invisible barrier, but doesn't go into detail about it.  In SCARECROW,
the barrier seems to be merely a patch of rose-colored fog, which might well
be enough to deter less hardy travellers, but it doesn't stop the Ork and
his companions.  After SCARECROW, Baum doesn't mention the invisible barrier
at all.  Characters cross the desert in RINKITINK and MAGIC, and both make a
point of describing the desert's deadliness, the latter even mentioning that
it lets off poisonous fumes.  Thompson seemed to stick with the model from 
these later Baum books--the desert is deadly, but, if you can cross it,
there's no invisible barrier to keep you out of Oz.  In WONDER CITY, Jenny 
Jump says that she can only see Oz with her fairy eye, and I think there's a
mention of an invisible barrier later on in the book, but Neill doesn't make
a big deal of either of these things, and the characters in LUCKY BUCKY
aren't hindered by any kind of invisible barrier when crossing the desert
into Oz.  There's no mention of the barrier in MAGICAL MIMICS, either,
despite the fact that several characters fly over the desert.  SHAGGY MAN is
the first book after SCARECROW in which the barrier is an obstacle to
anyone.  Despite the Fairy Beaver King's conjecture that the barrier is less
powerful underground, I think it's possible that it's actually MORE powerful
there.  After all, Glinda created it soon after Oz was attacked from
underground.  In fact, I think it's possible that, by the time of SHAGGY
MAN, the barrier has weakened, if not disappeared entirely, in pretty much
all other places.

>Various possible other sources of the Magic Picture have been
>suggested at various times, but the Beaver King is one such possibility, as
>he owns what seems to be the same kind of Magic Picture in "JD," and might
>perhaps have given it or another of the same kind to the new young queen as
>a gift.

Quite possibly, although he implies (if not outright states) that he hasn't
been to Oz prior to the events of SHAGGY MAN.  He could certainly have sent
it to Ozma somehow, though.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 20:18:03 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: SHAGGY MAN characters

It's nice to see the Shaggy Man himself in a major role.  He's one of my
favorite Baum characters, and Thompson and Neill pretty much ignored him. 

Snow characterizes him pretty well.  Aside from Shaggy, though, the
characters in this book weren't all that interesting.  I'm not a big fan of
Twink and Tom, although I don't dislike them either.  It's kind of odd that
they're named Jones when we just had a Jones travel to Oz in LUCKY BUCKY. 

The trend of recurring last names reappears in MERRY GO ROUND, where we find
a character named Robin Brown, apparently no relation to Peter Brown. 
Shaggy and the twins are accompanied by yet another animated wooden puppet. 
Snow must have liked wooden figures, or at least thought they fit well into
Oz books.  Exactly how Twiffle is Twoffle's third cousin, and how the two of
them communicate, is never made clear.  Thompson and Neill suggested that
inanimate objects have some kind of consciousness, so I suppose it's
possible, but maybe there's more to the story of Twiffle and Twoffle than
the book tells us.

I sort of get the impression that Conjo is kind of an evil King Rinkitink,
in that he's overweight, laughs a lot, and isn't as mature as he might be.
He has a few laughing fits, in the manner of Rinkitink or Jinnicky, on pp.
59 and 231.  He's kind of threatening in his own way, but not pure evil like
the Mimics.  There actually seems to be a similarity between Conjo and the 
inhabitants of the Valley of Romance.  The wizard plans to erase Tom and
Twink's memories and have them serve as an audience for his magic, while
King Ticket, Queen Curtain, and their subjects want to erase their memories
and have them perform in plays.  Since Conjo loses his own memory at the
end, there might be some kind of a theme here.

I did find Lady Cue's absent-mindedness to be somewhat amusing, and a decent
effort to provide comic relief to a somewhat disturbing part of the book.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Fri Jun 4, 2004  5:28 pm
Subject: shaggy man etc

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
>  It's kind of odd that they [Twink & Tom]'re named Jones when we just had
a Jones travel to Oz in LUCKY BUCKY.  The trend of recurring last names
reappears in MERRY GO ROUND, where we find a character named Robin Brown,
apparently no relation to Peter Brown.  <
 
Does seem odd, doesn't it. The names are such common ones that it's
plausible to have them recur among unrelated characters -- but they're also
so common as to sound unimaginative (more fun to have last names like Gale
or Griffiths).
 
> Thompson and Neill suggested that inanimate objects have some kind of
consciousness, so I suppose it [puppet conversation]'s possible, but maybe
there's more to the story of Twiffle and Twoffle than the book tells us. <
 
It does sound as if there's more to the story. I wonder if Snow was
deliberately leaving himself some room to have material to work with if he
wanted to revisit the characters later.
 
> I sort of get the impression that Conjo is kind of an evil King Rinkitink,
in that he's overweight, laughs a lot, and isn't as mature as he might be.
He has a few laughing fits, in the manner of Rinkitink or Jinnicky, on pp.
59 and 231.  He's kind of threatening in his own way, but not pure evil like
the Mimics.  There actually seems to be a similarity between Conjo and the
inhabitants of the Valley of Romance.  The wizard plans to erase Tom and
Twink's memories and have them serve as an audience for his magic, while
King Ticket, Queen Curtain, and their subjects want to erase their memories
and have them perform in plays.  Since Conjo loses his own memory at the
end, there might be some kind of a theme here. <
 
Interesting pair of comparisons for Conjo. I think he also draws a little on
the inventors of Phreex in "John Dough" -- like Imar, he's invented a
working, but not entirely reliable flying machine.
 
Ruth Berman

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Sat Jun 5, 2004  4:12 pm
Subject: RE: [Nonestica] shaggy man etc

Ruth:
>"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> >  It's kind of odd that they [Twink & Tom]'re named Jones when we just
>had
>a Jones travel to Oz in LUCKY BUCKY.  The trend of recurring last names
>reappears in MERRY GO ROUND, where we find a character named Robin Brown,
>apparently no relation to Peter Brown.  <
>
>Does seem odd, doesn't it. The names are such common ones that it's
>plausible to have them recur among unrelated characters -- but they're also
>so common as to sound unimaginative (more fun to have last names like Gale
>or Griffiths).
 
Yes, I agree.  I actually don't know whether Snow had read LUCKY BUCKY when
he wrote SHAGGY MAN (although he most likely did before writing WHO'S WHO),
or whether the McGraws had read PIRATES (the only book that mentions Peter's
last name) before writing MERRY GO ROUND, so it might well have been a
coincidence from an Oz-as-literature perspective as well as an Oz-as-history
one.  The last names of the Americans who visit Oz generally seem to be
British in origin: Gale, Diggs, Smith (although Button-Bright's having an
Arabian knight as an ancestor and Greek, French, and Arabic-sounding names
strongly suggests that he has some non-WASP and possibly even non-white
heritage), Bobbin, Griffiths, Weedles, More, Downs, Brown, Jones, Manley,
Terry, Perry, and possibly Jump.  We never find out Speedy's last name, but
his uncle's is Harmstead.
 
> > I sort of get the impression that Conjo is kind of an evil King
>Rinkitink,
>in that he's overweight, laughs a lot, and isn't as mature as he might be.
>He has a few laughing fits, in the manner of Rinkitink or Jinnicky, on pp.
>59 and 231.  He's kind of threatening in his own way, but not pure evil
>like
>the Mimics.  There actually seems to be a similarity between Conjo and the
>inhabitants of the Valley of Romance.  The wizard plans to erase Tom and
>Twink's memories and have them serve as an audience for his magic, while
>King Ticket, Queen Curtain, and their subjects want to erase their memories
>and have them perform in plays.  Since Conjo loses his own memory at the
>end, there might be some kind of a theme here. <
>
>Interesting pair of comparisons for Conjo. I think he also draws a little
>on
>the inventors of Phreex in "John Dough" -- like Imar, he's invented a
>working, but not entirely reliable flying machine.
 
