Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 09:11:35 -0700
From: "Marcus Mebes" <baringer at gmail.com>
Subject: [Regalia] TROUBLE UNDER OZ

I had the pleasure of enjoying Sherwood Smith's latest Oz book,
TROUBLE UNDER OZ. Now, I liked it a lot, specifically because it was
more Ozzy than her first book; using familiar established Ozians like
Ozma, Glinda, the Patchwork Girl, Kaliko the Nome King, and even
Prince Inga of Pingaree. They go to familiar places like the
underground land of the Mangaboos and Voe, but I'm amazed that her
editors or fact-checkers allowed a horrible mistake to go through:
putting Ev EAST of Oz instead of West. I thought she had an Oz
"expert" checking her writings, but I wonder if he had time to look
over this one.

Now, when I corresponded with Sherwood, she was amazingly gracious,
and I must tell you all that she's probably one of the nicest people
I've corresponded with. She was embarrassed by the mistake, and when
she tried to call the printers (I had an advance review copy) to see
if it was too late to correct it, she told me that the books were
already being assembled. She'll correct it if the book gets a second
printing.

I will gladly recommend this book to everyone. It's a lot less focused
on how dysfunctional Dori and Em's family is, and a lot more focused
on true Oz adventure. There's less concept of Dori and Em being
descendents of Dorothy, and in fact Dorothy is actually still IN
fairyland, though captured and imprisoned by whatever's controlling
the dark clouds that appear every now and then over the Emerald City.
It appears that Dori and Em themselves realize more and more that
whatever notion that they had about being Dorothy's descendents is
unraveling.

It was a lot of fun to experience their adventures in the underground
caves, and though there is some drudgery with their parents' divorce
or seperation (sigh, which I don't think has a place in the Oz that
Baum established to be free of the horrors of the great outside
world), it's treated with only enough sympathy to make it enhance the
plot.

Now, William Stout's art is EXTREMELY pretty, and enhances the book to
a degree. He is a bit confused about his Oz characters though, and
ignorant about others. He's got Ruggedo scowling on the cover, even
though the Nome King of the book is genial, almost friendly Kaliko.
His drawing of the Long-Eared Hearer and his two cohorts is actually a
drawing of three trolls, and not nomes. And then there's a picture of
a castle or something. I wonder what it has to do with the book?
Additionally, there's a drawing of Dori with the bird queen who is
textually described as having a long slender neck; but the drawing
shows her without any neck at all. To sum it up, William Stout can
draw gorgeous images, but they don't mean squat as illustrations. He
can't illustrate, despite being an expert artist. I love his art, but
hate his "illustrations" (note the quotes).

Once the book is made available, I urge you all to check it out!
Sherwood's characterization is much more appealing than her previous
Oz book, and her writing style is easy to read, fun, and wholly
enjoyable. Her personality comes through quite clearly in her writing,
and I bet she's even nicer in person! You can actually probably enjoy
the pictures too, just as long as you note that they don't really
apply to the story; and disregard the bit about Ev being described as
being East of Oz. Sherwood told me she was going off an old map from
somewhere between 1915 and 1920. When I asked her what direction the
Winkie Country and the Munchkin Country were in, she realized that the
map wasn't as accurate as she thought it was. Ha ha!

Now go order it if you haven't already!!

Marcus

Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 12:53:40 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] TROUBLE UNDER OZ

On 7/1/06, Marcus Mebes <baringer at gmail.com> wrote:
> I had the pleasure of enjoying Sherwood Smith's latest Oz book,
> TROUBLE UNDER OZ. Now, I liked it a lot, specifically because it was
> more Ozzy than her first book; using familiar established Ozians like
> Ozma, Glinda, the Patchwork Girl, Kaliko the Nome King, and even
> Prince Inga of Pingaree. They go to familiar places like the
> underground land of the Mangaboos and Voe

I'm assuming that Smith doesn't incorporate the changes made to the
Mangaboos in the SEVEN BLUE MOUNTAINS trilogy, which will make it
difficult for those of us who happen to be continuity nerds. {g} I
guess I'll wait to worry about this until after I've read TROUBLE,
though.

I'm also interested to know whether Smith's version of Inga will be
grown up. Baum never gives much indication as to how long the people
of Pingaree live, but they're apparently not immortal.

> but I'm amazed that her
> editors or fact-checkers allowed a horrible mistake to go through:
> putting Ev EAST of Oz instead of West.

Well, it was across the desert from the Munchkin Country in OZMA, so
there's some precedent for that. Every other FF book I can think of
places it across from the Winkie Country, though. It's not really a
big deal to me. I'm sure I'll just mentally reverse it, like I do
when reading the Thompson books.

> I thought she had an Oz
> "expert" checking her writings, but I wonder if he had time to look
> over this one.

