Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:47:58 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] wicked witch of oz

I think "Wicked Witch" is now up for discussion, although I'm not sure if we
formally made a choice between April 20 and May 1 for starting. (Nathan
expressed a preference for the earlier one, and no one argued against that,
though, so April 20 seemed to be the idea.)

Re-reading it, I find I like the incidental characters more than I
remembered -- Leon the Neon, the bees and hummingbirds, staffers at Glinda's
palace. Previously, I disliked Leon, feeling that the electric kit was too
modern to fit with the general "flavor" of Oz. Re-reading the whole series
in order over for the last few years for discussion here and on Nonestica,
though, I'm more aware of the adaptation of various technologies to Oz
magics over the years -- the Shaggy Man's wireless telegraph, the Oogaboo
musket-tree Coo-ee-oh's submarines and hydraulics, RPT's airplanes and
rockets, Neill's automobiles -- and with that background Leon seems more
reasonable. (Also, of course, he makes an interesting contrast to Baum's
Demon of Electricity in "The Magic Key" and Electra in "Tik-Tok.") And
Percy's slang and conceit don't seem to be stressed as much in "Wicked
Witch" as in "Hidden Valley" -- still present, but not as over-powering -- 
and he seems more likable as a result. (But I'm afraid I suffer from rat
prejudice -- the idea of a giant rat still strikes me as hard to take.) And
also in the technological line, I like Tik-Tok's inclination to be
hospitable to a fellow Smith & Tinker creation, in his welcome to the Alarm 
Clock.

RCP does something ambitious in choosing to open with Singra as the
viewpoint character and to stick with her for so much of the way, as it's
hard to make an evil character good enough company to hold attention. (By
contrast, Ann of Oogaboo is a more mixed character, her ambition partly
admirable as well as partly a flaw, and Ruggedo is played more for comedy
than is Singra.) I don't think the experiment of using Singra as the
viewpoint character really works -- I felt bogged down reading her chapters.
I wonder, by the way, why Glinda contented herself with putting Singra out
of action for a hundred years instead of more permanently, and why, having
done so, she wasn't more careful about taking note of the fateful
anniversary. Likewise, I wonder if Ozma & Co. aren't being either too harsh

in putting her back to sleep for another hundred years after they've removed
both her magic and her memory (either alone, as in the examples of Mombi and
Ruggedo, might be inadequate, but surely the combination...?), or else not
harsh enough in assuming that she won't wake up next time around as
malicious as ever and perhaps as ingenious in finding ways to make trouble
even with the removals of magic & memory. The sleep-to-sleep structure is a 
nice symmetry, but not entirely plausible.

JLBell reviewed "Wicked Witch" in the "Bugle" when it first appeared -- 
might be appropriate, J.L., if you want to post that review here and maybe
add some comments-on-re-reading?

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:14:26 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: wicked witch of oz

Ruth Berman wrote:
> JLBell reviewed "Wicked Witch" in the "Bugle" when it first appeared -- 
> might be appropriate, J.L., if you want to post that review here and maybe 
> add some comments-on-re-reading?

Not I, though I have reviewed a couple of the "major" Oz books published
in the 2000's.

WICKED WITCH appeared in 1993, when I felt I had little time to write
about Oz. I did read it, and enjoy it. I remember thumbing through the
opening pages with Eric Shanower's pictures of the alarm clock waking
up. Here was someone who understood how to create an illustrated novel,
I thought. I understand David Maxine might have been the designer for
this volume.

I hope to reread WICKED WITCH shortly, and would comment more then.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:57:37 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] "Wicked Witch" & Garland play

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Not I [as reviewer of "Wicked Witch"], though I have reviewed a couple of
> the "major" Oz books published in the 2000's. >

Looking again, I think my memory was mixing up two items in the one issue of
the "Bugle" -- your review of "Rundelstone" and Eric Shanower's article on
various aspects of illustrating "Wicked Witch" (and "Runaway"). The "Bugle"
review of "Wicked Witch" was in a different issue, some years earlier, and
was by Robert Luehrs.

One of the points Eric S. mentioned was a preference for drawing animals
realistically, rather than stylizing them, as Neill often did. The result in
"Wicked Witch" is richly detailed drawings of plants as well as animals,

giving a romantically lush effect to the Quadling Redwood Forests. Neill, by
contrast, even when drawing a specifically romantic forest (say, the one in
"Yellow Knight" were the Corumbians have been turned into trees), focuses
more on the human figures, and keeps the trees kind of sketchy. (Neill's
memorable trees tend to be the more comic and the more frightening ones,
perhaps influenced by Arthur Rackham, like the color plates of the
Fiddlestick Forest in "Cowardly Lion" and Twig Forest in "Kabumpo.") It's
maybe a trait related to the preference for realistic detail that Eric S.
has a lot of fun cramming details into the illos where appropriate -- I'm
thinking of the face-haunted fixtures in Singra's cottage, or the couple of
scenes in Ozma's palace, crowded with the assorted Emerald City residents
mentioned in the story plus a bunch more who don't actually get a mention in
the text but seem like nice extras of have pictured.
 
Ruth Berman

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:45:38 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH look

In an effort to catch up, I'm choosing to post comments about WICKED
WITCH while reading instead of after I finish.

Earlier I mentioned how the series of drawings of the alarm clock was an
entrancing opening for the book. A few chapters in, I continue to be
impressed all over again by the look of the book.

WICKED WITCH is the first Oz book with any connection to the canon that
benefited from the arrival of affordable desktop publishing software. In
fact (judging by the early Buckethead titles I've seen), it might be the
first Oz book of any sort to be produced in that way. That opened the
door for a visual program that would have been expensive for Reilly &
Lee--and therefore inconceivable for that firm after Baum died.

Every chapter in WICKED WITCH ends on a left-hand page, letting the next
chapter's title appear on the opposite page alongside a character
portrait. (That design element is repeated in RUNDELSTONE, from the same
production team, though there I suspect it served the purpose of
lengthening a short text.) Each new chapter's text then starts under a
double-page spread of art, as in GLINDA and ROYAL BOOK.

Making sure that chapters end on a verso page means laying out the book
before it's illustrated, figuring out how long each chapter must be with
art, and thus defining the spaces to be filled by art. Reilly & Lee
probably tried that with PATCHWORK GIRL, the series's boffo comeback,
but succeeded only with effort (repeating some art, dropping the picture
of the Quadling homemaker). The press abandoned such extra time, effort,
and expense in later books. Eventually, Neill was drawing only three
sizes of drawings per book:
    1) chapter openers (with different designs for each book)
    2) ten lines tall
    3) full-page drawings, either line or for color plates
Thus, layout became a rote process, requiring no more imagination than
it took to insert the occasional illustration upside-down.

In contrast, it looks like the WICKED WITCH text was laid out on a
computer first, leaving a variety of spaces for art. Then Eric Shanower
filled all that space. Reilly & Lee's schedule and budget couldn't have
handled that approach back in the days of linotype and plates.

Another visual trick made possible by desktop publishing appears on
pages 192-3, when the witch's snuff scatters across both pages of text.
WIZARD overlapped text and art that way by having each signature printed
in two colors, but overlapping black art and composed type wasn't easy
with pre-digital layouts.

The double-page chapter openers showing Singra are all dark, with
crowded hatching to create shadows and grime. I suspect Eric was trying
to create a contrast between those and the chapter openers featuring
characters from the Emerald City, which are filled with more rounded
shapes. However, only a few of the latter group have a lot of white
space. To my aging eyes that somewhat reduces the contrast between the
two groups of illustrations; a line drawing crowded with leaves or
flowers seems almost as dark as a line drawing crowded with wood grain.

In contrast to all these thoughts about the art and design, I'm finding
the text of WICKED WITCH to be less inspiring, and less inspired. The
prose seems a bit pedestrian, the plot slow. For HIDDEN VALLEY, Reilly &
Lee assigned an advertising man to polish Cosgrove's verse. Judging by
her poems in WICKED WITCH, she needed that help. Her lines /can/ be read
in a metrical way, but only if I really try.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:46:17 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] WHO'S WHO and WICKED WITCH

Ruth:
>I think "Wicked Witch" is now up for discussion, although I'm not sure if
>we formally made a choice between April 20 and May 1 for starting. (Nathan
>expressed a preference for the earlier one, and no one argued against that, 
>though, so April 20 seemed to be the idea.)

I did indeed express a preference for that date, yet it wasn't until ten
days later (i.e., today) that I finished re-reading the book.  I don't mind,
though; it's not like I hadn't read the book before, and I'd rather catch up
myself than wait for others to catch up (if that makes any sense).

>Previously, I disliked Leon, feeling that the electric kit was too modern
>to fit with the general "flavor" of Oz. Re-reading the whole series in
>order over for the last few years for discussion here and on Nonestica,
>though, I'm more aware of the adaptation of various technologies to Oz
>magics over the years -- the Shaggy Man's wireless telegraph, the Oogaboo
>musket-tree Coo-ee-oh's submarines and hydraulics, RPT's airplanes and
>rockets, Neill's automobiles -- and with that background Leon seems more
>reasonable.

Leon specifically states that his house did not have electricity prior to
his receiving the kit.  Electricity is not unheard of in Oz (the palace has
apparently been using it at least since the Wizard's time), but it doesn't
seem to have spread to the rural areas of the country.  So I had no problem
with Leon's origins being based on electricity.  On the other hand, I did
find it a bit odd that so many Ozites recognize him as a live neon sign. 
Even Singra, who had just recently awakened from a hundred-year sleep, seems
to know what he is.  (From p. 43: "Imagine her surprise to see a real live
neon sign on her doorstep.")

>RCP does something ambitious in choosing to open with Singra as the
>viewpoint character and to stick with her for so much of the way, as it's
>hard to make an evil character good enough company to hold attention. (By
>contrast, Ann of Oogaboo is a more mixed character, her ambition partly
>admirable as well as partly a flaw, and Ruggedo is played more for comedy
>than is Singra.) I don't think the experiment of using Singra as the
>viewpoint character really works -- I felt bogged down reading her
>chapters.

I think the Singra chapters tended to be heavy on unnecessary details. 
She's always telling herself things that she and the readers already know,
and doing things that are described in more words than is really necessary. 
Perhaps the best example of this is on p. 192, where we see a long passage
describing Singra's attempts to fit the cheese into the sugar bowl.  Payes 
might be providing this much detail in order to get us to understand
Singra's frustration, but it comes across as a rather tedious read.