True, although his other known invention, the Love Magnet, seems to work
well enough.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 17:44:51 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: SHAGGY MAN magic

The most prominent magical item in SHAGGY MAN is none other than the Love
Magnet.  Snow provides an interesting origin for it, as well as a plausible
reason for why it works differently in TIK-TOK than it does in ROAD.  It's 
odd that the Shaggy Man tells Conjo that he got the Magnet from an Eskimo,
when we know from ROAD that that story was a lie, and Shaggy should be
unable to tell a lie, having bathed in the Truth Pond.  The only plausible 
explanation I can think of (which might also be a possible explanation for
how Button-Bright was able to lie to the Blue guard in SKY ISLAND) involves
the Truth Teller from FORBIDDEN FOUNTAIN, who had also bathed in the pond. 
He was able to lie, but his ears would glow green if he did.  Surely Conjo 
would have noticed Shaggy's ears glowing green, though, unless he did and
just decided not to mention it.

Conjo's magical accessories include "books of magic recipes and
formulas--everything from changing people into door-knobs to curing
headaches" [p. 50].  Considering that LUCKY BUCKY mentions Trickolas Om
having turned people into doorknobs, as well as the Gabooches actually
having been turned into them, it's interesting that we see this same type of
transformation mentioned in SHAGGY MAN.  I don't know that Snow had read
Neill's book by the time he wrote SHAGGY MAN.  From an Oz-as-history
perspective, though, it's possible that Conjo had exchanged spells with
Trickolas, and maybe even that he was the one who had enchanted the
Gabooches.  (Along those lines, is it possible that the whale who swallowed
the original owner of the Love Magnet might have been Davy Jones?  Probably
not, but I did think it was interesting how many themes from LUCKY BUCKY
showed up in SHAGGY MAN.)

I don't know how scientifically accurate the lack of gravity in Hightown is,
but I did think it was an interesting creation.  The mentions of wading in 
rainclouds and singing in the air were clever touches.  The Phontain is also
an interesting new magical device.

No mention is made of the Magic Picture-like device that the King of the
Fairy Beavers has in JOHN DOUGH, but perhaps it's how the Beavers' "fairy
powers keep us informed of important happenings not only in Oz but in all
other parts of the world," as the King reports on p. 188.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at ...>
Date: Sat Jun 5, 2004  9:31 pm
Subject: keeping up with Joneses

Nathan DeHoff wrote of the SHAGGY MAN protagonists:
<<It's kind of odd that they're named Jones when we just had a Jones
travel to Oz in LUCKY BUCKY.  The trend of recurring last names
reappears in MERRY GO ROUND, where we find a character named Robin
Brown, apparently no relation to Peter Brown.>>
 
Jones and Brown are both very common American names, however--#4 and #5
most common, according to a 1975 reference book. Add to that how
American culture at the time tended to view Anglo-Saxon ethnicity as the
norm and melt away others, and those surnames become even more common
among the pool authors might choose from when creating all-American
characters for children to identify with. Only Smith, Johnson, and
Wiliams would have been more likely to come up twice.
 
Incidentally, the tenth most common American surname on that list is
Thompson.
 
Harder to ascribe in any part to chance is that from 1936 to 1937 the
protagonists of Oz adventures were named Tandy, Handy Mandy, and Randy.
 
J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at ...

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Sat Jun 5, 2004  8:39 pm
Subject: RE: [Nonestica] keeping up with Joneses

J. L. Bell:
>Nathan DeHoff wrote of the SHAGGY MAN protagonists:
><<It's kind of odd that they're named Jones when we just had a Jones
>travel to Oz in LUCKY BUCKY.  The trend of recurring last names
>reappears in MERRY GO ROUND, where we find a character named Robin
>Brown, apparently no relation to Peter Brown.>>
>
>Jones and Brown are both very common American names, however--#4 and #5
>most common, according to a 1975 reference book. Add to that how
>American culture at the time tended to view Anglo-Saxon ethnicity as the
>norm and melt away others, and those surnames become even more common
>among the pool authors might choose from when creating all-American
>characters for children to identify with. Only Smith, Johnson, and
>Wiliams would have been more likely to come up twice.
 
And the surname "Smith" does show up several times in the Oz series.
Button-Bright's last name is either Smith or von Smith (his statement to
Trot that he had forgotten part of his name suggests that there might be
something in between the "von" and the "Smith," but there might not be).
There's also Mr. Smith of Smith and Tinker, and, in ROYAL BOOK, the Tin
Woodman tells Professor Wogglebug to put him into the Royal Book under the
name of "Smith," since a tinsmith made him.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Mon Jun 7, 2004  2:37 pm
Subject: magnetic shaggy

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> The most prominent magical item in SHAGGY MAN is none other than the Love
Magnet.  Snow provides an interesting origin for it, as well as a plausible
reason for why it works differently in TIK-TOK than it does in ROAD.  It's
odd that the Shaggy Man tells Conjo that he got the Magnet from an Eskimo,
when we know from ROAD that that story was a lie, and Shaggy should be
unable to tell a lie, having bathed in the Truth Pond.  The only plausible
explanation I can think of (which might also be a possible explanation for
how Button-Bright was able to lie to the Blue guard in SKY ISLAND) involves
the Truth Teller from FORBIDDEN FOUNTAIN, who had also bathed in the pond.
He was able to lie, but his ears would glow green if he did.  Surely Conjo
would have noticed Shaggy's ears glowing green, though, unless he did and
just decided not to mention it. <
 
Depends on how long and shaggy Shaggy's hair is, maybe. On the other hand,
it might be possible to come up with a scenario by which Shaggy thought the
Eskimo story was a lie when he first told it, but later learned that it was
accurate?
 
Ruth Berman

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Mon Jun 7, 2004  4:40 pm
Subject: RE: [Nonestica] magnetic shaggy

Ruth:
>"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> > The most prominent magical item in SHAGGY MAN is none other than the
>Love
>Magnet.  Snow provides an interesting origin for it, as well as a plausible
>reason for why it works differently in TIK-TOK than it does in ROAD.  It's
>odd that the Shaggy Man tells Conjo that he got the Magnet from an Eskimo,
>when we know from ROAD that that story was a lie, and Shaggy should be
>unable to tell a lie, having bathed in the Truth Pond.  The only plausible
>explanation I can think of (which might also be a possible explanation for
>how Button-Bright was able to lie to the Blue guard in SKY ISLAND) involves
>the Truth Teller from FORBIDDEN FOUNTAIN, who had also bathed in the pond.
>He was able to lie, but his ears would glow green if he did.  Surely Conjo
>would have noticed Shaggy's ears glowing green, though, unless he did and
>just decided not to mention it. <
>
>Depends on how long and shaggy Shaggy's hair is, maybe. On the other hand,
>it might be possible to come up with a scenario by which Shaggy thought the
>Eskimo story was a lie when he first told it, but later learned that it was
>accurate?
 
That's an interesting possibility that I hadn't really considered before.
Perhaps the girl in Butterfield WAS an Eskimo?
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at ...>
Date: Tue Jun 8, 2004  11:38 am
Subject: Re: keeping up with Joneses / names

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> And the surname "Smith" does show up several times in the Oz series.
> Button-Bright's last name is either Smith or von Smith (his statement to
> Trot that he had forgotten part of his name suggests that there might be
> something in between the "von" and the "Smith," but there might not be).
> There's also Mr. Smith of Smith and Tinker, and, in ROYAL BOOK, the Tin
> Woodman tells Professor Wogglebug to put him into the Royal Book under the
> name of "Smith," since a tinsmith made him.
 
The latter two uses are related to the dictionary meaning of Smith, but
only the first seems to be refer to how common that surname is. I think
Baum put "Smith" at the end of Button-Bright's long list of exotic names
to bring it down to earth.
 
J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at ...

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Snow's pacing

I'm curious about the construction of both of Jack
Snow's Oz books.  They have been praised for being
"tightly plotted" (by Douglas Greene in his afterword
for SHAGGY man) but I find them somewhat lacking in
incident and difficult to concentrate on.  I think
SHAGGY MAN is more guilty of this, but neither book, I
would argue, really amps up the tension.  This
surprises me because of Snow's affection for Poe and
other horror/suspense writers and I would think he
would be better at creating suspense.  Dorothy in
MIMICS is content to potter about in Ozana's garden
while the Mimcs are invading Oz; Twink, Tom and the
Shaggy Man amble about not seeming to care much that
they've just escaped imprisonment on Conjo's isle.
But beyond the main characters' aimlessness, I'm not
sure what the plot of SHAGGY MAN is.  It doesn't seem
to be about a quest for the twins to get home because
they never seem to miss it, nor is it about Conjo's
attempt to become the next wizard of Oz because that
subplot only comes as the climax (such as it is) is
reached.  Of course, sometimes I like an Oz book where
the main plot is travelogue (like ROAD), but Snow
seems to be reaching for something more and not
achieving it. 