I think David Hulan (whom I assume is still a member of this list,
although he hasn't written anything recently) had done some
fact-checking on her books.

> It was a lot of fun to experience their adventures in the underground
> caves, and though there is some drudgery with their parents' divorce
> or seperation (sigh, which I don't think has a place in the Oz that
> Baum established to be free of the horrors of the great outside
> world), it's treated with only enough sympathy to make it enhance the
> plot.

I don't think Dori and Em dealing with their parents' divorce is
necessarily un-Ozzy, but it's not usually the way of the Oz books for
characters from the Outside World to deal with their psychological
issues while in Oz.

Nathan

Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:10:39 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: TROUBLE UNDER OZ

Marcus Mebes wrote:
> I had the pleasure of enjoying Sherwood Smith's latest Oz book,
> TROUBLE UNDER OZ.

Thanks for reporting that it was coming out. I wasn't sure whether, with
the death of Byron Preiss, this would actually see the light of day.
With the manuscript written and at least some art complete, it seemed to
hinged on HarperCollins's commitment.

> I'm amazed that her
> editors or fact-checkers allowed a horrible mistake to go through:
> putting Ev EAST of Oz instead of West. I thought she had an Oz
> "expert" checking her writings, but I wonder if he had time to look
> over this one.

In OZMA OF OZ, Ev IS to the east of Oz. When Ozma and her party return
from Ev, they're greeted by the King of the Munchkins. (In the past I've
proposed that that's a historian's mistake, that Ozma actually returned
to Winkie Country and Nick had them all over to his castle. That
eliminates both the east-west discrepancy and the mystery of the
disappearing Munchkin king.)

Given that she was writing about Nomes, Smith probably studied OZMA OF
OZ. She also looked at a misleading version of Prof. Wogglebug's map,
which would have confirmed the same impression: that Ev is east of Oz.

By the standards of Reilly & Lee Oz books, this seems par for the
course, hardly a "horrible" mistake.

> There's less concept of Dori and Em being
> descendents of Dorothy, and in fact Dorothy is actually still IN
> fairyland

As I recall, the first book didn't say or hint that Dori and Em were
direct descendants of Dorothy. Rather, the girls believed that they were
related to her in some unspecified way, and had inherited that snow
globe through that connection. But we don't descend from all our
relatives, nor inherit only from direct ancestors.

> there is some drudgery with their parents' divorce
> or seperation (sigh, which I don't think has a place in the Oz that
> Baum established to be free of the horrors of the great outside
> world)

Don't Ann and Sallye Soforth come from a family wracked by marital
difficulties? Has anyone identified what happened to Jinjur's husband?
Didn't Baum depict other difficult marriages: the Lazy Quadling and his
wife, Nimmie Amee and Chopfyt, the Su-dic and Rora Flathead?

> [Stout's] drawing of the Long-Eared Hearer and his two cohorts is actually a
> drawing of three trolls, and not nomes. And then there's a picture of
> a castle or something. I wonder what it has to do with the book?

I have a suspicion that some of Stout's artwork was material he had
lying around, perhaps from his Oz theme park project or just his own
work. The picture of Jack Pumpkinhead and the Glass Cat in EMERALD WAND
shows two Ozzy favorites who appear in the text, but don't do much at
all in the plot. I wonder whether Smith was encouraged to write them
into the book to justify the artwork. (I have the same suspicion about
several pictures in Kabumpo.)

In this case, the trolls and the castle might be from Stout's "trunk."

> He is a bit confused about his Oz characters though, and
> ignorant about others. He's got Ruggedo scowling on the cover, even
> though the Nome King of the book is genial, almost friendly Kaliko.

If the book includes Inga, then research in RINKITINK is in order. And
in that case, the king labeled Kaliko is not only a scowler, but even
looks like Roquat/Ruggedo. (Which brings me to another previously voiced
theory, that the adventure in RINKITINK actually took place before
TIK-TOK, and therefore that king IS Roquat/Ruggedo.)

J. L. Bell         JnoLBell at earthlink.net

  Musings about some of my favorite
  fantasy literature for young readers.

Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 17:28:04 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: TROUBLE UNDER OZ

On 7/1/06, J. L. Bell <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> In OZMA OF OZ, Ev IS to the east of Oz. When Ozma and her party return
> from Ev, they're greeted by the King of the Munchkins. (In the past I've
> proposed that that's a historian's mistake, that Ozma actually returned
> to Winkie Country and Nick had them all over to his castle. That
> eliminates both the east-west discrepancy and the mystery of the
> disappearing Munchkin king.)

This has been covered many times before, but just for the sake of
accuracy, the "Monarch of the Munchkins" is also mentioned in ROAD.