J. L. Bell:
>Another visual trick made possible by desktop publishing appears on pages
>192-3, when the witch's snuff scatters across both pages of text. WIZARD
>overlapped text and art that way by having each signature printed in two
>colors, but overlapping black art and composed type wasn't easy with
>pre-digital layouts.

Isn't that actually red pepper, rather than snuff?  Either way, it's
definitely a nice effect.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:18:36 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH and the history of Oz

One interesting question regarding WICKED WITCH is when the story takes
place.  From what I've heard, Payes thought of the story as taking place
around when she wrote it, back in the early fifties.  Eric Shanower, on the
other hand, illustrated it as if it took place around the time of its
publication in the nineties.  I must say that I prefer Rachel's idea in this
respect, not just because she's the one who wrote it, but because it seems
to fit better with my own conception of the history of Oz.  If Singra wakes
up from her sleep in the nineties, that would mean she was presumably put to
sleep only a few years before the events of WIZARD.  Does this fit with what
we know about the Wicked Witches?

DOTWIZ is the first book to mention a Wicked Witch of the South.  Ozma
relates the history of her country and family, and says, "But once upon a
time four Witches leagued together to depose the king and rule the four
parts of the kingdom themselves; so when the Ruler, my grandfather, was
hunting one day, one Wicked Witch named Mombi stole him and carried him
away, keeping him a close prisoner. Then the Witches divided up the kingdom,
and ruled the four parts of it until you came here."  The Wizard then

mentions that there were only two Wicked Witches when he arrived in Oz. 
This is not entirely true, since the Wizard himself had dealings with the
WWN, a fact he would have been reluctant to share with Ozma.  It's quite
possible that he did not know Mombi was one of the original Wicked Witches,
though.  Could Singra have been hiding out somewhere, as Mombi had been
doing?  It's a possibility, I suppose, but I still prefer the idea that she
had been enchanted BEFORE the Wizard's arrival.

There might actually be some evidence that supports a later date for
Singra's enchantment, though.  She seems to have no problem finding the
Emerald City, even though it seems logical that, if she had slept through
the Wizard's reign, she never would have heard of it.  Perhaps Singra made 
some additional queries of the Magical Musical Snuffbox that weren't
recorded by Payes.  Of course, we also know from LOST KING that Pastoria had
a palace where the Emerald City now stands.  Singra might well have assumed
that Ozma's capital would be in the same place.  For that matter, it's
possible that the settlement in that area could have had the nickname
"Emerald City" before the Wizard, although it wasn't officially called that
until later.  I seem to recall there being a similar problem in GIANT HORSE,
in which Herby, who was probably bottled before Ozma took the throne, knows
about the Queen and the Emerald City.

Is Singra THE WWS that Ozma mentions in DOTWIZ?  Payes seems to think she
is.  On p. 24, she refers to "Singra, the Wicked Witch of the South," and
later establishes her relationship to the WWE and WWW.  That all of the
Wickeds are related might have been an idea that Payes had gotten from the
MGM movie, in which the WWE and WWW are sisters.  In WICKED WITCH, Singra is
a cousin of both of these witches, which could mean the WWE and WWW are
sisters, but they could also be cousins, or no real relation at all. 
Regardless, the DOTWIZ story states that the WWS had ruled the Quadling
Country, something Singra doesn't seem to have done.  On p. 195, we find
Singra "thinking about how nice it would be to rule the south country of
Oz," with no indication that she had done so before.

Interestingly enough, Eric Shanower had written an earlier story (ENCHANTED
APPLES) in which we meet another claimant to the title of WWS.  Eric's own 
explanation for the two Wicked Witches of the South is that they're sisters
who were in competition with each other.  If so, Singra must have outlasted
the other WWS for some time.  Eric himself has said that APPLES takes place
before Dorothy leaves Oz in OZMA, and Valynn and her castle have been in
Limbo for an entire century before this.  That means that Bortag's discovery
of the WWS (who, like Singra, had been placed in an enchanted sleep by a
powerful sorceress) presumably happened in the early nineteenth century. 
And he had read about the Witch in a book before finding her, which means
the period when she was actually active might have been even longer ago than
this.  Singra, on the other hand, wasn't put to sleep until the 1850s at the
earliest.  Perhaps it was Singra's sister who ruled the Quadlings, and the 
hoztory book writers, not realizing that there were two sisters involved,
combined the two Witches into one.

Incidentally, if we accept the statement in PURPLE PRINCE that Glinda is
celebrating her hundredth anniversary as ruler of the Quadlings, and we
assume that PRINCE occurs around when it was written, Glinda's taking the
throne couldn't very well coincide with the defeat of either WWS.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 18:10:20 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH magic

Since I've examined the magic in other books, I might as well do the same
thing with this one.

The main character in the book is a wicked witch, which implies we're going
to see quite a bit of witchcraft being used.  Singra really doesn't cast
that many spells, though, and the ones we do see her use take a lot of
preparation.  They also aren't original with her.  The spell she uses to
enchant Trot comes from a book, which makes her thought that it "was a
special enchantment known by only a few witches" (p. 189) somewhat unlikely.

  I suppose it's possible that the book is quite rare, but then, Singra HAS
been asleep for a century, and it might have become more common in that
time.  Still, it's Singra herself who ultimately breaks the
enchantment. 

The knitting needles Singra uses on Dorothy are from a wizard named Kizzo. 
The Hundred-Year Alarm Clock is a creation of Smith and Tinker that Singra
acquired in a magical trade, which makes me wonder what they would have
gotten from her.  There could be a story in that.  I don't believe there's
any indication as to the origins of the Magical Musical Snuffbox, a clever
creation that sort of reminds me of the Little Pink Bear and Glegg's
Question Box.

The way the Magic Belt is used raises some of the same questions it does in
other books.  Ozma uses it to bring Dorothy, Singra, and the WWS's magical 
tools to the palace.  On the other hand, she never thinks to use it to
transport herself to Glinda's palace (instead using the Red Wagon for that
purpose), or to bring either Trot or the Scarecrow to the Emerald City. 
Whether she just doesn't think of that, or the Belt has some limitations we
don't know about, is never really addressed.

I do like the way the Magic Picture is used, with Trot's enchanted form
confusing the people in the Emerald City like Ozma's did in FORBIDDEN
FOUNTAIN.

Another old magical item that gets a mention is the Wizard's Searchlight,
from the Thompson books.  He refers to it on p. 281.

And, finally, I liked how Dorothy and Percy's hummingbird wings were too big
and powerful to allow them to reach the ground.  They seem to work
differently from other magic wings we've seen in the series, like Akbad's in
GIANT HORSE.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 19:05:18 -0400
From: phil lewin <flipglen at cogeco.ca>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH magic

At 06:10 PM 5/1/2005 -0400, Nathan DinnerBell at tmbg.org wrote:
>she never thinks to use it to transport herself to Glinda's palace
>(instead using the Red Wagon for that purpose), or to bring either Trot or
>the Scarecrow to the Emerald City.
>Whether she just doesn't think of that, or the Belt has some limitations
>we don't know about, is never really addressed.

I do suspect that there is a general trend in Oz to not always use magic in
the most obvious ways possible.  I have excepted this as something inately 
magical in and of itself.

Phil

Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 15:34:51 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] Wicked Witch details

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
> WICKED WITCH is the first Oz book with any connection to the canon that
> benefited from the arrival of affordable desktop publishing software. In
> fact (judging by the early Buckethead titles I've seen), it might be the
> first Oz book of any sort to be produced in that way. That opened the door 
> for a visual program that would have been expensive for Reilly & Lee--and
> therefore inconceivable for that firm after Baum died. >

Interesting discussion of the layout intricacies.

> Eventually, Neill was drawing only three sizes of drawings per book: 1)
> chapter openers (with different designs for each book) 2) ten lines tall
> 3) full-page drawings, either line or for color plates <

I think a trifle more variety than that -- also half-page drawings that
might be either horizontal or vertical, and the double-page spreads.

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com> wrote:
One interesting question regarding WICKED WITCH is when the story takes
place.  ... DOTWIZ is the first book to mention a Wicked Witch of the South.
Ozma relates the history of her country and family, and says, "But once upon
a time four Witches leagued together to depose the king and rule the four
parts of the kingdom themselves; so when the Ruler, my grandfather, was
hunting one day, one Wicked Witch named Mombi stole him and carried him
away, keeping him a close prisoner. Then the Witches divided up the kingdom,
and ruled the four parts of it until you came here."  The Wizard then
mentions that there were only two Wicked Witches when he arrived in Oz. 
<

I think the wording of the Wizard's comment is slightly ambiguous (I forget
the exact wording, but remember that the point has come up before -- in
connection with Mombi?) It probably means that were only two Wicked Witches
when he arrived in Oz, but could mean that the reduction of four to two
happened about the same time as his arrival and possibly some time later
than his arrival.

> This is not entirely true, since the Wizard himself had dealings with the
> WWN, a fact he would have been reluctant to share with Ozma.  It's quite
> possible that he did not know Mombi was one of the original Wicked
> Witches, though.  Could Singra have been hiding out somewhere, as Mombi
> had been doing?  It's a possibility, I suppose, but I still prefer the
> idea that she had been enchanted BEFORE the Wizard's arrival. <

Possible, but then you'd think something more might have been heard about
her, as it was with Mombi. I think the last time this topic came up, I
suggested that the arrival of the Wizard might have worried the WWs to such
an extent that the distraction opened the way for Glinda to go after the WWS
and enchant her just shortly after the Wizard's arrival, which is probasbly
early enough to be 1850s, in line with RCP's intended dating.

> There might actually be some evidence that supports a later date for
> Singra's enchantment, though. ... I seem to recall there being a similar
> problem in GIANT HORSE, in which Herby, who was probably bottled before
> Ozma took the throne, knows about the Queen and the Emerald City. <

I forget -- did anyone come up with a suggestion to resolve that?

> Is Singra THE WWS that Ozma mentions in DOTWIZ?  Payes seems to think she
> is. ... the DOTWIZ story states that the WWS had ruled the Quadling
> Country, something Singra doesn't seem to have done.  On p. 195, we find
> Singra "thinking about how nice it would be to rule the south country of
Oz," with no indication that she had done so before. <

A possible fudge factor here, for both Singra and the other WWS you mention,
in Eric Shanower's ENCHANTED APPLES, is that the descriptions of the 4 WWs
as ruling each a quadrant may be simplifications of a more complicated
situation. There could have been more than 4, with the extras coming at
different times or ruling different sections of quadrants large enough to
consider themselves each "the" quadrant witch. But your suggestion that the
EA WWS was "the" WWS, and Singra *a* WWS without being considered the 
quadrant ruler sounds like a plausible possibility.