Even the structures of his chapters seems a little
odd.  There are more of them than in the usual Baum or
Thompson book, but they are much shorter too.  And in
fact some of them seem to be the the split halves of
larger chapters.  For example, the introduction to the
Fairy beavers and the travelers' arrival in their
kingdom takes up three chapters (15, 16, & 17) while
it seems to me that everything could have been
combined into one.  I know this is one of the shorter
Oz books, and perhaps the splitting came about as an
effort to make it seem longer, but I wonder if it
wasn't intentional, if maybe Snow was using radio
serials as a model for his book. 

Like serials, his chapters often end on a cliffhanger:
someone's identity is about to be revealed or a
problem is about to be solved.  His characters and his
narrative voice tend to chat about problems rather
than engaging in action, much like radio programs
couldn't show the physical aspects of things and had
to describe them.  His is a much more descriptive
style than Thompson or Baum, and his characters more
often react to situations rather than interact with
them.  All this creates a distance, I think, between
the reader and the characters and makes the books less
exciting and much less poignant. 

Alan Wise

Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:00:46 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: RE: Snow's pacing

Alan Wise:
>I'm curious about the construction of both of Jack
>Snow's Oz books.  They have been praised for being
>"tightly plotted" (by Douglas Greene in his afterword
>for SHAGGY man) but I find them somewhat lacking in
>incident and difficult to concentrate on.  I think
>SHAGGY MAN is more guilty of this, but neither book, I
>would argue, really amps up the tension.

I would tend to agree.  While Oz faces some serious threats in Snow's two
books, the slow pacing makes the books somewhat less exciting than those by
other authors.

>This surprises me because of Snow's affection for Poe and
>other horror/suspense writers and I would think he
>would be better at creating suspense.

I can definitely see some horror influence in Snow's books, with the
descriptions of the Mimics, and the somewhat creepy air to the Valley of
Romance episode.  There really doesn't seem to be that much suspense,
though.

>Dorothy in MIMICS is content to potter about in Ozana's garden
>while the Mimcs are invading Oz; Twink, Tom and the
>Shaggy Man amble about not seeming to care much that
>they've just escaped imprisonment on Conjo's isle.

To be fair, that seems to be the case in many Oz books.  There are generally
obstacles and odd communities between any party of travellers and their
goal.  There's usually some kind of reason why the adventurers stop in
strange communities while on an important mission.  Sometimes the
inhabitants of an odd village try to detain the travellers.  Sometimes the 
characters agree to a tour so as not to seem rude (as with Thi in LOST
PRINCESS).  Sometimes they need to obtain supplies, or spend the night.  I
wouldn't say it's entirely accurate that the main characters in SHAGGY MAN
just "amble about."  The characters are constantly trying to reach Oz, and
are only delayed by circumstances beyond their control: the Airmobile
stalling in Hightown, the people in the Valley of Romance forcing them to
become actors, the Deadly Desert.  On the other hand, there doesn't seem to
be that much of a sense of urgency to the adventures in Snow's books, so I
can understand how it might FEEL like the characters are just ambling
around, even though they have a clear goal in mind.

>But beyond the main characters' aimlessness, I'm not
>sure what the plot of SHAGGY MAN is.  It doesn't seem
>to be about a quest for the twins to get home because
>they never seem to miss it, nor is it about Conjo's
>attempt to become the next wizard of Oz because that
>subplot only comes as the climax (such as it is) is
>reached.

Indeed, despite the fact that wanting to become the new Wizard of Oz is
within Conjo's character, and he obtains the item that he uses to transport
himself to Oz quite early on, the confrontation with him seems tacked on, as
if Snow had to have SOMETHING happen once his main characters reached Oz. 

There's a definite sense of urgency in the escape from the Isle of Conjo,
but after the escape is made, no one has any thought that Conjo might be up
to something.  Perhaps this was done to make his reappearance at the end of
the story more of a surprise, but I think a little more foreshadowing, or at
least some reason for the characters to have to hurry to Oz, might have been
nice.

I agree that Twink and Tom never seem to miss their home until the final
chapter.  They don't seem to be very well-defined characters at all.  About
the only character development for them happens when we find out (on p. 47)
that Twink learned to walk early in life, and Tom is interested in
mechanical and electrical devices, and neither of these character traits
seem to have any impact on the story.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Wed Jun 9, 2004  12:06 pm
Subject: shaggy man

Alan Wise <alanmacwise at ...> wrote:
> I'm curious about the construction of both of Jack Snow's Oz books.  They
have been praised for being "tightly plotted" (by Douglas Greene in his
afterword for SHAGGY man) but I find them somewhat lacking in incident and
difficult to concentrate on.  I think SHAGGY MAN is more guilty of this, but
neither book, I would argue, really amps up the tension.<
 
I think you're right that "Shaggy" is loosely plotted ("Mimics" is rather
more so). As you say, several of the Oz books are travelogues, in which the
episodes don't need to come in the order they do and could have more or
fewer episodes without detriment to the story, rather than being tightly
plotted. Actually, I think maybe I like the travelogues as well as stories
with more suspenseful plots. Nathan deHoff pointed out that there is a
certain amount of suspense in Conjo's attempt to take over, but that this
plot point isn't really stressed enough to register and comes as something
of a surprise at the end. I think it also poses something of a timing
problem in the plot, because it's odd that Conjo didn't go ahead with his
attempt several days sooner, and succeed with it, instead of courteously
waiting until Shaggy and co. had time to get to Oz just ahead of him and be
there to stop him. Then again, I do find the episodes individually
enjoyable, though, so I wind up enjoying the book anyway.
 
Ruth Berman

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:55:41 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Snow's pacing

I suspect Snow had trouble writing SHAGGY MAN, and that trouble is
reflected in the book's plot holes, brevity, and derivativeness.

When Reilly & Lee resumed publishing Oz books after the war with MAGICAL
MIMICS, the company probably hoped for one each year. Instead, there was
a three-year gap until the next. And the firm was happy to throw Snow
over and publish another author two years later.

Much of the action of SHAGGY MAN is lifted rather baldly from JOHN
DOUGH. As Nathan DeHoff noted, the twins are set up as having particular
personalities and talents, yet never get to show them, or much desire to
get home, either. Conjo's action don't make logical sense, as if Snow
was bending him as the plot needed.

Of course, none of those flaws is unique to SHAGGY MAN in the Oz series.
TIK-TOK also comes from a previous source, has an indistinct young
heroine, and involves a self-destructive villain. But Baum wrote TIK-TOK
at a very busy time while Snow seems to have had the opposite problem:
lots of time, not enough inspiration.

Alan Wise wrote:
<<Like serials, his chapters often end on a cliffhanger:
someone's identity is about to be revealed or a
problem is about to be solved.  His characters and his
narrative voice tend to chat about problems rather
than engaging in action, much like radio programs
couldn't show the physical aspects of things and had
to describe them.>>

An interesting observation. Snow worked in radio for many years, and may
well have picked up his cliff-hanging habits from that medium. But much
of his writing was short stories for magazines, and that format doesn't
require authors to sustain suspense for as long as a novel does.

Cliff-hanging chapter endings became more common and important in
children's books over the late 20th century. At the same time, most
serial forms of storytelling (magazine serials, movie serials, radio
dramas) have now faded or are no longer broadcast for children, who
instead get stories that neatly resolve in ten to thirty minutes. The
thinking seems to be that children's attention spans are shorter, and
the competing media louder, so books must compensate by giving readers a
very strong reason to return after every chapter.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Wed Jun 9, 2004  4:44 pm
Subject: RE: [Nonestica] shaggy man

Ruth:
>Nathan deHoff pointed out that there is a
>certain amount of suspense in Conjo's attempt to take over, but that this
>plot point isn't really stressed enough to register and comes as something
>of a surprise at the end. I think it also poses something of a timing
>problem in the plot, because it's odd that Conjo didn't go ahead with his
>attempt several days sooner, and succeed with it, instead of courteously
>waiting until Shaggy and co. had time to get to Oz just ahead of him and be
>there to stop him.
 