> I have a suspicion that some of Stout's artwork was material he had
> lying around, perhaps from his Oz theme park project or just his own
> work. The picture of Jack Pumpkinhead and the Glass Cat in EMERALD WAND
> shows two Ozzy favorites who appear in the text, but don't do much at
> all in the plot. I wonder whether Smith was encouraged to write them
> into the book to justify the artwork. (I have the same suspicion about
> several pictures in Kabumpo.)

I think you might be right about KABUMPO. There's a picture of the
Wizard in that book that accompanies a few sentences about this
character telling everyone to stay calm during the chaos caused by
Ruggedo. The Wizard hadn't been previously mentioned as even being in
the room at the time, though.  Later on, there are references to Jack
Pumpkinhead and the Tin Woodman being in the castle, but they also
don't do anything else. I seem to recall a picture of at least one of
them in the book, so this could also be text used to justify an
illustration. Of course, there are plenty of other times where a
character appears in a picture, but not in the text at all.

Nathan

Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 17:29:01 -0400
From: "Joseph Bongiorno" <thesithempire at msn.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: issues in Oz

Nathan wrote:
<<I'm assuming that Smith doesn't incorporate the changes made to the
Mangaboos in the SEVEN BLUE MOUNTAINS trilogy, which will make it
difficult for those of us who happen to be continuity nerds. {g}  I
guess I'll wait to worry about this until after I've read TROUBLE,
though.>>

Do you remember in what year Zim altered the Mangaboos?  If not too
early, I don't see why Smith's trilogy can't be set back a few years to
before that occurrence.

<<I don't think Dori and Em dealing with their parents' divorce is
necessarily un-Ozzy, but it's not usually the way of the Oz books for
characters from the Outside World to deal with their psychological
issues while in Oz.>>

I don't have a problem with it either.  Gannaway's SILVER SORCERESS
handled that aspect well.  It's just a sign of the times.  I'm surprised
we haven't come across a scenario yet where a youngster in Oz grows
concerned that he's left his/her anti-depressant medication back home.

Joe

Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 17:39:24 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: issues in Oz

On 7/2/06, Joseph Bongiorno <thesithempire at msn.com> wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>
> <<I'm assuming that Smith doesn't incorporate the changes made to the
> Mangaboos in the SEVEN BLUE MOUNTAINS trilogy, which will make it
> difficult for those of us who happen to be continuity nerds. {g} I
> guess I'll wait to worry about this until after I've read TROUBLE,
> though.>>
>
> Do you remember in what year Zim altered the Mangaboos?  If not too early, I don't see why
Smith's trilogy can't be set back a few years to before that occurrence.

I don't remember exactly (I could look it up if you're interested,
since the book tends to give a good impression as to when the various
episodes take place), but all of the events in DISENCHANTED PRINCESS
occur before the late seventies/early eighties, while I think it's
pretty clear that EMERALD WAND (and hence TROUBLE as well) takes place
in more modern times. I'm not sure it's specific in that respect,
though. Like I said, it would probably make sense to read TROUBLE
before coming to any conclusions in that respect.

> I'm surprised we haven't come across a scenario yet where a youngster in Oz grows concerned
that he's left his/her anti-depressant medication back home.

Well, Herby would be able to help with that, I'm sure.

Nathan

Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:58:48 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: mysterious characters

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> This has been covered many times before, but just for the sake of
> accuracy, the "Monarch of the Munchkins" is also mentioned in ROAD.

Yes, in the same passage that mentions "the King of the Quadlings and
the Sovereign of the Gillikins," separate from Glinda and the Good Witch
of the North. So that strikes me as further mystification rather than
confirmation of the Munchkin monarch's identity.

> I think you might be right about KABUMPO. There's a picture of the
> Wizard in that book that accompanies a few sentences about this
> character telling everyone to stay calm during the chaos caused by
> Ruggedo. The Wizard hadn't been previously mentioned as even being in
> the room at the time, though. Later on, there are references to Jack
> Pumpkinhead and the Tin Woodman being in the castle, but they also
> don't do anything else.  I seem to recall a picture of at least one of
> them in the book, so this could also be text used to justify an
> illustration. Of course, there are plenty of other times where a
> character appears in a picture, but not in the text at all.

The pictures of the Wizard, Jack, and others tend to be full-page
portraits, and the paragraphs mentioning them, as I recall, at or near
the ends of chapters. Those would be relatively easy insertions for both
the author and the person laying out the book.

> Some authors have used details from Volkov's books
> in FF-consistent Oz stories, including his names for the Wicked
> Witches. I think that "Bastinda," his name for the WWW, is as good as
> any.

Sherwood Smith adopted that name for EMERALD WAND and, presumably,
TROUBLE UNDER OZ. The result, in my eyes, is a hybrid of Baum's vision
and Volkov's that fits neither and doesn't reconcile their differences.

J. L. Bell         JnoLBell at earthlink.net

   Musings about some of my favorite
  fantasy literature for young readers.

Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:40:56 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] trouble discussions, borderlands, destinal dorothy

"Marcus Mebes" <baringer at gmail.com> and "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
commented on the forthcoming "Trouble Under Oz."

Thanks -- interesting discussion.

>> though there is some drudgery with their parents' divorce or separation
>> (sigh, which I don't think has a place in the Oz that Baum established to
>> be free of the horrors of the great outside world), it's treated with
>> only enough sympathy to make it enhance the plot. >
> I don't think Dori and Em dealing with their parents' divorce is
> necessarily un-Ozzy, but it's not usually the way of the Oz books for
> characters from the Outside World to deal with their psychological issues
> while in Oz. >

I dislike having fantasy stories set up with protagonists suffering from
unhappy home lives -- it's gotten to be a cliche. And symbolically it seems
to imply that only unhappy people are imaginative.

Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:02:34 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: mysterious characters

On 7/2/06, J. L. Bell <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Nathan DeHoff wrote:
> > This has been covered many times before, but just for the sake of
> > accuracy, the "Monarch of the Munchkins" is also mentioned in ROAD.
>
> Yes, in the same passage that mentions "the King of the Quadlings and
> the Sovereign of the Gillikins," separate from Glinda and the Good Witch
> of the North. So that strikes me as further mystification rather than
> confirmation of the Munchkin monarch's identity.

I believe ROAD might also be the last book in which Baum mentions the
GWN.  After that, only the rulers of the Winkies and the Quadlings are
mentioned. In fact, there are hints in PATCHWORK GIRL that the
Munchkins no longer have a ruler of their own. At the beginning of
GIANT HORSE, Thompson reports that the Munchkins are ruled by "a King
of whom nothing much has been heard for many a long year." It's not
totally clear as to who this king actually is. The most obvious
answer would be Cheeriobed's father, but Ozma states later in the book
that "Mombi has utterly destroyed the good King of the Munchkins,"
with the implication being that this happened before she lost her
powers shortly after the end of LAND. Would Ozma have gone all those
years without bothering to investigate what had happened to the one of
the quadrant rulers, with the missing man still being considered the
ruler in the meantime?  And the king presumably isn't Cheeriobed
himself, since he's simply King of the Ozure Isles until Ozma promotes
him at the end of the story.

> > Some authors have used details from Volkov's books
>  > in FF-consistent Oz stories, including his names for the Wicked
> > Witches. I think that "Bastinda," his name for the WWW, is as good as
> > any.
>
> Sherwood Smith adopted that name for EMERALD WAND and, presumably,
> TROUBLE UNDER OZ. The result, in my eyes, is a hybrid of Baum's vision
> and Volkov's that fits neither and doesn't reconcile their differences.

Well, I wouldn't say simply borrowing the name is an attempt to
reconcile the differences. I don't have a problem with that sort of
lateral borrowing of character names and such. You could argue that
Baum did it himself with elements from his plays, although that's not
exactly the same, since he wrote the plays himself.

Nathan

Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:12:47 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] trouble discussions and borderlands

By the way, Joe Bongiorno asked when, according to DISENCHANTED
PRINCESS, Zim altered the Mangaboos. I checked the book today, and
Tip first visits the Mangaboos "in the thirty-second year of Ozma's
reign." Zim performs cross-breeding experiments on them over the
course of the next few decades.  He seems to be pretty much finished
by the time that he begins to gather his underwater collection, which
begins "[i]n the seventy-fifth year of Ozma's reign."

Nathan

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 17:32:00 -0400
From: "Joseph Bongiorno" <thesithempire at msn.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Mangaboos

Nathan wrote: <<By the way, Joe Bongiorno asked when, according to DISENCHANTED 
PRINCESS, Zim altered the Mangaboos.  I checked the book today, and 
Tip first visits the Mangaboos "in the thirty-second year of Ozma's 
reign."  Zim performs cross-breeding experiments on them over the 
course of the next few decades.  He seems to be pretty much finished 
by the time that he begins to gather his underwater collection, which 
begins "[i]n the seventy-fifth year of Ozma's reign.">>

Thanks for the research Nathan!  Ok, so if we have a situation in
TROUBLE where the Mangaboos are exactly as Baum left them in DOTWIZ,
then the story would have to take place some time prior to 1977 (the
seventy-fifth year of Ozma's reign).  I don't see that as too much of a
problem as I don't recall any indications in Smith's first novel that
would dictate it has to occur in recent times.  And, if Smith utilizes
Ruggedo (as a villain) that would for a certainty place it at least
before '93's Angelina Bean in Oz which finally (and brilliantly) sees
the old Nome King change his ways.