> Incidentally, if we accept the statement in PURPLE PRINCE that Glinda is
> celebrating her hundredth anniversary as ruler of the Quadlings, and we
> assume that PRINCE occurs around when it was written, Glinda's taking the
> throne couldn't very well coincide with the defeat of either WWS. <

Probably not, although, again, the politics could have been more complicated
than the brief descriptions indicated. She and the WWS (or even a couple of
WWS's) could have been disputing who was in charge over some time, and an
anniversary might refer to when Glinda became powerful in the quadrant,
rather than to when she actually had an undisputed title. (The US and the
British give different dates for when the US became independent, for
example.)

And I think I'll wait for another day to comment on the second May Regalian
digest.

Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 17:15:33 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] Wicked Witch details

Ruth Berman:
>>There might actually be some evidence that supports a later date for
>>Singra's enchantment, though. ... I seem to recall there being a similar
>>problem in GIANT HORSE, in which Herby, who was probably bottled before 
>>Ozma took the throne, knows about the Queen and the Emerald City. <
>
>I forget -- did anyone come up with a suggestion to resolve that?

I believe there was a suggestion that Herby's enchantment could have
happened AFTER Mombi had lost her powers, since it was the Medicine Man's
own syrup that transformed him.  This wouldn't explain why she would have
put him in her old cabin, which almost certainly would have been Tattypoo's
by that point, though.

An interesting note about WICKED WITCH is that, in Chapter 15, Leon seems to
think the concept of bread products NOT growing on trees is odd.  While
bread-trees were introduced as early as PATCHWORK GIRL, though, I don't
recall any previous indication that such things ONLY grow on trees in Oz,
though.  Chapter 5 of TIN WOODMAN has the Scarecrow asking Mrs. Yoop where

she gets the flour to make her biscuits, and YANKEE introduces an Ozian
kingdom where bread products are made in the usual Outside World way.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 15:21:40 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: WICKED WITCH magic

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
>>Another visual trick made possible by desktop publishing appears on pages
>>192-3, when the witch's snuff scatters across both pages of text.  WIZARD
>>overlapped text and art that way by having each signature printed in two
>>colors, but overlapping black art and composed type wasn't easy with
>>pre-digital layouts.
>
> Isn't that actually red pepper, rather than snuff?

Probably so. As I wrote before, I'm commenting as I read along this
time. I flipped ahead to check the artwork, but the only powder I've
encountered so far has been snuff.

> I had no problem
> with Leon's origins being based on electricity.  On the other hand, I did
> find it a bit odd that so many Ozites recognize him as a live neon sign. 
> Even Singra, who had just recently awakened from a hundred-year sleep, seems
> to know what he is.  (From p. 43: "Imagine her surprise to see a real live
> neon sign on her doorstep.")

You're apparently reading that line as an expression of Singra's own
thoughts: "A real live neon sign on my doorstep! Badness bodacious!"
When Payes originally wrote WICKED WITCH, I don't think popular kids'
writers were expected to be that exact in their portrayal of point of
view. Nowadays writers tend to stick to one character's viewpoint per
scene (Philip Pullman's AMBER SPYGLASS being one notable
counterexample), and shape their language around it. But Baum and most
of his successors jumped around as they felt the need.

So Payes might not have meant to imply that Singra recognized Leon as
neon, only that she was surprised by his appearance, which was neon.
Nowadays a writer might choose words that express the witch's thought
more closely: "Imagine her surprise to see a glowing man on her
doorstep."

But that's a guess since I haven't reached Leon yet. I'll keep my eyes
peeled for how Ozians understand his makeup. If they recognize Leon as a
neon sign, that would indeed seem like an anachronism for Ozians, and
for Americans who arrived there before neon signs became common in the
US. If they simply recognize that his glow has something to do with
electricity, that would be less questionable. In terms of behavior, I'd
imagine Ozians would be fairly quick to accept someone with an odd body
just because they meet so many.

> The spell she [Singra] uses to
> enchant Trot comes from a book, which makes her thought that it "was a
> special enchantment known by only a few witches" (p. 189) somewhat unlikely.

It's not necessarily a /printed/ book, which would indeed imply some
mass distribution. It could be a hand-copied manuscript that Singra
inherited, assembled, traded for, or stole. That's what books have been
for most of human history, after all. In the 18th century, gentlemen
assembled "common-place books" by copying bits from literature, their 
own thoughts, useful information, etc. Many household cooks still
assemble recipe books, which would be quite like witchcraft notebooks.

Eric Shanower's illustration of Singra's book shows Gothic writing,
which could be either handwritten or the old-fashioned printing type
modeled on that style of handwriting. If the book were handwritten, then
Singra could have reason to believe the knowledge of that spell was
rare, but of course she couldn't be certain.

In PATCHWORK GIRL Dr. Pipt has a book of recipes that includes spells he
didn't come up with himself ("The book doesn't say 'blood'; it says
'oil,' and there must be oil somewhere in a live man's body or the book
wouldn't ask for it."). And we know the doctor was involved in some
shady trades. Ugu inherited some magical "books and recipes," some of 
them unknown to the Wizard.

Thompson seems to have taken the step into referring to collections of
magical spells with apparently standardized titles and content: /The
Book of Green Magic/ and the like. That still doesn't require the books
to have been printed: the Iliad, Bible, and Koran weren't printed for
most of their history, either. But it does imply wider distribution than
Singra thinks her cheese recipe has had.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:43:34 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] breadfruits, illos, raabe

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
> An interesting note about WICKED WITCH is that, in Chapter 15, Leon seems
> to think the concept of bread products NOT growing on trees is odd.  While
> bread-trees were introduced as early as PATCHWORK GIRL, though, I don't
> recall any previous indication that such things ONLY grow on trees in Oz,
> though.  Chapter 5 of TIN WOODMAN has the Scarecrow asking Mrs. Yoop where
> she gets the flour to make her biscuits, and YANKEE introduces an Ozian
> kingdom where bread products are made in the usual Outside World way. <

I wondered about that, too, but he doesn't actually say that such things
grow *only* on trees, just that, "I assumed that food grew on bushes
everywhere." That leaves room for the possibility that such plants are
common in Oz, and Leon assumed they were common everywhere, without being
quite so common that they're the only, or even the usual, way to get food.
(Might be comparable to foraging for edible berries in a non-magic forest
vs. keeping a garden? Were the foodstuff bushes perhaps originally rare,
created by assorted magicians, but hardy enough and fertile enough to spread
on their own?)

I forget who it was who commented that he thought later Oz writers made such
plants *too* common, making it too easy to get about for story-interest. I
think that's probably true -- the group could just as well have had a
not-quite-satisfying breakfast off the wild strawberries Leon found by the
bun bushes. But there's also an amusement factor in the different kinds of
foodstuff to be found in the Ozian wild, and that compensates for the factor
of too-much-ease, to some extent, anyway.

Ruth Berman

Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 18:50:31 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH neon and breadfruits

J. L. Bell:
>But that's a guess since I haven't reached Leon yet. I'll keep my eyes
>peeled for how Ozians understand his makeup. If they recognize Leon as a
>neon sign, that would indeed seem like an anachronism for Ozians, and for
>Americans who arrived there before neon signs became common in the US.

On p. 268, Betsy Bobbin says that Leon "looks just like a neon sign."

Ruth:
>I wondered about that, too, but he doesn't actually say that such things
>grow *only* on trees, just that, "I assumed that food grew on bushes
>everywhere." That leaves room for the possibility that such plants are

>common in Oz, and Leon assumed they were common everywhere, without being
>quite so common that they're the only, or even the usual, way to get food.
>(Might be comparable to foraging for edible berries in a non-magic forest
>vs. keeping a garden? Were the foodstuff bushes perhaps originally rare,
>created by assorted magicians, but hardy enough and fertile enough to
>spread on their own?)

That's a possibility.  I know the Travellers' Tree in COWARDLY LION is
specifically said to have been planted by the wizard Wam.

>I forget who it was who commented that he thought later Oz writers made
>such plants *too* common, making it too easy to get about for
>story-interest. I think that's probably true -- the group could just as
>well have had a not-quite-satisfying breakfast off the wild strawberries
>Leon found by the bun bushes. But there's also an amusement factor in the
>different kinds of foodstuff to be found in the Ozian wild, and that
>compensates for the factor of too-much-ease, to some extent, anyway.

I've always found the foodstuff plants to be an interesting part of Oz, even
though no one seemed to encounter them in Oz proper (as opposed to Mo and
Ev) until PATCHWORK GIRL.  Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume
that there are some areas where such plants are quite rare.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:07:38 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] raabe, group description, breadfruits

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know the Travellers' Tree in COWARDLY LION is specifically said to have
> been planted by the wizard Wam. >

In addition to the foodplants intentionally so planted, I suppose the magic
in Oz does enough wandering about to make it possible that some foodplants
developed without being deliberately planted -- although I think maybe
deliberately started by some magician and then spreading beyond the
magician's own garden without deliberate cultivation might be more likely
than a completely random zapped-by-magic-mutation of plants in the wild.

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 23:28:30 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH details

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> An interesting note about WICKED WITCH is that, in Chapter 15, Leon seems to
> think the concept of bread products NOT growing on trees is odd.

Ruth Berman replied:
> I wondered about that, too, but he doesn't actually say that such things
> grow *only* on trees, just that, "I assumed that food grew on bushes
> everywhere."

Yes, believing that there are bread trees everywhere is different from
believing that all bread grows on trees.

Nathan DeHoff quoted:
>>(From p. 43: "Imagine her surprise to see a real live
>>neon sign on her doorstep.")

Perhaps sensitized by this remark, I counted two examples of the
"Imagine Singra's feelings" construction in one chapter. Imagine my
dismay.

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> On p. 268, Betsy Bobbin says that Leon "looks just like a neon sign."

Yep, that sure sounds like Betsy knows what a neon sign looks like,
despite having come to Oz by 1914. Perhaps she saw one in the same city
where she saw a subway, as stated in HUNGRY TIGER? Maybe she passes her
afternoons at the palace waiting for Dorothy to return by watching
American city life in the Magic Picture.