Some explanation as to why it took Conjo so long to arrive in Oz (maybe he
was unsuccessfully attempting to track Twink, Tom, and Twiffle?) might have
helped explain this aspect of the plot.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: shaggy man

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

> As you say, several of the Oz books are
> travelogues, in which the
> episodes don't need to come in the order they do and
> could have more or
> fewer episodes without detriment to the story,
> rather than being tightly
> plotted.

I've been wondering if my impatience with Snow's plots
may have more to do with his characters than in the
actual events he writes about.  In ROAD, Dorothy and
her companions have strictly delineated personalities
and the dangers they face seem real.  The Scoodlers,
while incidental to the plot, held real menace,
threatening to make the travelers into soup.  Even the
inhabitants of Dunkiton and Foxville, while really
just impolite, do make the characters anxious enough
to want to move on. 

In SHAGGY MAN as contrast, I have little sense of who
Twink and Tom are, Twiffle seems to disappear for
pages at a time, and even Shaggy himself is a bit
vapory at times.  Baum gave him a kind of vinegary
quality amid the gentleness; Snow's Shaggy has none of
that wit.  (And I often think of that lovely, subtle
scene in ROAD when Shaggy stands alone in the great
hall of Ozma's palace, intimidated by his
surroundings, until a page leads him to his room where
he finds the spectacular bath and all the clothes made
especially for him.  To me, that's Baum writing at his
best and most aware of his creation: visitors to Oz
discover it as their true home.)  And it may seem
elementary, but I think it's necessary to like
characters in order to care about what happens to
them.  I always cared that Dorothy made it back to Oz
or that her friedns were allowed to stay.  Twink and
Tom, being cyphers, never impressed me as kids who
deserved to come to Oz.  (My opinion was changed
somewhat by Eric Shanower's excellent speculation in
Oz-Story about the aftereffects of the twins' trip to
Oz.) 

Conjo is never much of a villain, too much of his
attempt at wickedness relies on happenstance, and I
don't think Snow himself had much of an idea of what
to do with him.  He, like the Nome King, is described
as selfish, but while he has the accoutrements of
villainy, he never really does much.  The Nome King on
the other hands repeatedly poses a real threat. 

I wonder what the book would have been like if the
characters had all stayed on Conjo's island for much
longer.  That kind of clautrophobia would seem to be
something Snow would have excelled in, a kind of
locked room mystery where the jolly-seeming Conjo
turned out to be a real villain. 

Alan Wise

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Thu Jun 10, 2004  1:28 pm
Subject: cliffhangers and more shaggy

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at ...> wrote:
> Snow worked in radio for many years, and may well have picked up his
cliff-hanging habits from that medium. But much of his writing was short
stories for magazines, and that format doesn't require authors to sustain
suspense for as long as a novel does. Cliff-hanging chapter endings became
more common and important in children's books over the late 20th century. At
the same time, most serial forms of storytelling (magazine serials, movie
serials, radio dramas) have now faded or are no longer broadcast for
children, who instead get stories that neatly resolve in ten to thirty
minutes. The thinking seems to be that children's attention spans are shorter, and
the competing media louder, so books must compensate by giving readers a
very strong reason to return after every chapter. <
 
The "Doctor Who" sequences made nice use of cliffhanger endings on tv. I
have a feeling that cliffhanger chapter endings have also become more common
than they used to be in books for adults, and probably for the same reason
of competition you mention.
 
"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> Some explanation as to why it took Conjo so long to arrive in Oz (maybe he
was unsuccessfully attempting to track Twink, Tom, and Twiffle?) might have
helped explain this aspect of the plot. <
 
Maybe if he was presented as less of a villain, and more as an eccentric who
believed that he was conferring a great boon on Oz by getting himself
installed as the Wizard of Oz? -- then his delay could have come about
through getting up a really good presentation for the Ozites of his wizardly
merits (perhaps combined with a belief that it would take Shaggy & co a long
time to get over the Deadly Desert, although considering that he knows that
they left in his flying machine and doesn't know that they'll lose it along
the way, he probably shouldn't be counting on as much time as all that for
them to need).
 
Alan Wise <alanmacwise at ...> wrote:
> I've been wondering if my impatience with Snow's plots may have more to do
with his characters than in the actual events he writes about.  In ROAD,
Dorothy and her companions have strictly delineated personalities and the
dangers they face seem real. ... In SHAGGY MAN as contrast, I have little
sense of who Twink and Tom are, Twiffle seems to disappear for pages at a
time, and even Shaggy himself is a bit vapory at times.  <
 
Sounds plausible.
 
Ruth Berman

From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...>
Date: Thu Jun 10, 2004  1:48 pm
Subject: RE: [Nonestica] SHAGGY MAN Conjo and plot

Ruth:
>"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> > Some explanation as to why it took Conjo so long to arrive in Oz (maybe
>he
>was unsuccessfully attempting to track Twink, Tom, and Twiffle?) might have
>helped explain this aspect of the plot. <
>
>Maybe if he was presented as less of a villain, and more as an eccentric
>who
>believed that he was conferring a great boon on Oz by getting himself
>installed as the Wizard of Oz? -- then his delay could have come about
>through getting up a really good presentation for the Ozites of his
>wizardly
>merits (perhaps combined with a belief that it would take Shaggy & co a
>long
>time to get over the Deadly Desert, although considering that he knows that
>they left in his flying machine and doesn't know that they'll lose it along
>the way, he probably shouldn't be counting on as much time as all that for
>them to need).
 
There really doesn't seem to be any reason for Conjo to wait for Shaggy's
party, though.  He wanted Twink and Tom to serve as an audience for his
magic, but, if he were to set himself up as the new Wizard of Oz, he'd have
enough of an audience without them.  In the book as written, he doesn't seem
to be interested in them after reaching Oz.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at ...

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Fri Jun 11, 2004  11:05 am
Subject: Tony Awards & Conjo

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at ...> wrote:
> There really doesn't seem to be any reason for Conjo to wait for Shaggy's
party, though.  He wanted Twink and Tom to serve as an audience for his
magic, but, if he were to set himself up as the new Wizard of Oz, he'd have
enough of an audience without them.  In the book as written, he doesn't seem
to be interested in them after reaching Oz. <
 
No, there isn't any reason for him to wait for them to arrive. (I'm not sure
if I phrased clearly my comment about what interest he would have in the
time they would need to reach oz -- I didn't mean that he would want to get
to Oz at the same time they did, as he winds up doing, but that he should be
interested in getting there ahead of them, and it's odd that he  doesn't get
a move on as soon as he finds them gone.)

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:48:11 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Snow books plots

The list's discussion of MAGICAL MIMICS occurred two or three weeks
before I ran a writers' conference, so I was too busy to participate as
much as I usually like. [General rejoicing.] But on my trip to the Oz
Club board meeting last week, I loaded both the texts of both that book
and SHAGGY MAN onto my PDA and read them through. While far from my
favorite Oz books, they did make sitting in airports a little more
entertaining.

I think MAGICAL MIMICS is one of the more tightly plotted Oz books, even
though the pacing within that plot is stop-start-stop-start. All the
events lead back to Lurline and her original trip across the region.
Because of Lurline, Oz is a happy fairyland and the Mimics are bottled
up in their mountain. Because of Lurline, Ozana has the lonely job of
watching over the Mimics, causing her to distract herself. Because of
Lurline, Ozma and Glinda leave Oz, and leave it more weakly defended.
Their absence in turn causes the Mimic rulers to make their raid into
Ozma's palace, which produces the two storylines: Dorothy and the Wizard
in Pineville, and the Mimics in the Emerald City.

I suspect that Snow plotted his book in advance, knowing that Lurline's
legacy was the foundation of his plot and that Toto would play a big
role in the denouement. While many Oz books include an explanation of
the country's past, MAGICAL MIMICS launches into the story of Lurline in
the first chapter. The title of that chapter is "Toto Carries a
Message," and the first word in the book is, "Toto." Chapter 8 is "Toto
Makes a Discovery." Chapter 17 ends with "Toto!", and in the next two
immensely powerful magical beings are thwarted by the snapping little
terrier. Toto also gets the last line in the book, and deservedly so.