Joe

Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:42:29 -0400
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Re: Re: mysterious characters

Nathan DeHoff wrote:
>> Sherwood Smith adopted that name for EMERALD WAND and, presumably,
>> TROUBLE UNDER OZ. The result, in my eyes, is a hybrid of Baum's vision
>> and Volkov's that fits neither and doesn't reconcile their differences.
>
> Well, I wouldn't say simply borrowing the name is an attempt to
> reconcile the differences. I don't have a problem with that sort of
> lateral borrowing of character names and such.

I think it's significant that very few characters in WIZARD have proper
names. Most are designated as "the [Something]," as in "the Scarecrow"
and "the Soldier with the Green Whiskers." As I recall, Boq, Oz, Mr.
Joker, and Glinda are the only exceptions among the people Dorothy meets
in Oz.

Starting with the stage extravaganza, Baum gave many of his characters
proper names: Nick Chopper, Omby Amby, etc. And then later authors came
up with more, some less popular than others: Tattypoo, Cowy. "Scarecrow"
and "Wizard" also got treated as proper names.

But that still left the Wicked Witch of the West without a proper name
in the books, unlike Mombi and Blinkie. She's just "the Wicked Witch,"
which seems to increase her elemental wickedness, her symbolic value.

I'm not saying later authors should follow that pattern, especially
since Baum didn't. I just think it's an interesting part of his initial
vision of Oz.

As for the choices available to authors, Eric Gjovaag's FAQ lists
several names given to the Wicked and Good Witches in later versions of
the story:

By choosing one previous author's name over another, I think, an author
implies taking a side. Of course, copyrights come into the picture as well.

J. L. Bell         JnoLBell at earthlink.net

  Musings about some of my favorite
  fantasy literature for young readers.

Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 12:39:07 +0100 (BST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Trouble under Oz

   Trouble and Wand feel like real Oz to me. Something I can only otherwise say of Baums books
and one sample chapter by Bell. To me Thompson et al seem filtered through some kind of
sideways set of expectations. As I perceive it, the people of the continent of Breasail, including Oz,
are all mentally about 10 years old. Thompsons characters seem a bit older and often fraught with
adolescent angst. As far as other writers, I can think of very few with children as protagonists that
can match the combination of matter of fact-ness and wonderment of Baums characters.
  I don't think it's easy to write 10 year-olds. The boys are feckless and the girls have more feck than
they know what to do with. I think Preteena is close to perfect in its characterizations although
Johnson Pinecone seems a bit too sensible for a 14 year old boy.
  I loved the names of the Nome boys. Riki Tiki Tavi Jubjub Jabi Wok. Beauties! Kipling and Carroll.
Way cool!
  Mangaboo seemed totally Mangabooish. On the other hand, in Voe I wondered why the bears and
the Tasca were visible. A shortage of Dama? Vanity on the part of the Tasca and a preference for
Tivi? Not a failing, but a definite wonderfication.
  Also wondering why Inga didn't consult the white pearl in the hostage situation. Just didn't think
of it? Things moved too fast and couldn't be slowed down?
 The Kingdom of Dreams sounds to me like it might be like the island of dreams in the Dawn
Treader. If so, no wonder no Phanfasm would ever get out of it.
  I found Kaliko marvelous. I've never liked him much before. But this presentation makes him one
of my favorite characters. How delightfully sneaky!
As far as names. Assuming that Hizzer is from Hiss, the Ozish would be Shisser or Shizzer. If Dinod
is from Dinosaur, it would be Aglart which is Fear Lizard compressed. Phanfasm really can't be
improved on, but in Ozish it would be Waytavish.

Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Wise <alanmacwise at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Trouble with Trouble in Oz?

Ivan Van Laningham <ivanlan at pauahtun.org> wrote:
  
 >>Hi All--
Do we need more time to obtain and read the BCF selection? I know that
while I _have_ my copy I won't have time to start it until after the
15th (well, 16th, since the 15th is a Sunday). What about the rest of
you? Should we postpone the start date by a couple of weeks?<<

I'm just about finished re-reading it. so I should be ready in another day or two. I know not everyone
read EMERALD WAND and some of those who did were frustrated by it, but I'd encourage everyone
to give TROUBLE a try because I think it's quite enjoyable.  The action fo the story is well-paced,
plus Smith revisits some Baum characters and locales in an interesting way. 
  
 Alan Wise

Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:16:49 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <ivanlan at pauahtun.org>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Trouble with Trouble in Oz?

Hi All--

Alan Wise wrote:
> */Ivan Van Laningham <ivanlan at pauahtun.org>/* wrote:
> 
> I'm just about finished re-reading it. so I should be ready in another
> day or two. I know not everyone read EMERALD WAND and some of those who
> did were frustrated by it, but I'd encourage everyone to give TROUBLE a
> try because I think it's quite enjoyable. The action fo the story is
> well-paced, plus Smith revisits some Baum characters and locales in an
> interesting way.
> 

Emerald Wand was one I did manage to read before the discussion started.
 Despite having some reservations about it, I did like it. I thought
Sherwood Smith had also written one of those small kid's books, in the
same series as _Dorothy and the Seven-Leaf Clover_, but I checked, and
WAND is her first venture into Oz.