The last WICKED WITCH chapter I read was about Singra meeting the
Scarecrow in Glinda's workshop. Two thoughts stuck with me most strongly:
    * Isn't it great to have an illustrator who knows the Oz series so
well? In the background of the chapter-opening art Eric Shanower drew a
couple of the tripods that the Wizard uses (MAGIC) and, on a top shelf,
one of Glinda's skeropythropes (GLINDA). Down in the foreground we might
see the rope that Singra conveniently finds and uses to tie up the straw
man.
    * Isn't it disappointing to have a writer who relies on characters
acting incredibly STUPID to keep the plot going? Glinda's servants (in
this book the sorceress doesn't seem to prize female beauty as much as
in, say, GLINDA) hear from the Scarecrow that their mistress has been
robbed, and then go off and leave him alone. The Scarecrow's first
response to being captured is to blurt out information useful to his
captor.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH details

--- "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
>     * Isn't it disappointing to have a writer who
> relies on characters
> acting incredibly STUPID to keep the plot going?

I was troubled by the very same thing, so much so that
it was difficult to keep reading sometimes because the
illogic of things became distracting.  Most notable is
Ozma's reluctance to look in the Magic Picture despite
what must have been a noisy and noticeable exit from
the Emerald City by Dorothy and Percy as they chased
after Singra.  I realize that the Picture and the
various other magical objects Ozma uses to govern Oz
can make it difficult for Oz historians to engineer a
plot, but making Ozma obtuse is more distracting than
say, Eloise McGraw's device of having Ozma transformed
into a bug or even Cosgrove showing Trot in the Magic
Picture transformed into cheese.  That said, the
transformed-but-unrecognizable device would have to
have become an Oz cliche by now.  Baum certainly used
it enough, and so did Thompson.  So perhaps it's not
whether a device is used, but rather how well it's
employed. 

Alan Wise

Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 15:58:51 EDT
From: AGannaway7 at aol.com
Subject: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH

I have been preoccupied with a number of unpleasant things recently, but 
wanted to talk about the BCF.

On 4/29/05, J. L. Bell commented:

<<In contrast to all these thoughts about the art and design, I'm finding
the text of WICKED WITCH to be less inspiring, and less inspired.  The
prose seems a bit pedestrian, the plot slow. For HIDDEN VALLEY, Reilly &
Lee assigned an advertising man to polish Cosgrove's verse. Judging by 
her poems in WICKED WITCH, she needed that help. Her lines /can/ be read 
in a metrical way, but only if I really try.>>


I have always referred to WICKED WITCH as "a beautiful book, if you don't 
read it." It ranks, I think, as perhaps Eric Shanower's crowning achievement to 
date in terms of the number and lavishness of illustrations, and the
cleverness  of the design. The limited edition of the book, which is bound in red
leather,  contains a color plate frontispiece, and was issued in a special 
slipcase. The whole package is quite lovely. But the exceedingly high aesthetic
quality makes the text that much more unimpressive in  contrast.

On 4/30/05, Nathan DeHoff wrote:

<<She's always telling herself
things that she and the readers already know,
and doing things that are described in more words than is really necessary.
Perhaps the best example of this is on p. 192, where we see a long passage
describing Singra's attempts to fit the cheese into the sugar bowl. Payes
might be providing this much detail in order to get us to understand
Singra's frustration, but it comes across as a rather tedious read.>>

It's interesting that you should point out this particular  passage. Years 
ago (August 11, 1997, for those who don't  particularly enjoy combing extensive
online archives), I posted the  following comment on "The Ozzy Digest." I have
gently corrected my  youthfully idiosyncratic lack of capitalization:

<<The main problem I have with WICKED WITCH is that I feel it speaks  down to
children. In many spots it is overly simplistic, extremely wordy, and 
repetitive. For example:

"Singra peered into her cupboards, looking for a place to hide the cheese. 
'Maybe it will be safe in the sugar bowl.' She took off the lid. There was a 
little sugar in the bowl. Singra got a cup from a hook and poured the sugar
from  the bowl into the cup. Then she set the sugar bowl on the table and picked
up  the piece of cheese. The cheese, however, would not fit into the bowl.  She
turned it upside down, but still it would not fit. Then she turned the
cheese on  its side, with no success. The piece of green cheese was too large for
the sugar  bowl." (192)

See Singra. See Singra open the sugar bowl. See Singra try to put the cheese
in the sugar bowl. The cheese will not fit in the sugar bowl. The cheese is
too big to put in the sugar bowl. SHEESH!

For full effect, let's contrast that WICKED WITCH passage with one from 
RINKITINK. Baum did not speak down to children:

"But Glinda pointed out that any person who incurred the enmity of a wicked 
magician was liable to suffer a similar fate, and assured him that his 
misfortune would make him better beloved by his subjects when he returned to  them
freed from his dire enchantment." (Ch. 22)

That said, I will add that Eric Shanower's illustrations make WICKED WITCH 
well worth buying.>> 

(But maybe you want to know what I *really* think....)

Ironically enough, at the time Nathan argued the possible  artistic merit of
the passage we both ended up citing, eight years apart,  as the possible nadir
of the book. I will agree that it's interesting as far as  what it indicates
about the author's writing style.

That comment from eight Augusts ago sparked an interesting little debate in 
the "Digest" about the dumbing-down of children's literature, which, as a 
deep concern of mine, probably did the most to prompt my initial strong wording. 
(That, and being a fairly tactless 19 and thoroughly convinced of being 
right.) Cosgrove/Payes was never a writer in whom I saw a ridiculous amount of 
genius, but, should I ever get around to reading WICKED WITCH again, I hope to 
find some little redeeming nuggets therein. Apart from the illustrations. (The
one of Ozma and Glinda strolling through a garden is a real beaut.)

Atticus Gannaway

Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 22:12:34 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: WICKED WITCH and SILVER SORCERESS?

Atticus Gannaway wrote:
> I have always referred to WICKED WITCH as "a beautiful book, if you don't 
> read it." It ranks, I think, as perhaps Eric Shanower's crowning achievement to 
> date in terms of the number and lavishness of illustrations, and the
> cleverness  of the design. The limited edition of the book, which is bound in red
> leather,  contains a color plate frontispiece, and was issued in a special 
> slipcase. The whole package is quite lovely. But the exceedingly high  aesthetic
> quality makes the text that much more unimpressive in  contrast.

Seeing these comments made me consider some possible similarities
between WICKED WITCH and another alliterative Oz novel of late: SILVER
SORCERESS.

In both books, a female magician, previously unknown but nursing a
grievance, starts plotting against the Emerald City rulers and Glinda.
In both, that magicworker breaks into Glinda's palace and journeys into
the home of a rival to enchant her. In both, there's a mistaken identity
concerning a person to be enchanted. In both, Dorothy teams up with
other protagonists in a cross-Quadlingland race to stop the magicworker.
(At least, that's what I remember; I haven't sat down to compare the two
books.)

Is there a possibility, Atticus, that the plot for the title character
of SILVER SORCERESS was influenced by Singra's plodding plotting, and a
wish for her to move more quickly? (Also, the Ozian heroes' actions in
SILVER SORCERESS are more rational and self-protective than what they do
in WICKED WITCH.)

J. L. Bell            
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:10:37 -0500
From: David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Neon signs

Nathan:
> On p. 268, Betsy Bobbin says that Leon "looks just like a neon sign."

If Betsy had ever seen a neon sign it must have been in the Magic
Picture (or some such magical device), since she came to Oz no later
than 1914, and probably earlier. (We know she arrived before
Button-Bright took up permanent residence in Oz at the end of
SCARECROW, and it seems likely that his first trip in ROAD was no later
than 1903 or so, or Dorothy would have aged too much between WIZARD and
EMERALD CITY. And Button-Bright doesn't seem to have aged more than
five years or so between ROAD and SCARECROW. Oz chronology isn't that
clear, but I think it's reasonable to assume as a minimum that the
events of a book don't take place after it was published.) The first
neon sign in the US was at a Packard dealer in LA in 1923, though they
rapidly became popular after that and I think we can assume any
visitors to Oz after 1925 or so would have seen them. Without doing any
serious calculations I believe this means that Bob Up and Notta
wouldn't have seen them, but that Peter and all subsequent visitors or
immigrants from the US would have.

David Hulan

Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 17:19:56 EDT
From: AGannaway7 at aol.com
Subject: [Regalia] Re: WICKED WITCH and SILVER SORCERESS?

On 5/8/05, J. L. Bell wrote:

<<Seeing these comments made me consider some possible similarities 
between WICKED WITCH and another alliterative Oz novel of late: SILVER 
SORCERESS.

In both books, a female magician, previously unknown but  nursing a
grievance, starts plotting against the Emerald City rulers and  Glinda.
In both, that magicworker breaks into Glinda's palace and journeys  into
the home of a rival to enchant her. In both, there's a mistaken  identity
concerning a person to be enchanted. In both, Dorothy teams up with 
other protagonists in a cross-Quadlingland race to stop the magicworker. 
(At least, that's what I remember; I haven't sat down to compare the two 
books.)

Is there a possibility, Atticus, that the plot for the title  character
of SILVER SORCERESS was influenced by Singra's plodding plotting,  and a
wish for her to move more quickly? (Also, the Ozian heroes' actions in 
SILVER SORCERESS are more rational and self-protective than what they do 
in WICKED WITCH.)>>

You know, that's an interesting theory, and one that hadn't occurred to me. 
It reminds me of the McGraws' comment that they wrote MERRY GO ROUND because
any  Oz book had to be better than SCALAWAGONS. (For the record, I think WICKED
WITCH  is significantly better than SCALAWAGONS.)

There was a NEW YORKER article a number of months ago about the fine line 
between influence and plagiarism, with the example of the recent Broadway play 
FROZEN and how its playwright unconsciously lifted ideas from another 
(non-fiction) source. The playwright was genuinely mortified to realize what she  had
unknowingly borrowed.

This is not to imply that I'm calling myself a plagiarist, of  course.  (Baum
himself recycled essentially the same plots in WIZARD and  PATCHWORK GIRL, and
in OZMA and TIK-TOK, and Tyler Jones's "Generic Oz Story," published in a
past OZIANA, poked fun at an often-used scheme for Oz  stories.) But I am open
to the possibility that, on a subconscious level, I was  perhaps trying to 
improve on WICKED WITCH.

I can actually attest to an unconscious influence on SILVER  SORCERESS that
was brought to my attention after I'd written it. In  college, I drove from
Austin to Big Bend National Park, located in the western  "arm" of Texas.
(Incidentally, Big Bend was one of Nabokov's favorite  places in the U.S., a country
he traveled through extensively as an ardent  lepidopterist.) This was before
I'd written the book. After I'd finished the  manuscript, I was chatting with
someone about my trip to Big Bend, and he  mentioned that he was very fond of
Sonora Caverns, located near the town of  Sonora, between Austin and Big Bend.
At that moment, it occurred to me that I  must have seen a sign for Sonora 
Caverns during my drive, and that was why I had  named my protagonist Sonora and
placed her in a cavern.