In SHAGGY MAN two events coincide to bring both the Shaggy Man and the
twins to Conjo's island at the same time. Thereafter, however, I think
events proceed logically with no coincidence necessary, even if the book
doesn't spell out all the connections. Shaggy and his party proceed as
quickly as they can to the Emerald City. Meanwhile, Conjo has been
aroused by:
    (a) the prospect of an audience after so many years of solitude (his
      motive for luring Twink and Tom to his island, suddenly thwarted),
    (b) an ambassador from the Emerald City, with the Magic Compass to get
      past Glinda's barrier, and
    (c) the absence of Twiffle as his usual audience and his
      conscience.

The conjurer thus decides to take over the role of Wizard of Oz. Why
doesn't he move more quickly? Well, in this reading he started to
develop the idea only after the Shaggy Man's arrival and Twiffle's
departure. Yes, it's convenient that Conjo moves so slowly the Fairy
Beaver King can arrive in time to stop him. But we know from his first
appearance that Conjo's a lazy person. And he just wants to be loved; is
that so bad?

Both Snow books involve ill-intentioned interlopers holed up in rooms of
Ozma's palace, trying to figure out the magic there. Both books
interrupt their heroes' travels to stick them into a world of static
storytelling: Story Blossom Garden in MIMICS and the Valley of Romance
in SHAGGY MAN. And both those episodes sap a fair amount of the tension
out of the tale, making the heroes' breathless races to get home to the
Emerald City rather breath-heavy.

One odd note in SHAGGY MAN is that the plot keeps depending on the same
motivations and magic. What does Conjo plan for Twink and Tom? To drug
them into amnesia so they'll watch him perform. What's the danger in the
Valley of Romance? Shaggy and Twink are drugged into amnesia, and Tom
and Twiffle have to watch them perform. Why does Conjo infiltrate the
Emerald City? In hopes that people will watch him perform. How does the
Beaver King subdue him? By drugging him into amnesia.

Snow doesn't comment on these parallels, the way that Baum lets his
characters recognize that he's recycled the same dilemma for both
Button-Bright and the Shaggy Man in ROAD, or the same history for both
Nick Chopper and Capt. Fyter in TIN WOODMAN. I can't tell whether the
recurring pattern grew from Snow's lack of inspiration, or his own
deep-rooted desires and anxieties, or both.

Ironically, Conjo could well have succeeded in his original plan of
inducing the twins to stare catatonically at his magic tricks by
broadcasting himself onto their TV every afternoon instead of bringing
them all the way to his island. But it was only 1949, and he couldn't
have known of TV's effect yet.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Fri Jun 25, 2004  10:26 am
Subject: kramer's shaggy art

We've talked about "Shaggy Man" as regards text, but I don't think there've 
been any comments as regards the art. Comments on Frank Kramer's art for

"Magical Mimics," if I'm recalling correctly, suggested that his artwork 
there wasn't much liked. I have an impression that his "Shaggy Man" art was 
more effective than his "Mimics" work, with more sense of action in the 
figures, and more striking designs for the important cover and end-paper 
illos.

How did others feel?

Ruth Berman

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:55:40 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: SHAGGY MAN magic

In telling the story of repairing the Love Magnet, Snow also repairs a
hole in its earlier history. In ROAD, the Love Magnet makes everyone
(except the Scoodlers) fond of the Shaggy Man without him having to show
it. But it's crucial to the plot of TIK-TOK that the Love Magnet has no
power over the Nomes as long as Shaggy's arms are pinioned to his sides.
Snow evidently noted the discrepancy because in SHAGGY MAN he states:
        Ozma had wisely altered the powers of the Love
    Magnet so that the talisman did not automatically
    cause the person who carried it to be loved by all he
    met, but must be /displayed/ by its carrier before the
    eyes of the person or persons whose love he wished
    to win.
Had the magnet been this way before, then the young woman who possessed
it before the Shaggy Man wouldn't have had the problem of unwanted
lovers. She could have had her pick.

As to why Conjo created the Love Magnet in the first place, perhaps he
just wanted to be loved; is that so bad? Yet he gave the magnet away to
the "last shipwrecked person" on his island, along with a boat--and
apparently for nothing in return. (Snow adds a note of doubt to this
story, however: "The Shaggy Man wasn't sure whether the Wizard was
serious.")

At another point in SHAGGY MAN, I think Snow amalgamated his memories of
two episodes in Baum's books. He seems to have combined the Barrier of
Invisibility established at the end of EMERALD CITY (and portrayed, if
at all, as a tinted fog bank in SCARECROW) with the Invisible Country in
TIN WOODMAN. Compare these two passages:

TIN WOODMAN--
        Suddenly Woot, who was in the lead, looked around and
    found that all his comrades had mysteriously disappeared.
    But where could they have gone to? The broad plain was
    all about him and there were neither trees nor bushes
    that could hide even a rabbit, nor any hole for one to fall
    into. Yet there he stood, alone.
        Surprise had caused him to halt, and with a
    thoughtful and puzzled expression on his face he looked
    down at his feet. It startled him anew to discover that
    he had no feet. He reached out his hands, but he could
    not see them. He could feel his hands and arms and
    body; he stamped his feet on the grass and knew they
    were there, but in some strange way they had become
    invisible.
        While Woot stood, wondering, a crash of metal sounded
    in his ears and he heard two heavy bodies tumble to the
    earth just beside him.
        "Good gracious!" exclaimed the voice of the Tin
    Woodman.
        "Mercy me!" cried the voice of the Tin Soldier.
        "Why didn't you look where you were going?" asked the
    Tin Woodman reproachfully.
        "I did, but I couldn't see you," said the Tin
    Soldier. "Something has happened to my tin eyes. I
    can't see you, even now, nor can I see anyone else!"
        "It's the same way with me," admitted the Tin
    Woodman.
        Woot couldn't see either of them, although he heard
    them plainly, and just then something smashed against
    him unexpectedly and knocked him over; but it was only
    the straw-stuffed body of the Scarecrow that fell upon
    him and while he could not see the Scarecrow he managed
    to push him off and rose to his feet just as Polychrome
    whirled against him and made him tumble again.
        Sitting upon the ground, the boy asked:
        "Can you see us, Poly?"
        "No, indeed," answered the Rainbow's Daughter; "we've
    all become invisible."

SHAGGY MAN--
        Suddenly Shaggy stopped and stared about him.
    He was alone in the tunnel! He had been walking along
    looking at nothing in particular, when in a flash his
    companions had vanished. Just ahead of him he could
    hear the excited chattering of the twenty young beavers.
    But there was no sign of any living thing. Then Shaggy
    looked down at himself and cried out in amazement--he
    wasn't there either! He could see nothing of his body,
    although he felt as firm as ever.
        "You will be kind enough to remove your wand
    from my eye, please!" It was Twiffle's voice speaking
    somewhere near Shaggy.
        "I beg your pardon, we are both invisible, so my
    poking my wand in your eye was entirely unintentional,
    I assure you," the beaver King's voice answered.
        "Hey! Stay off my foot!" Tom called out.
        "Was that your foot? I'm sure I didn't see it,"
    Twink's voice answered soothingly.
        "Neither do I, but it's there just the same," replied
    Tom's voice ruefully.
        All about them the young beavers' voices had risen,
    and several angry disputes were taking place. Evidently
    some accidents had occurred among the little animals, too.
    The Shaggy Man said sadly, "Well, this seems to be the
    Barrier of Invisibility, and it's most effective, too. I propose
    we all stay just where we are until we decide what to do,
    for we all seem to be quite invisible."

Frank Kramer's picture of the Barrier of Invisibility working this way
is one of his most effective drawings, I think. It's much clearer than
Neill's corresponding picture of Woot discovering he can't see his legs
in TIN WOODMAN.