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: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:58:04 -0700
From: "Marcus Mebes" <baringer at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: Trouble with Trouble in Oz?

I loved TROUBLE, and thought it was so much better than EMERALD WAND.
I just completed a massive double-interview with both Stout and Smith,
and have learned much about their books and the background! Let's go
for this! :)

-MM

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:54:16 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] bcfs

The various discussions of "Trouble in Oz" are interesting to read. As with
"Emerald Wand," although in some ways I enjoyed it, it just doesn't feel
very Ozzy to me, and I don't feel like adding to the discussion of it
myself.

Ruth Berman

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:44:02 -0400
From: "Joseph Bongiorno" <thesithempire at msn.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: The feel of Oz

Ruth Berman wrote:
<<The various discussions of "Trouble in Oz" are interesting to read. As with 
"Emerald Wand," although in some ways I enjoyed it, it just doesn't feel 
very Ozzy to me, and I don't feel like adding to the discussion of it 
myself.>>

I guess that's a subjective thing as I'm not sure the "Ozzy feel" can
truly be defined other than as something which captures the
Baum/Thompson voice and style.  I wonder how much we can expect modern
authors to really capture that.  I wonder if we should.  I think the
question that might be asked is: 'How dependent are we on that element
to enjoy an Oz book or 'believe' that those events occurred in the Oz
environs?'  It seems to me that Baum's and Thompson's non-Oz stories may
feel Ozzy even though they have nothing to do with Oz (well most of them
at any rate), whereas later additions to the Oz saga (and I refer solely
to faithful additions to the FF) don't feel as Ozzy even though they're
set in that milieu.  For me, I'd have to say that a good Oz story is
more of a concern (it's also more of a rarity.)  And if one embraces the
'Canon of the Famous Forty' (which to me is a dated number and notion)
of the original authors, then that includes the voices of Neill, Snow,
Cosgrove-Payes and the McGraws, all of which are quite different.  For
that matter, I think the Ozzy feel changes even within the works of
Baum.  The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a very different creature than The
Emerald City of Oz which is likewise very different than Glinda of Oz,
not just structurally, but tonally and thematically as well.  Thompson
of all the authors seems to keep the most consistent style throughout
her run, but even in her case I sense a difference in her early efforts
vs. her later ones (although not as pronounced as with Baum.)  I guess
all of this rambling is to say that for me, that "Ozzy feel" is much
broader than for others, e.g., Eric Shanower's Oz tales are not only
incredible works of literature and illustration, they feel like they're
authentic Oz stories.  Yet they shouldn't, for in tone and spirit many
of them are extremely different -- and in some cases far more grim and
somber -- than anything Baum or Thompson (or even Snow) conceived.  And
for that I'm grateful.  As with its cast of characters, I think Oz
benefits from a diversity of storytelling styles (provided of course
that the quality of such storytelling remains high.)  I'm not sure I'd
want every Oz book to stylistically resemble Baum or Thompson (and in
fact when I completed Thompson's run I was grateful for the change of
pace brought about by Neill and Snow.)  Thus, Sherwood Smith's voice is
not really similar to any of the authors that came before, but neither
is it as radical a departure as Shanower's.  Thus, her style is her own,
and in that sense she continues the Ozzy tradition begun by Thompson and
followed through by each succeeding Royal Historian who infused Oz with
his or her own individual flavor and spirit.

Joe B.

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Hutchins <scottandrewhutchins at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: The feel of Oz

I agree.  As a piece of literature, I consider _Merry-Go-Round in Oz_ to
be superior to most if not all of Thompson's entries, but it doesn't
feel quite like Oz.  It feels a bit retconned to me, but then my Oz
probably feels that way even though I tried to be faithful to Baum's
vision (not so much Thompson's vision as her events, which is what gets
me in copyright trouble).  Same with Brahm Taylor's very rigid
interpretations of Baum as a canon (e.g. if Nick Chopper says "Ozma is a
fairy, and so is Glinda", it's a definitive statement that Glinda is a
fairy, since Baum doesn't provide an explicit corrective in the same
book.  Just as he believe that there are no "tall" Munchkins, only
"taller" Munchkins.