Your theory also makes some psychological sense because I was very 
consciously trying to improve on HANDY MANDY (a book that, as you expressed in  the BCF
discussion of a few years ago, had some sloppy elements). In that respect, I
felt that

*******POSSIBLE SPOILER FOR THE SILVER SORCERESS OF OZ******

any witch who was dumb enough to eat a basket of jumping beans and explode 
could not logically have created the powerful Silver Hammer. The introduction
of the real creator of the hammer also opened up the  question of competing
legitimate claims for the ownership of a magical item,  which I think is a 
fascinating problem.  

*********END POSSIBLE SPOILER**************

As the author, when I look at SILVER SORCERESS with the text  of WICKED WITCH
in mind, I think an argument could be made for the theory  you propose.  When
I read WICKED WITCH, I found myself wanting sounder plotting,  tighter
writing, smarter characters with deeper and subtler psychologies,  and a more
complicated antagonist as opposed to a straightforward "villain"--essentially, I
wanted a greater respect for the innate intelligence  of child readers.  People
have told me that it was more unsettling to read  about an antagonist with whom
they could identify in some way than about, say, a  Phanfasm or a Mimic.  I'm
not conceited enough to make any claims as to whether  or how well I succeeded
in any of these possible unconscious objectives. But it  was clever of you to
see the parallels that I did not.

Atticus Gannaway

Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 14:35:17 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] wicked witch, directory, up in lights

Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com> on illogical solutions to plotting
problems in "Wicked Witch" --

Interesting discussion.

AGannaway7 at aol.com on having made objections back in 1997 to the cheese that
doesn't fit in the bowl no matter which way you put it in similar to Alan's
& Nathan's --

Singra may be good at following spells in her reference book, but she does
seem a bit slow thoughtwise.

> should I ever get around to reading WICKED WITCH again, I hope to find
> some little redeeming nuggets therein. Apart from the illustrations. <

Some of the incidental characters (the alarm clock, Leon the Neon, the
hummingbirds) are engaging.
 
"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote on points of
resemblance between
WICKED WITCH and SILVER SORCERESS

Likewise an interesting discussion.

David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com> wrote:
> If Betsy had ever seen a neon sign it must have been in the Magic Picture
> (or some such magical device), since she came to Oz no later than 1914,
> and probably earlier. ... Bob Up and Notta wouldn't have seen them,
but that Peter and all subsequent visitors or immigrants from the US would have. <

Peter: Gee, those emeralds in the city walls flash when the sun hits them -- bright as neon lights!
Betsy: What kind of lights?
Peter: These lights that -- come take a look at the Magic Picture, and I'll show you.
Betsy [after visit to MP]: Golly, even Erma didn't have those. I wonder if she knows about them.
Erma [magically reacting to this comment with a voice-message resounding in
the air about them]: My handmaid Electricity takes care of all that.
Bioluminescence, too. Don't teach your grandmother to change lightbulbs.
Peter: How many grandmothers does it take to change a lightbulb?
Erma: Stop that.

Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: WICKED WITCH and SILVER SORCERESS?

AGannaway7 at aol.com reminisced about the composition of SILVER SORCERESS:

I think, too, what makes SILVER SORCERESS a more satisfying read than WICKED
WITCH is the balance of Trent's dilemma against Sonora's greed which informs
both quests in a way that Cosgrove's portrayal of Singra never achieves. 
Singra never comes alive for me, nor does she ever seem much of a threat
whereas the best Oz villains, for all their comic moments, have some element of
fearsomeness about them.  (Although the somewhat anesthetized reactions of
the Ozites might have allowed Singra to achieve some real damage -- perhaps
Singra had cast a spell unrecorded by the historian that made everyone a little
bit slow?) 

Additionally, some of the problem I have with WICKED WITCH is the prose. 
I realize that neither Baum nor Thompson were what one might consider polished
stylists, still they both could write clearly most of the time and were capable
occasionally of beautiful turns of phrase.  Cosgrove never achieves
this.  I remember reading at one point that she didn't care for MERRY GO
ROUND because she found it too difficult to read aloud, so she must have had
some artistic choice about the way she wrote her books, but I find much of her
descriptions frustratingly inexact.  But most of all, I don't think either
of Cosgrove's books possess the humor that I feel is critical to making a
satisfying Oz book.  She was capable of coming up with characters based on
Ozzy puns (the Leopard with the changing spots and the rubber band), but she
rarely followed her own characterizations far enough to  make them as
witty as Pigasus, say, or Utensia.  In the end, I find both HIDDEN VALLEY
and WICKED WITCH remain strangely literal for Oz books, and as much as I want to
like them, they keep their distance. 

Alan Wise

Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 11:31:46 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: WICKED WITCH writing style

Atticus:
>Ironically enough, at the time Nathan argued the possible  artistic merit
>of
>the passage we both ended up citing, eight years apart,  as the possible
>nadir
>of the book. I will agree that it's interesting as far as  what it
>indicates
>about the author's writing style.

I actually vaguely remembered your mentioning something about how you didn't
like that passage, but not that I argued otherwise.  I agree that it does
say something about the writing style, though.  There's a definite emphasis 
on mundane, repetitive details in Rachel's books.

Alan:
>Additionally, some of the problem I have with WICKED WITCH is the prose.  I
>realize that neither Baum nor Thompson were what one might consider
>polished stylists, still they both could write clearly most of the time and 
>were capable occasionally of beautiful turns of phrase.  Cosgrove never
>achieves this.  I remember reading at one point that she didn't care for
>MERRY GO ROUND because she found it too difficult to read aloud, so she
>must have had some artistic choice about the way she wrote her books, but I 
>find much of her descriptions frustratingly inexact.

I can see a definite similarity between her style and the one Baum used in
WIZARD.  The repetition gives these books somewhat of a traditional folk
tale feel.  As someone who prefers Baum's less repetitive style from his
later Oz books, I can't say this is really a good thing, but it's
interesting.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 22:34:54 +0000
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH prose style

Atticus Gannaway wrote (long ago, from a place far away):
> <<The main problem I have with WICKED WITCH is that I feel it speaks down to
> children. In many spots it is overly simplistic, extremely wordy, and
> repetitive. For example:
>
> "Singra peered into her cupboards, looking for a place to hide the cheese.
> 'Maybe it will be safe in the sugar bowl.' She took off the lid.  There was a
> little sugar in the bowl. Singra got a cup from a hook and poured the sugar
> from  the bowl into the cup. Then she set the sugar bowl on the table and picked
> up  the piece of cheese. The cheese, however, would not fit into the bowl. She
>  turned it upside down, but still it would not fit. Then she turned the
> cheese on  its side, with no success. The piece of green cheese was too large for
> the sugar  bowl." (192)
>
> See Singra. See Singra open the sugar bowl. See Singra try to put the cheese
> in the sugar bowl. The cheese will not fit in the sugar bowl. The cheese  is
> too big to put in the sugar bowl. SHEESH!
>
> For full effect, let's contrast that WICKED WITCH passage with one from
> RINKITINK. Baum did not speak down to children:
>
> "But Glinda pointed out that any person who incurred the enmity of a wicked
> magician was liable to suffer a similar fate, and assured him that his
> misfortune would make him better beloved by his subjects when he returned to  them
> freed from his dire enchantment." (Ch. 22)>>

Certainly Cosgrove's diction and vocabulary aren't up to that sentence
from Baum, though I think even some adult readers would find the Baum
sentence a chore.

Speaking of RINKITINK style, I vividly recall posting two versions of a
passage from that book to an Oz email list, the first the original text
and the second edited as a modern-day editor would have wanted Baum to
do, without any unnecessary words. There was a considerable difference
in word count without any loss of detail. Now I can't find that message,
however, so I'm going by memory. In any case, today's editors would
probably take a blue pencil to both passages quoted above, Cosgrove's to
speed it up and Baum's to break it down.

Another rule that writing teachers emphasize today, especially in kids'
fiction, is "show, don't tell." Baum's remark on Glinda is telling us 
what she told us, and her telling us how the world works. It might have
been more vivid as a quotation in Glinda's own words (which might well
be similar to what we see above). In contrast, Cosgrove's description
relies much more on showing us Singra's actions--every single one of them.

Of course, Baum wrote plenty of descriptive passages, too. Both authors
often succumbed to the temptation of showing /and/ telling, as when
Cosgrove assures us that the reason Singra couldn't get the cheese in
the sugar bowl is that it "was too large"--as if we haven't had plenty
of time to figure that one out.

Alan Wise wrote:
<<Additionally, some of the problem I have with WICKED WITCH is the
prose. I realize that neither Baum nor Thompson were what one might
consider polished stylists, still they both could write clearly most of
the time and were capable occasionally of beautiful turns of phrase.
Cosgrove never achieves this. I remember reading at one point that she
didn't care for MERRY GO ROUND because she found it too difficult to
read aloud, so she must have had some artistic choice about the way she
wrote her books>>

An interesting remark, and it certainly seems apt.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 23:03:33 +0000
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: WICKED WITCH and SILVER SORCERESS?

Atticus Gannaway wrote:
> I can actually attest to an unconscious influence on SILVER SORCERESS that
> was brought to my attention after I'd written it. In  college, I drove from
> Austin to Big Bend National Park, located in the western  "arm" of Texas.
> (Incidentally, Big Bend was one of Nabokov's favorite  places in the U.S., a country
> he traveled through extensively as an ardent  lepidopterist.) This was before
> I'd written the book. After I'd finished the  manuscript, I was chatting with
> someone about my trip to Big Bend, and he  mentioned that he was very fond of
> Sonora Caverns, located near the town of  Sonora, between Austin and Big Bend.
> At that moment, it occurred to me that I  must have seen a sign for Sonora
> Caverns during my drive, and that was why I had  named my protagonist Sonora and
> placed her in a cavern.

And now I can't help but notice that the villainesses driving the plots
of WICKED WITCH and SILVER SORCERESS both have names that follow the pattern:
S _ N _ R A

> As the author, when I look at SILVER SORCERESS with the text  of WICKED WITCH
> in mind, I think an argument could be made for the theory  you propose. When
> I read WICKED WITCH, I found myself wanting sounder plotting, tighter
> writing, smarter characters with deeper and subtler psychologies, and a more
> complicated antagonist as opposed to a straightforward "villain"--essentially, I
> wanted a greater respect for the innate intelligence  of child readers.