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
<<Conjo's magical accessories include "books of magic recipes and
formulas--everything from changing people into door-knobs to curing
headaches" [p. 50]. Considering that LUCKY BUCKY mentions Trickolas Om
having turned people into doorknobs, as well as the Gabooches actually
having been turned into them, it's interesting that we see this same
type of transformation mentioned in SHAGGY MAN.>>

In chapter 22, Conjo threatens to transform people into "doormats and
jumping jacks." Maybe there's something about doors that attracts
magicians' contempt.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:47:15 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: SHAGGY MAN twins and gender roles

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
<
final chapter. They don't seem to be very well-defined characters at
all. About the only character development for them happens when we find
out (on p. 47) that Twink learned to walk early in life, and Tom is
interested in mechanical and electrical devices, and neither of these
character traits seem to have any impact on the story.>>

A lot of Oz books are journeys across obstacles, and I look at who in a
party does the problem-solving at those obstacles: who has the ideas to
overcome them, whose actions are crucial to success? In some cases the
problem-solving is carefully spread around, as in WIZARD or the building
of the Gump in LAND. But that approach can also reveal shifts of power
within groups, as when the Wogglebug seems to take over much of the
thinking for the travelers in LAND.

In the case of SHAGGY MAN, Twink and Tom also do very little of the
problem-solving during their story. Twiffle, the Shaggy Man, and the
Fairy Beaver King come up with all the ideas. Even when Tom's *action*
is crucial to solving a problem, as in the Valley of Romance, it's the
little wooden clown who has the inspiration for that plan.

Nonetheless, I did detect a slight hint of consistent personalities in
the twins. The pattern starts to appear in the first paragraphs of the
book:
        "It just isn't fair," declared Tom, staring
    unhappily through the window at the heavy rain
    pelting the lawn and garden about the house.
        "Well, there's nothing we can do about it,
    so we might as well make the best of it," replied
    Twink philosophically.

Tom is most often dubious and pessimistic: "He sat up, fully expecting
to see the expensive screen torn to shreds." "'Do you know how to
operate this thing?' asked Tom." "'Doesn't the west wind bring rain
clouds?' asked Tom, remembering that it usually did in Buffalo." "'Then
we're just not going to Oz, I guess,' said Tom sadly."

Twink, on the other hand, is usually optimistic, almost romantically so.
"'It's magic,' breathed Twink, 'pure magic.'" "Oh, I'm sure they must be
very happy and contented. . . . They just /must/ be to live in a place
like that." She also often has minor ideas for what to do, starting with
watching the television on that rainy day. She's "fascinated with the
long rows of books" in her room in the Valley of Romance.

Curiously, Tom is the first of the twins, sometimes the first of the
party, to jump into action when someone else has suggested a plan: "Tom
didn't wait for an answer. He jumped from the porch just as Twiffle had
done"; "Tom was already on his way."

This difference seems to lead to one of the twins' few disagreements:
        Twiffle returned to stand by the children and
    said, "Never you mind. We'll find the Shaggy Man
    all right. Perhaps it would be wise to remain here
    tonight as these people wish us to do. That will give
    us a chance to find out what they have done with Shaggy."
        This was said in a whisper, to which Tom answered,
    "Well, I could enjoy a good meal. We haven't had anything
    to eat but fruit since yesterday." Actually, Tom was as
    worried about Shaggy as Twink, but being a boy, he didn't
    want to let the girl know.
        Twink was indignant. "I'm surprised at you, Tom!
    The idea of talking about food when we've just lost our
    best friend! But I suppose Twiffle is right."
Tom is quick to adopt Twiffle's idea. Twink displays more fervent
loyalty--before she, too, accedes to an adult figure's idea.

That scene in turn leads to thoughts of how Snow depicted differences
between the boy and the girl, and between males and females generally.
In this case, Snow shows a boy hiding his feelings *because* he's a boy.
It's not clear why Tom doesn't want Twink to know he's worried: for fear
of losing face, or for fear of making her more worried than she already
is. In either event, Tom's choice doesn't work well.

In chapter 22 Conjo says, "I'll take care of Ozma when the time comes.
After all, she's only a girl." This could be sexism. It could also be
ageism since Conjo's a white-haired man and Ozma's a pubescent girl.
And, of course, it's a big mistake, though in this case the Fairy Beaver
King subdues Conjo before Ozma arrives.

In MAGICAL MIMICS Snow seems to follow Baum's lead in depicting the
queen Mimic as more powerful than the king (cf. Cor and Gos in
RINKITINK). He adds Ozana to the powerful female magic-working rulers he
inherited from Baum: Lurline, Ozma, Glinda.

In SHAGGY MAN, however, almost all the new rulers we meet are male:
Conjo, the Lord High Major of Hightown, the Fairy Beaver King, the
leader of the Flame Folk. In the Valley of Romance there's a pair of
monarchs, King Ticket and Queen Curtain, but the king seems to
consistently speak first and act first. Labor in the Valley of Romance
is also divided by gender: men hammering, women sewing. But the Fairy
Beaver King is the only male ruler who's actually as strong as he
claims. Males seem to bluster a bit too much in SHAGGY MAN.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004  11:59 am
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] Digest Number 1112-1114

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at ...> wrote:
> I think MAGICAL MIMICS is one of the more tightly plotted Oz books, ...
In SHAGGY MAN two events coincide to bring both the Shaggy Man and the twins
to Conjo's island at the same time. Thereafter, however, I think events
proceed logically with no coincidence necessary, even if the book doesn't
spell out all the connections. ... The conjurer thus decides to take over
the role of Wizard of Oz. Why doesn't he move more quickly? Well, in this
reading he started to develop the idea only after the Shaggy Man's arrival
and Twiffle's departure. Yes, it's convenient that Conjo moves so slowly the
Fairy Beaver King can arrive in time to stop him. But we know from his first
appearance that Conjo's a lazy person. And he just wants to be loved; is
that so bad? <
 
Enjoyed your analyses of both books. Your explanation for why Conjo moves so
slowly in his takeover bid seems plausible. I think you're right that Snow
amagamates the "Emerald City" Barrier of Invisibility with the "Tin Woodman"
Invisible Country. The amalgamation doesn't really work very well. Baum's
idea that people wouldn't try to get to Oz by air (or be able to steer well
enough to get there by land) when they couldn't see that there was a
habitable country there is plausible on its own, and so is his idea that
people in an Invisible Country would have a lot of trouble keeping their
bearings. Neither situation applies very well to what Snow wanted, though,
because the characters should have been able to put a hand on the tunnel
wall and march straight on, even without being able to see each other or the
tunnel.
 
> Nathan DeHoff wrote:
<<Conjo's magical accessories include "books of magic recipes and
formulas--everything from changing people into door-knobs to curing
headaches" [p. 50]. Considering that LUCKY BUCKY mentions Trickolas Om
having turned people into doorknobs, as well as the Gabooches actually
having been turned into them, it's interesting that we see this same type of
transformation mentioned in SHAGGY MAN.>>
> In chapter 22, Conjo threatens to transform people into "doormats and
jumping jacks." Maybe there's something about doors that attracts magicians'
contempt. <
 
Not to mention the stories that turn turn people into doorknockers (ETA
Hoffmann, Dickens, Thackeray, and so on).
 
Ruth Berman

From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at ...>
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004  4:45 pm
Subject: door into magic

Ruth Berman wrote:
<<Not to mention the stories that turn turn people into doorknockers
(ETA Hoffmann, Dickens, Thackeray, and so on).>>
 
This sounds like a promising lead! By the mid-20th century door knockers
were being replaced by doorbells, so Neill's mention of doorknobs and
Snow's of doormats might have been modernized version of this trope.
Hoffman was presumably the earliest. Which story did it appear in?
 
J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at ...

From: "Birrell, Gordon" <gbirrell at ...>
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004  5:12 pm
Subject: RE: [Nonestica] door into magic

J.L. Bell wrote:

>This sounds like a promising lead! By the mid-20th century door knockers 
were being replaced by doorbells, so Neill's mention of doorknobs and 
Snow's of doormats might have been modernized version of this trope.

Hoffman was presumably the earliest. Which story did it appear in?  

The story that comes immediately to mind is "Der goldene Topf" [The Golden Pot], 
written 1813-14, considerably in advance of the stories of Thackeray or Dickens.

Actually what happens in this scene is that the benign sculpted face on the 
ornamental brass door knocker suddenly morphs into the hideous features of the 
witch (Apfel-Liese)--an interesting precursor of the moment in the MGM movie in 
which the image of Aunt Em in the crystal ball turns into the face of the Wicked 
Witch of the West.

Was this the Hoffmann passage you were thinking of, Ruth?