Scott Andrew Hutchins

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:36:44 +0100 (BST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Trouble under Oz

Considering female Nomes living rather far underground, fierce and highly dangerous to everyone
including male Nomes.
 Paracelsus is usually given the credit for naming the four elementals, though a few other less
famous writers on the subject of the system of the world had done so previously, but Paracelsus had
the PR.
  Paracelsus' opinion was that the different elementals became individuated from their specific
element by a process of isolation, which would allow a particular clump or earth, air, fire or water
to be acted upon by the flow of positive and negative cosmic relationships to become a coherent
and more or less sentient individual. Rather like the Stone Monkey in Journey to the West. All of the
same elemental class would be of a single gender.
  All of the earth and fire elementals, the Gnomes and Salamanders, are male. All of the air and
water elementals, the Undines and Sylphs, are female. And as these do not normally get along
together, there are no cross breeds either.
  Fairy tales collected or written before the late 1800s that I have read tended to follow this. Even
the truly weird French ones from the 1700s. Gnomes, kobolds, puccas, ogres, goblins and trolls
were male. Salamanders, dragons, and wyverns were male. Mermaids but no mermen. On the other
hand the shape changers like selkies were male and female, though, mostly female. All the air
spirits I recall were female probably including Shakespeare's Ariel.
  Baum's cloud and mist fairies are female. I think the merfolk in Sea Fairies are mermaids except
for Cap'n Bill temporarily. The Nomes seem all male. His dragons vary in gender, but they seem to
be a compound of oriental and occidental, so I s'pose they can vary male and female.
  So.. Assuming continuity between Baum and Smith, perhaps the female Nomes are creatures of
magma, which would explain why they are so fierce and dangerous. That would be why they stay
below except for the occasional foray and why everyone avoids them. As magma splashes(?) onto
a rock ledge it might cool down to be a male gnome. Thus the magma might be considered female
as the origin of the gnome.
Just a thought.

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:57:23 -0500
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] gnomides

Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>  Paracelsus' opinion was that the different elementals became individuated
> from their specific element by a process of isolation, which would allow a
> particular clump or earth, air, fire or water to be acted upon by the flow
> of positive and negative cosmic relationships to become a coherent and
> more or less sentient individual. Rather like the Stone Monkey in Journey
> to the West. All of the same elemental class would be of a single gender.
> All of the earth and fire elementals, the Gnomes and Salamanders, are
> male. All of the air and water elementals, the Undines and Sylphs, are
> female. And as these do not normally get along together, there are no
> cross breeds either. <

Perhaps I'm remembering a later systematizer, but my recollection is that
Paracelsus says that all the elementals come in both male and female types,
but that the gnomides (the female gnomes) are reclusive and rarely seen
(Sylphides, as in the ballet of "La Sylphide," are the female sylphs, and
sylphs the males, although the later development of the term has turned
"sylph" into a descriptor for thin women and dropped out the word
"sylphide.")

Ruth Berman

Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:05:37 +0100 (BST)
From: Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Gnomides

Ruth Berman
  
 >Perhaps I'm remembering a later systematizer, but my recollection is that Paracelsus
 >says that all the elementals come in both male and female types...
  
  You're right, "Paracelsus" wrote a lot about the male and female races of Elementals. Paracelsus
was one of those lucky authors who kept writing long after he was dead. Occult revivals have a way
of producing books that nobody ever heard of before or books somewhat longer than people recall
them.
  Something like that happened with Zen in the 1960s and 70s if you recall. D. T. Suzuki was one
of the very few writers on Zen who had actual experience. In the 50s there were maybe 10 books
in English on Zen by people who were sucessful Zennists. Then the 60s came along, there was
considerable interest, and Hopla!, all of a sudden there were a hundred or more books. The interest
has continued and now there are hundreds and hundreds... Zen Tarots, Zen desktop gardens, Zen
music and Zen candles. And thousands of books. And of all of this, there are still maybe 10 books
on Zen by people who were sucessful Zennists.
  Similarly there was a big occult revival in the early 1700s. Actually it could be considered the first
European occult revival because for the first time since the Inquisition etc took off it was reasonably
safe to be interested in the subject. Many many books by Paracelsus were published. Some of them
actually by him.
  So... If you read the Alchemical and Medical stuff, you get the strong impression that the genders
were aligned as I stated. If you read modern commentators like Manly Hall who don't distinguish
between 1500s and 1700s you have a lot about invisible elemental spirits of both genders, their
home life and occupations.
  That 1700s Smurfology doesn't seem to have affected the fairy tale universe until the late 1800s
though. Except, of course, for the French.

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:12:06 -0400
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: The feel of Oz

On 10/18/06, Joseph Bongiorno <thesithempire at msn.com> wrote:
>
> Ruth Berman wrote:
>
> <<The various discussions of "Trouble in Oz" are interesting to read. As
> with
> "Emerald Wand," although in some ways I enjoyed it, it just doesn't feel
> very Ozzy to me, and I don't feel like adding to the discussion of it
> myself.>>
>
> I guess that's a subjective thing as I'm not sure the "Ozzy feel" can truly
> be defined other than as something which captures the Baum/Thompson voice
> and style. I wonder how much we can expect modern authors to really capture
> that. I wonder if we should.