In that regard, SILVER SORCERESS is clearly a long step beyond WICKED
WITCH, regardless of the conscious or unconscious influences. The latter
book is a battle of wits between intelligent antagonists. WICKED WITCH
comes across too often as a battle of half-wits.

HANDY MANDY as another foil also makes sense. Like WICKED WITCH, it
involves a powerful magician in the hinterlands of Oz plotting to steal
magic tools from Glinda's castle and to infiltrate Ozma's palace.

Not that those are the only Oz books with that jumping-off point,
starting with LOST PRINCESS. I've used it myself since it solves two
problems at once: creating a problem big enough to catch the attention
of the Emerald City heroes and readers while simultaneously explaining
why they might not have all their powers to fight the problem.

I can also attest to the power of unconscious influences and patterns in
creative writing. Around the year 2000, I had written a little burst of
Oz stories: "Jack Pumpkinhead's Day in Court" (OZ-STORY 5), "Woot Meets
Yoop" (OZIANA 2002, I believe), "Ozma Fights the Sniffles" (OZIANA 2000,
I think), and a yet-unpublished novel. They ranged from the comic to the
adventurous, from a two-character battle of wits to tales with sprawling
casts of characters. I was feeling rather pleased with the output until
I realized ALL FOUR PLOTS RESOLVE THE SAME WAY!

******SPOILER FOR THE STORIES LISTED ABOVE*******
In each story, one character convinces others that he or she is working
magic when in fact little or nothing supernatural is taking place.

As with stealing magical tools, there's a plot-based reason this was so
appealing. If a character doesn't have magical powers, then his or her
situation seems more dire, and if that character can convince another of
the magic, then he or she solves the problem by wit rather than
overpowering magic.
******END SPOILERS*******

Even so, ever since that realization I've been desperate to find
another--ANY other--way to resolve my Oz stories.

Your story of Sonora Caverns reminds me of how I was writing a
manuscript a friend came back from Australia with photos of lyre birds.
One made its way into that story, in a slightly punny form. Now my
friend feels a bit of special responsibility for that story. (Hey,
there's one reader.)

Alan Wise wrote:
> I think, too, what makes SILVER SORCERESS a more satisfying read than
>
WICKED WITCH is the balance of Trent's dilemma against Sonora's greed
which informs both quests in a way that Cosgrove's portrayal of Singra
never achieves. Singra never comes alive for me, nor does she ever seem
much of a threat whereas the best Oz villains, for all their comic
moments, have some element of fearsomeness about them.>>

I think there's a temptation for authors, once they create a character
labeled "wicked" or "evil," to skip the characterization.  Baum didn't
much into his Wicked Witches in WIZARD and SCARECROW. He had more to say
about wickedness and its roots in LOST PRINCESS and LAND, and his
richest villain, the Nome King, was also the one he presented in the
most rounded way, even letting him make his own case for hating mortals.

Cosgrove might have succumbed to the same temptation with Singra, having
decided that she's a wicked witch and not adding any layers. But in fact
she does give that villainess some layers of motivation: desire to
revenge her sisters, then a wish to become Oz's most powerful
magicworker. So I think Cosgrove was trying to flesh Singra out; she
just didn't succeed.

One problem might be that we see /too much/ of Singra, starting from
when she wakes up from her hundred-year nap. No one looks her most
fearsome after just waking up, after all. And because we see every
little step and stumble of Singra's actions--her mistake with Trot, her
unsuccessful wrestle with the sugar bowl--she seems less terrifying and
more banal. We also get a strong sense of how alone she is, with no one
but the powerless clock to keep her company. There's no sense that she
can command armies or summon up allies, the way other villains do.

Even as Dorothy and Percy race to find the cheese, we know nothing will
happen to it without our knowing because nothing at all happens to
Singra without our reading all about it. With a little more mystery,
Singra might have been a more successful title character.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 23:46:18 +0000
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH missed opportunities

The irrelevant episodes in WICKED WITCH are almost completely
irrelevant, and therefore do nothing but delay the already drawn out
main plot. The episode of the Rubber Band is enjoyable only for the
opportunities it gives Eric Shanower to draw in a comic style. In the
story, it just leaves me wondering how much Dorothy and Percy really
want to rescue their friend.

Dorothy being captured by the bees feels a lot like her being captured
by the books and the snowmen in HIDDEN VALLEY: Percy does a little
chewing and digging, and all is well. As in WIZARD, "Little Dorothy &
Toto," and GRAMPA, captors seem to keep Dorothy around only to do their
washing.

The visit to the hummingbirds and gaining wings has a connection to the
main plot: getting an aerial view lets Percy and Dorothy home in on
Singra's cottage. That episode is undercut for me, however, when just
after talking about the danger of suddenly losing their wings the two
characters fall into a convenient haystack. Could they have at least
/aimed/ for the haystack, knowing they were in danger?

When Leon describes how he became electrified, he mentions
"transformers" [154]. Yet Cosgrove never seizes on that obvious pun
and
has Leon tell us he was "transformed." As someone who can rarely let
such opportunities go by, I find her restraint admirable, yet sad.

Leon raised and showed prize chickens [153], like Baum. He experimented
with electricity, like Baum's son Rob. It seems unlikely Cosgrove would
have known about those things or made him an homage to her predecessor.
But perhaps Leon's moustache is a Baumian touch from Eric.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 23:50:21 +0000
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH art

Earlier in this discussion I recalled that David Maxine might have had a
hand in designing WICKED WITCH. David once mentioned creating the type
for the dust jacket/bookmark that listed WICKED WITCH as #45 in the Oz
series. But I see from the last page that the book is an Eric Shanower
production throughout.

One theme that runs through Eric's illustrations is light versus dark.
Cosgrove contributed a little to this breakdown, but didn't throw
herself into it; she spends a lot more words describing how 'most
everything in Quadlingland is red. Early on Cosgrove says that Singra
wears the witch color of white (did Mombi? Blinkie? the Wicked Witch of
the West?), but covers it with her red cloak. Occasionally she mentions
Singra's dark cottage. Cosgrove also creates the characters of Percy
("hasn't any black at all") and Leon, a glowing red man.

But it's really Eric's art that makes the most of the lightness of
Percy, Leon, and (in a light shirt, with blonde hair and lots of pale
skin) Dorothy. In black and white art, they all come across as white
patches on the page. In contrast, Eric fills the pictures of Singra with
ink: her warts, her ragged clothing, and the hatching on the sooty wood
all around her. When the heroes and villain meet, therefore, we can
immediately see the contrasts: for instance, pages 115, 244, and the
endpapers. Shadow falls across characters when they're in danger from
Singra: 89, 118, 238.

When Dorothy is turned to stone, Eric tackles the challenge of drawing
her in the same position from different angles: 238, 248, 253, 271, 290.

The pictures of Glinda's guard on 47, 275, and 279 might be the first of
an "ordinary" Ozian with Negroid features. I noticed that one of Eric's
graphic novels from around this same time shows those guards as all
Caucasian, as Neill did.

Some pictures of the Scarecrow make his head seem a bit flattened,
rather than round: 98, 101, and 290, though the last is in the Magic
Picture. Other art doesn't strike me the same way, however, so I think
it's just my eyes.

One detail of Eric's art that I didn't like was how he drew the
hummingbirds' wings, both on the birds and on Dorothy and Percy. When
hummingbirds are in flight, their wings are iridescent blurs. Eric draws
them still, even in pictures (such as pp 214-5, 225) when he shows other
motion with blurry swoosh lines.

It's easy to find the picture of Jam in WICKED WITCH, but how about
Pastoria? And some full frontal female nudity (not the nymph, and not
the queen bee or any other animal, either)?

Finally, the two-page spread on 314-5 of Ozma's courtroom is one of my
favorite Shanower drawings. (He did a similar scene in one of his
graphic novels--ICE KING, I think.) What faces do we recognize? From the
left I see Omby Amby, Tik-Tok, Merry Go Round (McGraws), Jenny Jump
(Neill), someone's forehead (Number Nine?), Captain Fyter, Singra, Spots
(Cosgrove herself), the Cowardly Lion, Betsy, the Woozy, Notta Bit More
(Thompson), Trot, another forehead (Bob Up? The hair seems too floppy.
Button-Bright? Eric draws him shorter. Maybe Ojo on a visit?), Cap'n
Bill, Toto, the Shaggy Man, Jack Pumpkinhead, the Glass Cat, Scraps,
Billina, Prof Wogglebug, Eric's little candle man, Ozma, Percy, Dorothy,
the Wizard, the Scarecrow, Leon, and the Tin Woodman. Whew!

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:49:26 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] "Wicked Witch" details

"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote interesting additions to the
discussions of style in "Wicked Witch" and contrast of "WW"/"Silver
Sorceress" and new discussion of "Irrelevant" episodes & artwork.

> The pictures of Glinda's guard on 47, 275, and 279 might be the first of
> an "ordinary" Ozian with Negroid features. <

I think you're right that these show the same guard (also shows up in the
group on p. 280), but p. 275 is the only portrait that shows her in enough
of a close-up to be clear about Negroid features (or even that she's
supposed to be the same person -- the Captain of the Guard in the later
scene might be meant to be a different person from the dark-haired one of
the "two lovely girls" guarding the door in the earlier scene). I think
you're right also that the Captain is an Ozian first. (Gloma and her people
are all black-skinned, but by choice, not by birth.) Another nice touch in
the guard illos is that they wear the same uniform and carry (I think) the
same peacock-feather-topped staves (fans? -- don't look useful as weapons?)
as in Denslow's illos. (Another nice touch in that line is the Denslovian
portrait of the WWW, p. 35, complete with tight braid sticking out and
snakes and lizards decorating her skirt, as well as the Baum's-textual
eye-patch and umbrella.)

> It's easy to find the picture of Jam in WICKED WITCH, but how about
> Pastoria? And some full frontal female nudity (not the nymph, and not the
> queen bee or any other animal, either)? >

The choice of portraits of Ozma's father and son on her wall is a nice
psychological touch. I think for frontal (also rear) nudity you have in mind
the statuary on Glinda's fountain.

> Finally, the two-page spread on 314-5 of Ozma's courtroom is one of my
> favorite Shanower drawings. (He did a similar scene in one of his graphic
> novels--ICE KING, I think.) What faces do we recognize? <

Nice job of identifying. I missed some of these in doing the "Who's Who
Appendix." The typical rosette carvings on the harness show that you must be
right about Merry-Go-Round, but the features somehow look more feline than
equine to me, and I think I would have guessed that it was the Hungry Tiger
(who shows up in the similar group shot, on pp. 316-7. I notice only one not
on your list, the Comfortable Camel (p. 314, at the back of the group).

"Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com> also wrote on Cosgrove's style:
> I can see a definite similarity between her style and the one Baum used in 
> WIZARD.  The repetition gives these books somewhat of a traditional folk
> tale feel.  As someone who prefers Baum's less repetitive style from his
> later Oz books, I can't say this is really a good thing, but it's
> interesting. <

There's a similarity, but I think those who've argued (was this Michael
Patrick Hearn's idea, or did someone else suggest it earlier?) that Baum is
doing something specifically emotive in the opening of "Wizard" are right -- 
that the opening reflects the contrast between vivid Dorothy and her
colorless, flattening surroundings. There are also some places in "Wizard"
where a simple style (not as much flattened out as the opening chapter)
probably reflects Dorothy's point of view of complicated adult problems that
she can't judge (as in the comment that she was puzzled over whether the
Scarecrow or the Tin Woodman had the right priorities). And it also gets
used in "Wizard" for moments of deadpan humor, as when the Emerald Citians
are proud that they have a Scarecrow for a ruler ("And so far as they knew,
they were right," is I think the wording of the narrative comment.) Cosgrove
may have been following Baum's example in the choice of style, but she
doesn't seem to get comparable emotional/characterizational effects out of
it. (And Baum is maybe more sparing in his use of such a style -- or maybe
the use of it for specific effects is partly why he seems more sparing with
it.)

Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com> suggested:
> perhaps Singra had cast a spell unrecorded by the historian that made
> everyone a little bit slow? <

Perhaps, after all, all the folk in Oz is a trifle flat-headed and has to
carry around at least a mini-can of Lurline-brand brains in their pockets,
and so become potentially subject to dulling spells? (Or some wider-acting
Lurline-handicrafted rings?)

Ruth Berman

Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 21:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken Cope <residualecho at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Wicked Witch; warts and all

It must have been the first Winkies Convention I attended where I met Eric, who
signed a copy of Wicked Witch for me, hot off the presses. If it wasn't that
one, then it was the next year when I had to stop myself from staring and
hissing "Singra!" when I clapped eyes on a club member sporting seldom
seen wonderful witchy wartiness. Seeing a character out of a fairy tale
laughing and sharing cake with friends doesn't happen every day.

I never got the story about whether her appearance inspired Eric to draw Singra
as he did, or if finding the book intrigued her enough to come to a Con.

Eric's flair with texture, from warts to fractal lace, is something I'll always
be in awe of.

Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] "Wicked Witch" details

Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
I think you're right also that the Captain is an Ozian first. (Gloma and her people
are all black-skinned, but by choice, not by birth.)

Although I think Eric drew Gloma with African features in his BLUE WITCH OF OZ. 

Alan Wise

Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:31:20 +0000
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: WICKED WITCH art
 
Ruth Berman wrote:
> you're right also that the Captain is an Ozian first. (Gloma and her people
> are all black-skinned, but by choice, not by birth.)

Now that you mention her, I recall Eric Shanower drawing Gloma with
Negroid features in his graphic novel ENCHANTED APPLES. Just one panel,
and she's both jet-black and "black."

> Another nice touch in
> the guard illos is that they wear the same uniform and carry (I think) the 
> same peacock-feather-topped staves (fans? -- don't look useful as weapons?)
> as in Denslow's illos. (Another nice touch in that line is the Denslovian
> portrait of the WWW, p. 35, complete with tight braid sticking out and
> snakes and lizards decorating her skirt, as well as the Baum's-textual
> eye-patch and umbrella.)

Eric also draws on Denslow in some of the Rubber Band pictures, I
believe: the way Denslow showed three or more different people or
creatures in the same pose. The trumpeters each have a different finger
position on their valves, for instance.

Another character pictured in WICKED WITCH but not involved in the
action is Jam, whom Eric draws as a freckled cowboy out of the 1950s.
Given that Eric treated this book as happening in the 1990s, does that
mean he imagined Jam all grown up when Percy spoke of him?

>>It's easy to find the picture of Jam in WICKED WITCH, but how about
>>Pastoria? And some full frontal female nudity (not the nymph, and not the
>>queen bee or any other animal, either)? >
>
> The choice of portraits of Ozma's father and son on her wall is a nice
> psychological touch. I think for frontal (also rear) nudity you have in mind
> the statuary on Glinda's fountain.

That's right--an artistic touch Reilly & Lee would never have allowed.

I did like the idea of Ozma hanging family portraits.

> Nice job of identifying. I missed some of these in doing the "Who's Who
> Appendix." The typical rosette carvings on the harness show that you must be
> right about Merry-Go-Round, but the features somehow look more feline than 
> equine to me, and I think I would have guessed that it was the Hungry Tiger

The carved mane and pointed ear also made me think of Merry--but of
course Merry's big shiny glass eyes are not unlike the Tiger's in black
and white.

> I notice only one not
> on your list, the Comfortable Camel (p. 314, at the back of the group).

You're quite right I've overlooked this cameloid. But I suspect that's
the Doubtful Dromedary, given his single hump, presence in the palace,
and dubious expression.

I just realized that Dorothy's shorts change color for a few drawings in
the back of the book.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 23:04:53 +0000
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Shanower's graphic novels

Alan Wise wrote:
> Although I think Eric drew Gloma with African features in his BLUE WITCH OF OZ. 
>

This is indeed the correct citation and not, as I misremembered,
ENCHANTED APPLES.

I reread all of Eric Shanower's graphic novels over the past few days,
somewhat prompted by WICKED WITCH, and enjoyed them--but they got sort
of mushed together in my head.

I wouldn't be surprised if ICE KING weren't influenced by those great
icons of our generation's childhood, Heat Miser and Cold Miser.

J. L. Bell                  JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 10:50:56 -0500
From: David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Camel and dromedary

>> I notice only one not
>> on your list, the Comfortable Camel (p. 314, at the back of the
>> group).
>
> You're quite right I've overlooked this cameloid. But I suspect that's
> the Doubtful Dromedary, given his single hump, presence in the palace,
> and dubious expression.

It's true that a dromedary is a single-humped camel, but popular usage
in the '20s and '30s apparently ran the other way - most Americans
called two-humped Bactrian camels "dromedaries". And the illustrations
in YELLOW KNIGHT show that Neill followed this practice; if Shanower
was following Neill than the single-humped camel in WW would be the
Comfortable Camel rather than Doubty. But there's no reason to think
that Shanower would follow Neill in this respect than is several others
where he didn't - as for instance in the Negroid features he gave
Gloma, as noted elsewhere in this Digest. (The dubious expression
doesn't mean much, I don't think, since in my opinion all cameloids
always look dubious.) Presence in the palace might or might not be
significant; wasn't Camy in the EC in WONDER CITY?

Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 21:44:36 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH illustrations and such

J. L. Bell:
>Early on Cosgrove says that Singra wears the witch color of white (did
>Mombi? Blinkie? the Wicked Witch of the West?), but covers it with her red
>cloak.

In WIZARD, one of the Munchkins tells Dorothy that white is "the witch
color," and we see both the GWN and Glinda wearing white in this book. 
There's no indication as to whether or not the WWW does (Denslow shows her
wearing yellow and black, for what it's worth), and I don't believe later
books mention white as a significant color for witches.  Indeed, Gloma is
dressed totally in black, although I suppose something she wears could have
been white before she dyed it in the Black River.

>Some pictures of the Scarecrow make his head seem a bit flattened, rather
>than round: 98, 101, and 290, though the last is in the Magic Picture.

I think you mean p. 269 for that last one.

Ruth:
>>Finally, the two-page spread on 314-5 of Ozma's courtroom is one of my
>>favorite Shanower drawings. (He did a similar scene in one of his graphic
>>novels--ICE KING, I think.) What faces do we recognize? <
>
>Nice job of identifying. I missed some of these in doing the "Who's Who
>Appendix." The typical rosette carvings on the harness show that you must
>be right about Merry-Go-Round, but the features somehow look more feline
>than equine to me, and I think I would have guessed that it was the Hungry
>Tiger (who shows up in the similar group shot, on pp. 316-7.

I'm pretty sure it's Merry here.

By the way, Flicker's presence in this picture is another indication that
Eric thought of the story as occurring closer to when it was published than
when it was written.  ICE KING, in which Flicker was introduced, takes place
in the eighties, according to Eric himself.

David Hulan:
>Presence in the palace might or might not be significant; wasn't Camy in
>the EC in WONDER CITY?

I'm not sure he was mentioned in WONDER CITY, but I think he was there in
SCALAWAGONS, as well as ENCHANTED ISLAND.  Of course, any one of those
occasions could have been a visit; but then, so could his appearance in
WICKED WITCH, if he is indeed there.

One illustration I don't believe anyone has mentioned yet during this BCF
discussion is the map on p. 17.  An interesting aspect of this map is that 
it expands the Quadling Forest, placing the Fighting Trees, Morrow, the
Cowardly Lion's domain, and Singra's home all within it.  I also thought it
was a nice touch that Eric included the Mysterious Mountain from his own
SECRET ISLAND.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:33:13 +0000
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Camel and Dromedary

David Hulan wrote:
>>You're quite right I've overlooked this cameloid. But I suspect that's
>>the Doubtful Dromedary, given his single hump, presence in the palace,
>>and dubious expression.
>
> It's true that a dromedary is a single-humped camel, but popular usage
> in the '20s and '30s apparently ran the other way - most Americans
> called two-humped Bactrian camels "dromedaries". And the illustrations
> in YELLOW KNIGHT show that Neill followed this practice; if Shanower
> was following Neill than the single-humped camel in WW would be the
> Comfortable Camel rather than Doubty. But there's no reason to think
> that Shanower would follow Neill in this respect than is several others
> where he didn't - as for instance in the Negroid features he gave
> Gloma, as noted elsewhere in this Digest. (The dubious expression
> doesn't mean much, I don't think, since in my opinion all cameloids
> always look dubious.) Presence in the palace might or might not be
> significant; wasn't Camy in the EC in WONDER CITY?

I agree that Neill wasn't fully consistent in the one-hump/two-hump
distinction, but I think Eric Shanower would more likely have followed
the definitions our generation grew up with, reflected at:
<

>

Even in Neill's art, it may just be the power of suggestive words, but
I've always fancied I could detect either contentment or dubiety in many
drawings of the cameloids' faces. Since both expressions involve
partly-closed eyes, I think it's a trick of the mouth or forehead.

In other illustrations, I agree, the faces are the same--particularly
the chapter opener in ROYAL BOOK that shows the shorter of the creatures
with two humps. That drawings also leaves out the head-dress that Neill
gives to one or the other creature in other art.