--Gordon Birrell

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Fri Jul 2, 2004  4:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Nonestica] Digest Number 1119 & betsy bobbin

"Birrell, Gordon" <gbirrell at ...> wrote:
> The story [with humanoid doorknocker by ETA Hoffmann] that comes
immediately to mind is "Der oldene Topf" [The Golden Pot], written 1813-14,
considerably in advance of the stories of Thackeray or Dickens. Actually
what happens in this scene is that the benign sculpted face on the
ornamental brass door knocker suddenly morphs into the hideous features of
the witch (Apfel-Liese)--an interesting precursor of the moment in the MGM
movie in which the image of Aunt Em in the crystal ball turns into the face
of the Wicked Witch of the West. Was this the Hoffmann passage you were
thinking of, Ruth? <
 
Thanks, yes. I wonder if anyone else on the list, by the way, has fond
memories of a much less well known fairy tale, "Shadow Castle," by Marian
Cockrell (1945). (Her only fantasy story, I think.) The motif shows up in
this one in the castle door-knobs, which are the heads of imprisoned swamp
goblins. The goblins are malicious enough to make it hard to get any of the
doors open, but lazy enough for people to be able to get through if they
work at it. It does seem, in all its versions, to be a very cinematic
motif -- although, as the early and mid 19th century examples mentioned
indicate, it doesn't have to be.
 
Ruth Berman

Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 14:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: kramer's shaggy art

--- Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
> We've talked about "Shaggy Man" as regards text, but
> I don't think there've
> been any comments as regards the art.

I think Kramer made a vast improvement in his work
between MIMICS and SHAGGAY MAN.  The illustrations are
a lot less cartoonish and a lot more decorative.  He
seems to have developed a better sense of the page and
how his pictures fit on it.  I'm thinking particularly
of his use of negative space, leaving areas of full
page illustrations blank to give a more dramatice line
to the composition.  The picture on page 33 of Ozma
and Shaggy consulting a magical history book seems
particularly well designed to me, taking a static
event and giving it some movement through a diagonal
layout.  (Although the book does seem to have eaten
Ozma's hand.) 

His portayal of character is also a lot better, lively
and with movement.  I like the picture of Lady Cue (p
137) stirring salt into her tea.  The animals are
mostly appealing -- the beaver king in particular --
even if the Cowardly Lion doesn't look much like
himself (or very much like a lion either).  Twink and
Tom seem a bit buttoned up in their clothes, too
stiffly dressed for what began as a rainy afternoon,
and  Tom's bow tie never looks anything less than
freshy pressed.  The Shaggy Man's features are pretty
indistinct, but I think that has more to do with
Kramer's pen work than his characterization.  The rest
of the illustrations, I think, are adequate, but
rarely achieve (with the possible exception of the
endpapers) the kind of lyrical, humorous beauty that
John R, Neill was capable of in his best work. 

Alan Wise

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:56:11 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Snow geography

There was some discussion earlier about how Snow dealt with the
east-west issue that dogged Oz authors in the second quarter of the
twentieth century. I think that despite his loyalty to Baum Snow ended
up following the lead of the later Thompson and Neill books.

Chapter 5 of MIMICS says the Mimics as giant birds kidnapping Dorothy
and the Wizard "headed southeast in the direction of the Deadly Desert"
from the Emerald City. They fly over "the highly polished towers and
minarets of a handsome tin castle"--the seat of Winkie Country. So in
this book the Winkies are in the east and the Mimics' mountain further
to the east.

SHAGGY MAN offers this description in chapter 4:
        Shaggy looked at the Magic Compass and found
    that instead of being marked North, South, East and
    West as is the usual compass, it bore the words
    Gilliken, Quadling, Winkie and Munchkin, which are
    the four countries making up the Land of Oz.
The cardinal directions seem to be in a one-for-one replacement with the
quadrants of Oz, again putting the Winkies in the east instead of the
west. I think Nathan DeHoff said Frank Kramer drew the Compass accordingly.

Another geographical anomaly in Snow, it strikes me, is the location of
the fairy beavers' home. Not that it's no longer on an ocean
island--they can have multiple homes if they like, or there might be
multiple bands of these creatures.

Rather, the beavers move "swiftly down the river" after meeting the
Shaggy Man and his party, yet their kingdom is closer to the Deadly
Desert "in the hills and mountains you see in the distance." In other
words, going downriver means moving up into the hills and mountains and
away from the ocean.

We thus have odd passages like this:
    ...the boat sped swiftly downstream. The banks of
    the river grew much steeper, and they could see
    scarcely any trees, while grey rocks jutted from
    the earth and forbidding mountain peaks loomed
    only a few miles distant.

And the beaver king explains:
    "...we prefer this desolate region for our home since
    we are less likely to be disturbed here. And any trees
    we may need we can always fell and float downstream
    from the more fertile lands."

The Oz Club map tackles this oddity by having the river start in the
mountains around the Valley of Romance/Love, flow southeast across the
land above the Nome Kingdom, and then go underground at the Fairy Beaver
Kingdom close to the Deadly Desert. It then takes a sharp turn to the
southwest and surfaces in southern Ev before flowing to the Nonestic
near Rinkitink. That's possible, of course, but it makes me wonder if
there's much more to learn about the geography of Ev.

In addition, these beavers live in "a labyrinth of large and small
tunnels burrowed into the earth." I hadn't thought of beavers as
burrowing animals. But perhaps fairy beavers are, or perhaps they're
using tunnels dug by someone else. Like their mortal counterparts, they
"do a lot of engineering," but apparently of a different kind.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

From: "Brahm" <brahm at ...>
Date: Thu Jul 8, 2004  10:24 am
Subject: Re: Snow geography

--- In Nonestica at yahoogroups.com, "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at e...> wrote:
 
>
> In addition, these beavers live in "a labyrinth of large and small
> tunnels burrowed into the earth." I hadn't thought of beavers as
> burrowing animals. But perhaps fairy beavers are, or perhaps they're
> using tunnels dug by someone else. Like their mortal counterparts, they
> "do a lot of engineering," but apparently of a different kind.
>
> J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at e...
 
Actually...
 
When a beaver finds a suitable stream, it marks the area with scent
mounds and 'digs' out a den in the stream bank. Beavers are indeed
burrowers, and they have powerful, curved claws on all four feet.
 
Beavers are even able to dig their burrow's entrance well below the
surface of the water.
 
Oddly enough, although the European beaver is nearly identical in
appearance to the American beaver, it has no interest in dam
construction. European beavers confine their efforts to 'only'
digging burrows in the stream bank.
 
The prehistoric Miocene beavers were 7 feet long, felling trees ages
before the mammoths roamed. Their underground spiral burrows can be
found from western Europe to central Asia and North America. After
their extinction, some of these burrows filled with debris that
fossilized, creating twisted masses of stone that geologists call
devil's corkscrews.
 
Legends of these prehistoric giants were once widespread and more
than likely became a major source for the fairy beaver legends of
native americans which possibly inspired Snow.
 
~Brahm

From: "Melva Benson" <mecha_zilla at ...>
Date: Thu Jul 8, 2004  10:45 am
Subject: Re: Snow geography

--- In Nonestica at yahoogroups.com, "Brahm" <brahm at b...> wrote:
> --- In Nonestica at yahoogroups.com, "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at e...> wrote:
> > In addition, these beavers live in "a labyrinth of large and small
> > tunnels burrowed into the earth." I hadn't thought of beavers as
> > burrowing animals. But perhaps fairy beavers are, or perhaps
> they're
> > using tunnels dug by someone else. Like their mortal counterparts,
> they
> > "do a lot of engineering," but apparently of a different kind.
> >
> > J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at e...
>
> Actually...
>
> Beavers are indeed burrowers, and they have powerful, curved claws on all four feet.  
> Oddly enough, although the European beaver is nearly identical in
> appearance to the American beaver, it has no interest in dam
> construction. European beavers confine their efforts to 'only'
> digging burrows in the stream bank.
 