The Camel may well visit the Emerald City from Corumbia, as Kabumpo and
other outliers do in both Thompson and Neill. But I should think the
first visit he'd make would be to the Dromedary, so they'd most likely
appear in the throne room together. I also suspect Eric Shanower had
more interest in reflecting how Thompson left her character than in how
Neill treated him.

Then again, the separation of the Comfortable Camel and Doubtful
Dromedary in YELLOW KNIGHT has always made me wonder. The two were so
close, basically each half a character, and then they end up living
apart? Does any other animal besides Camy settle in the Emerald City and
then leave? From an Oz-as-history perspective, I wonder if the two
cameloids had a falling-out, or just got sick of each other's attitudes.

For more camels than one could wave a stick at, see:
<

>

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:22:36 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] camel miles

David Hulan <dhulan at wideopenwest.com> wrote:
> It's true that a dromedary is a single-humped camel, but popular usage in
> the '20s and '30s apparently ran the other way - most Americans called
> two-humped Bactrian camels "dromedaries". And the illustrations in YELLOW
> KNIGHT show that Neill followed this practice; ... (The dubious expression 
> doesn't mean much, I don't think, since in my opinion all cameloids always 
> look dubious.) <

Confusing, but interesting! An additional possible fudge factor is that the
single hump is drawn so close to the neck that, with Singra standing in
front and blocking off the view of the rest, I wonder if Eric meant that to
be a two-humped whatever, with the view of the second hump hidden by Singra.

>Presence in the palace might or might not be significant; wasn't Camy in
>the EC in WONDER CITY? >

In Neill's second, "Scalawagons." Hokus is around in "Wonder City," and gets
a mention in "Lucky Bucky," and perhaps it could be assumed that Camy is
with him and both of them visiting the Emerald City in all three books. It
occurs to me that I don't think anyone said one way or the other if the
Doubtful D. stayed in the Emerald City after the Comfortable C. stayed with
Hokus in Corumbia. Checking the WW Appendix, I see that although the two
usually twin together, the "Scalawagons" entry (p. 172) is the only time the
C.C. gets a mention without the D.D., and the D.D. has a mention in "Handy 
Mandy" (p. 163) without the C.C. I'll try to remember to take a look at
these two mentions and see if they indicate anything about their separable
lives. If Hokus and the C.C. come to visit as often as Neill's books would
suggest, perhaps the Dromedary feels that it amounts to no real
separation -- or perhaps the Dromedary is actually going back and forth with
them, at least some of the time, for company. (Seems a pity Princess
Marygolden doesn't get a mention, but presumably she also could be visiting
back and forth along with them, although without getting narrative notice,
except in "Wishing Horse," where all of them get a mention.)

Ruth Berman

Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 12:59:16 -0400
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] camel miles

Ruth:
>In Neill's second, "Scalawagons." Hokus is around in "Wonder City," and
>gets a mention in "Lucky Bucky," and perhaps it could be assumed that Camy
>is with him and both of them visiting the Emerald City in all three books.
>It occurs to me that I don't think anyone said one way or the other if the
>Doubtful D. stayed in the Emerald City after the Comfortable C. stayed with 
>Hokus in Corumbia.

I'm pretty sure that, in WISHING HORSE, the Hungry Tiger lists Doubty as one
of the animals who lives in the Emerald City, and Camy as one of the
visitors from foreign parts.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 16:38:04 +0000
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] WICKED WITCH map

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> One illustration I don't believe anyone has mentioned yet during this
> BCF discussion is the map on p. 17. An interesting aspect of this map
> is that it expands the Quadling Forest, placing the Fighting Trees,
> Morrow, the Cowardly Lion's domain, and Singra's home all within it.
> I also  thought it
> was a nice touch that Eric included the Mysterious Mountain from his
> own SECRET ISLAND.

I hadn't noticed these details, or realized that the Mysterious Mountain
  wouldn't appear in the book ahead.

Parts of New England have become reforested with the decline of
agriculture in the region; thus, the landscape around Lexington and
Concord is quite different from how it looked when the British army
marched through. I doubt the same economic forces would apply in Oz,
however.

I see Eric Shanower followed the Oz Club map's lead and labeled the
waterfall in the south of Quadlingland the "Great Waterfall" rather
than, as on the TIK-TOK maps, the "Magic Waterfall."

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:30:42 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] muppets & waterfall

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
>> One illustration I don't believe anyone has mentioned yet during this BCF
>> discussion is the map on p. 17. An interesting aspect of this map is that
>> it expands the Quadling Forest, placing the Fighting Trees, Morrow, the
>> Cowardly Lion's domain, and Singra's home all within it. <<
and J.L. Bell commented:
> Parts of New England have become reforested with the decline of
> agriculture in the region; thus, the landscape around Lexington and
> Concord is quite different from how it looked when the British army
> marched through. I doubt the same economic forces would apply in Oz,
> however. >

Even without much (any?) change in the physical geography, there might be
some changes among map-makers trying to decide how widely the Quadling
Forest extends, and whether (small?) gaps with trees again after a bit mark
borders, or just open spaces in a wood that could be considered as still the
same wood beyond the gaps.

> I see Eric Shanower followed the Oz Club map's lead and labeled the
> waterfall in the south of Quadlingland the "Great Waterfall" rather than,
> as on the TIK-TOK maps, the "Magic Waterfall." >

Baum calls it "a great waterfall" in "Scarecrow," where the Scarecrow is
saying that he came by it on the way to Jinxland, but then when they get to
it, the Scarecrow explains that "the Great Waterfall" is actually its name,
because it's the highest is Oz. It never actually does anything magic that
we hear about narratively to deserve its map-name. Presumably Baum had it
mind to have some kind of magic there when he mapped it, but then found he
wasn't going to have any magic at work when he came up on it narratively and
so switched over to turning the description into an alternate name. But it
might be fun sometime if someone can come up with a story where it does turn
out to have some magic after all.

Ruth Berman

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Wicked Witch soldiers and feminism

Before we leave WICKED WITCH completely behind, I thought I'd add one more
thought about Cosgrove's use of the word "Soldierette" to refer to
Glinda's army.  "Soldierette" sounds demeaning to me, and not
very much in keeping with Baum's general attitude toward women in the military
(I think in LOST PRINCESS he calls them the fiercest of soldiers), and aside
from his obviously comic use of Jinjur's army in LAND, he seemed to stick with
that attitude most of the time. I know when we discusses HIDDEN VALLEY there
were complaints that Dorothy didn't do much (well, neither does Jam), and while
she takes a more active role in WICKED WITCH, she's still not quite up to her
feisty self.  Could it be that Baum remains, even at this late date, still
more radical than his literary descendants? 

Alan Wise

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:50:03 -0400 
From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" <xornom at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] Wicked Witch soldiers and feminism

Alan Wise:
>Before we leave WICKED WITCH completely behind, I thought I'd add one more
>thought about Cosgrove's use of the word "Soldierette" to refer to Glinda's
>army.  "Soldierette" sounds demeaning to me, and not very much in keeping
>with Baum's general attitude toward women in the military (I think in LOST
>PRINCESS he calls them the fiercest of soldiers)

I believe it's the Frogman who makes that statement, although I would
imagine the author would have agreed with it.  I agree that "soldierette"
sounds demeaning; not only does it imply that a female soldier can't simply
be called a solider, but the "ette" ending is somewhat of a diminutive. 
"Soldieress" would have been less offensive, but still unnecessary.

>Could it be that Baum remains, even at this late date, still more radical
>than his literary descendants?

I think that's quite likely.  It's interesting that Baum often seems to have
more of a feminist attitude than the female writers who continued the series.
--
I'll still be right where you left me, if you manage to forget me,
Nathan
DinnerBell at tmbg.org

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:30:51 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: WICKED WITCH soldierette

Alan Wise wrote:
<<Before we leave WICKED WITCH completely behind, I thought I'd add one
more thought about Cosgrove's use of the word "Soldierette" to refer to
Glinda's army. "Soldierette" sounds demeaning to me, and not very much
in keeping with Baum's general attitude toward women in the military>>

I missed that detail, but I agree on the interpretation. For the same
reason, a lot of historians these days avoid the "suffragette" label in
favor of "suffragist." I believe some have argued that opponents of
women's suffrage rather than supporters created the "--ette" form in an
effort to be belittling.

I think you're right that not until after the Reilly & Lee series ended
did Oz authors match Baum's level of feminism, particularly when
measured against the their times. Neill's creation of Jenny Jump may
come close, but it's hard to find a coherent ideology in his books.
Ironically, the authors who were themselves female (Thompson, Cosgrove,
the McGraws) or gay (Snow) seem to have presented Oz characters in the
most traditional gender roles and patterns.

Similarly. not until after the Reilly & Lee series ended in the early
1960s did we also see "normal" people in Oz with non-white features, or
Americans going to Oz who weren't of European descent by almost all
indications.

J. L. Bell                 
JnoLBell at earthlink.net

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:03:55 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <ivanlan at pauahtun.org>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: WICKED WITCH soldierette

Hi All--

"J. L. Bell" wrote:
>
> I missed that detail, but I agree on the interpretation. For the same
> reason, a lot of historians these days avoid the "suffragette" label in
> favor of "suffragist." I believe some have argued that opponents of
> women's suffrage rather than supporters created the "--ette" form in an
> effort to be belittling.
>

I don't think it was created that way, although it was certainly used so
in America, and later on in the UK.  "Suffragette" was created and
popularized in the UK; the first use was by a newspaper there in the
early days of the 20th C (1908?  Earlier?).  Woman suffrage proponents
had been using "suffragist," but when the newspapers there began using
it to describe the more radical members of the movement, the movement at
large adopted it wholesale.

Alice Paul trained with Emmeline Pankhurst and the (more radical members
of the) suffragette movement in the UK before returning to the US in
1910, where she led the ultimately successful campaign to gain women the
vote in the US.  As far as I know, she never used the term
"suffragette," and thought it demeaning.  Political cartoons in the UK
from that time that I've seen certainly treated the term so.

Baum would almost certainly have heard of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, by
the way.  Matilda Joslyn Gage would have known her and it's highly
unlikely that she would not have discussed Paul with her daughter and
son-in-law.

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Hutchins <scottandrewhutchins at yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] Wicked Witch soldiers and feminism

As Sally Wagner told me when I interviewed her for a documentary, Baum's
writings in the _Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer_ were frequently more on target in
addressing the women's movement than even the women's suffrage
newspapers.  I can't recall the exact quote, but I can look it up.

Scott