True. Where I'm at along the Colorado, dam construction is impossible
due to the swift moving current's. So the beaver's burrow out dens in
the river bank which are basically holes and tunnels. These burrow
systems get pretty elaborate and are usually underwater except for
when the river is low and then you can see how amazing these little
systems really are. ~Melva

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Thu Jul 8, 2004  11:26 am
Subject: oziana & shaggy man

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at ...> wrote:
> the beavers move "swiftly down the river" after meeting the Shaggy Man and
his party, yet their kingdom is closer to the Deadly Desert "in the hills
and mountains you see in the distance." In other words, going downriver
means moving up into the hills and mountains and away from the ocean.
We thus have odd passages like this [downstream toward mountains] <
 
Interesting point. Sounds as if Snow didn't actually know that
"downriver"/"upriver" meant different directions. Although the curves and
sinkhole you describe on the Haff/Martin map probably do "explain" the
problem adequately. (A basically nice adaptation of Doyle's "The Lost World"
was done for tape as part of the series of sf clalssics as radio-plays that
Leonard Nimoy and John DeLancie have been doing suffered abit at the point
where the adaptor felt the journey along the river by canoe from the coast
to the mesa needed punching up, and put in a scene where they all get to
yell and scream a lot when the current of the river almost sweeps them over
a waterfall.)
 
> In addition, these beavers live in "a labyrinth of large and small tunnels
burrowed into the earth." I hadn't thought of beavers as burrowing animals.
But perhaps fairy beavers are, or perhaps they're using tunnels dug by
someone else. Like their mortal counterparts, they "do a lot of
engineering," but apparently of a different kind. <
 
I think beaver lodges have (or can have?) a shore-side with tunnels in from
that side, as well as a water-side?
 
Ruth Berman

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 19:48:08 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Snow geography

Melva Benson wrote:
> Where I'm at along the Colorado, dam construction is impossible
> due to the swift moving current's. So the beaver's burrow out dens in
> the river bank which are basically holes and tunnels. These burrow
> systems get pretty elaborate and are usually underwater except for
> when the river is low and then you can see how amazing these little
> systems really are.

Thanks for that vivid word picture. It fits with the phrase Snow uses in
SHAGGY MAN: "a labyrinth of large and small tunnels burrowed into the
*earth* at the rear of the cave" (my emphasis). Though the fairy beavers
use "a large, granite door" and stumble onto the Nomes' tunnel "hewn
from solid rock," their own tunnels seem to be dug in softer soil.

Of course, those beavers don't engineer just like their natural
counterparts: Snow also wrote, "New tunnels were being constructed and
reinforced with carefully hewn beams of wood."

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:13:26 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: MAGICAL MIMICS Pineville

In the Pineville episode of MAGICAL MIMICS, Snow follows Baum's lead in
showing a non-meat person expressing pity about the hardships of bodies
like our own. Mrs. Hi-Lo says:
    "it must be a terrible bother to take off and put on
    all those clothes and to keep your hair trimmed and
    your nails pared."
Curiously, however, Snow hints that the pine people eat and sleep like
humans.

Shortly before the passage above Mrs. Hi-Lo says:
    "You must be half starved. I'll get you something to eat
    in no time at all. Tell me, would you like a delicious
    cross-cut of pine steak with pine-dust pudding, fresh,
    crisp pine-needle salad with turpentine dressing and
    a strawberry pine cone for dessert?"
Like the cannibalistic candy people of Merryland, the pine people seem
to consume substances like themselves.

As another possible sign that meals are a regular part of Pineville
life, Mrs. Hi-Lo has "pine platters and dishes." It may be significant
that the meal magically makes for her guests is vegetarian (though not
vegan):
    There was savory vegetable soup, scrambled eggs,
    cheese, lettuce and tomato salad, chocolate layer
    cake and lemonade.

The Hi-Los also have "bedrooms...warm blankets and soft pillows." Ozana
could have supplied their cottage with the latter for escapees from the
Mimics, but the little pine couple actually go into their (separate)
bedrooms themselves, so those rooms must serve some function for them.

Most curious of all, for wooden people living in a wooden house in a
pine forest, the Hi-Los have no fear of fire: their house has a
fireplace, and they're burning a log in it when Dorothy and the Wizard
arrive. Not everything in Pineville could be wooden since the people
have windows to wash, so presumably their fireplaces are either stone or
magically protected from burning. But in a book that ends with the
Scarecrow threatened by flames, it seems a little odd that Snow would
let this detail of Pineville pass without remark.

As in many other little communities in the Oz books, the people of
Pineville are convinced that their lifestyle is the best and their home
is the "most favored spot in the universe." Equally, the people of
Hightown in SHAGGY MAN think their home is "the pinnacle of
civilization, the highest point in high life ever reached by man."
Unlike Thompson's communities, however, those in these Snow books
neither react to outsiders with hostility nor insist that they change to
conform to local habits. They're just incredulous at other lifestyles.

That's a bit refreshing, but it means less action. Both the Pineville
and Hightown episodes immediately follow the heroes' escape from the
books' main villains, and in MIMICS we also know that the Emerald City
has been infiltrated. But then we have such cheerful, leisurely
interludes that a lot of the books' tension goes up in smoke. Snow may
have been skilled at plotting, but his pacing left a lot to be desired.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:35:35 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <DinnerBell at tmbg.org>
Subject: RE: MAGICAL MIMICS and SHAGGY MAN xenophobia

J. L. Bell:
>As in many other little communities in the Oz books, the people of
>Pineville are convinced that their lifestyle is the best and their home
>is the "most favored spot in the universe." Equally, the people of
>Hightown in SHAGGY MAN think their home is "the pinnacle of
>civilization, the highest point in high life ever reached by man."
>Unlike Thompson's communities, however, those in these Snow books
>neither react to outsiders with hostility nor insist that they change to
>conform to local habits. They're just incredulous at other lifestyles.

The Lord High Mayor doesn't mention how easy it is to leave Hightown,
however, so there seems to be an implication that, while he isn't actually
keeping the visitors as prisoners, he's making a conscious effort to prevent
them from leaving.
--
Making something of nothing 'til there's no more nothing left,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:07:59 -0500
From: David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com>
Subject: Hi-Los and fire

J.L.:
> Most curious of all, for wooden people living in a wooden house in a
> pine forest, the Hi-Los have no fear of fire: their house has a
> fireplace, and they're burning a log in it when Dorothy and the Wizard
> arrive. Not everything in Pineville could be wooden since the people
> have windows to wash, so presumably their fireplaces are either stone
> or
> magically protected from burning. But in a book that ends with the
> Scarecrow threatened by flames, it seems a little odd that Snow would
> let this detail of Pineville pass without remark.

I don't think it's all that odd. The Scarecrow is unusually vulnerable
to fire, since dry straw is tinder-like in its inflammability. Solid
wood, on the other hand, while combustible, doesn't ignite that easily.
Human flesh is combustible too, after all - in fact, I'd expect the
Hi-Los to be somewhat less sensitive to fire than a human if anything,
since they may not have pain nerves sensitive to heat. I'd expect them
to respect fire, as humans do, for its potential destructive power, but
not to have the Scarecrow's panicked reaction to the possibility of
being hit by a spark.

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:43:07 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: MAGICAL MIMICS and SHAGGY MAN xenophobia

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> The Lord High Mayor doesn't mention how easy it is to leave Hightown,
> however, so there seems to be an implication that, while he isn't actually 
> keeping the visitors as prisoners, he's making a conscious effort to prevent
> them from leaving.

He probably makes a conscious choice not to mention this departure
possibility, but since this would be a sin of omission, not commission,
there would be no "effort" involved.

And if the Lord High Mayor is sincere in his high opinion of Hightown,
as he certainly seems to be, he would presumably hold back the
information for what he considers the new arrivals' own good. It's a
paradoxical form of xenophobia that considers lifestyles everywhere else
to be inferior, yet welcomes foreigners themselves.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at ...>
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004  10:37 am
Subject: pinewood, marvelous, rinkitink/trot

David Hulan <dhulan at ...> wrote:
> I don't think it [absence of fear of fire in Pineville]'s all that odd.
The Scarecrow is unusually vulnerable
to fire, since dry straw is tinder-like in its inflammability. Solid wood,
on the other hand, while combustible, doesn't ignite that easily. <
 
Pinewood is easier to ignite than most woods, because of the resins, but
even that wouldn't be as combustible as straw, so your conclusion that the
Pineville people's reaction isn't all that odd sounds reasonable. I suppose
knowing if Pineville gets regular rainfall (naturally or -- maybe more
likely on the top of the Mimics' mountain -- by magic) might be a factor,
too. I don't think Snow has any comment on their rainfall, though.
 
Ruth Berman