I don't think it's necessary for an author to write Oz stories in an
imitation of Baum's or Thompson's style for them to feel Ozzy. Maybe
other people disagree, though. I don't really know how I'd define
Ozziness, though. There are certain things that I think really have
no place in Oz stories, but perhaps I would be willing to change my
mind if I were to read a good story that included them. I will say
that I found TROUBLE to be Ozzier than EMERALD WAND, despite the fact
that much less of the book takes place in Oz proper. I think the
measure of Ozziness is very subjective, but I also think there are
certain books that are generally acknowledged to be Ozzier than
average.

> I guess all of this rambling is
> to say that for me, that "Ozzy feel" is much broader than for others, e.g.,
> Eric Shanower's Oz tales are not only incredible works of literature and
> illustration, they feel like they're authentic Oz stories. Yet they
> shouldn't, for in tone and spirit many of them are extremely different --
> and in some cases far more grim and somber -- than anything Baum or Thompson
> (or even Snow) conceived.

I think Oz is big enough to incorporate a lot of different visions,
including grim and somber ones.  I do think, however, that there are
certain things about Oz that are constant in stories that I would
consider faithful to Baum and his successors. I think it's quite
likely that Oz has its share of sorrow and tragedy, but I also think
that, if a character like Dorothy or Ozma were made into a tragic
figure, it would feel wrong. As I mentioned before, I might be
willing to accept such a thing if the story were really good, but in
general, it's probably best to work with either more obscure or
totally original characters when dealing with heavier topics. Eric
usually seemed to do this. The family and relationship issues in BLUE
WITCH are between new characters.  "The Final Fate of the Frogman"
does use an established character, but one who was never all that
significant in the FF after his major role in LOST PRINCESS.

Nathan

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:36:23 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Trouble under Oz

On 10/1/06, Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>   Trouble and Wand feel like real Oz to me.

Honestly, I found TROUBLE to be Ozzier than WAND, even though most of
it is set outside Oz proper. Perhaps it's largely because familiar
characters feature more prominently. WAND had appearances by several
established characters, but they didn't show up until rather late in
the story, and some of them didn't even do much of anything. In
TROUBLE, I really like the characterization of the Long-Eared Hearer
and the Lookout. Kaliko's Royal Chamberlain in TROUBLE is Klik, who
had appeared earlier in RINKITINK, and whom some scholars have
speculated might have just been Kaliko with a few letters removed
(since the Nome King in the original KING RINKITINK manuscript would
presumably have been Roquat/Ruggedo). Since Guph becomes the
Chamberlain in TIK-TOK, and is brought back in that role by Thompson
in HUNGRY TIGER, Klik is somewhat of a mysterious figure. In WISHING
HORSE, Kaliko seems to have gotten rid of both Guph and Klik, and has
a new chamberlain named Shoofenwaller. Although WISHING HORSE is in
the public domain, I believe Smith was told not to use post-Baum
characters, so I guess reintroducing Klik makes sense. Or it could
have simply been a matter of Smith having recently re-read RINKITINK,
and forgetting that Kaliko had different chamberlains in other books.

> To me Thompson et al seem filtered through some kind of sideways set of expectations. As I
perceive it, the people of the continent of Breasail, including Oz, are all mentally about 10 years old.

I've been reading the BCF archives, and I believe it was during the
discussion of ROAD that someone mentioned how, in Baum's children's
books, the adults usually act like children. We don't really know
whether this was a conscious decision on his part, but I really can't
say I'm particularly enamored with the idea that everyone in Oz and
its surrounding countries has the mind of a ten-year-old.

>  I loved the names of the Nome boys. Riki Tiki Tavi Jubjub Jabi Wok.

I didn't even notice the references until you pointed them out, but
that's pretty neat. One interesting note is that I seem to recall Rik
giving his full name as "Rikiko" in WAND, yet it's consistently
"Rikiki" in TROUBLE. I suppose such confusion in characters' names is
in keeping with the spirit of the official Oz books, though. <g>

>  Mangaboo seemed totally Mangabooish.

As I'm sure most of you know, the Mangaboos are also revisited in
Melody Grandy's SEVEN BLUE MOUNTAINS trilogy, and Zim eventually
succeeds in getting them to feel emotion. So, for continuity nerds
like myself, there's somewhat of a contradiction here. Joe Bongiorno
deals with this by placing TROUBLE back in 1975 on his timeline, but I
don't know how well that works. The civilized world of TROUBLE is one
where cellular phones are common. I don't know if cell phones existed
back in 1975, but they certainly weren't that common. I'm sure Smith
was thinking of her stories as taking place pretty close to the
present day.  Perhaps a better way to reconcile the two books would be
to say that unemotional Mangaboos somehow managed to regain control of
the country in the time between Zim's last visit in DISENCHANTED
PRINCESS and the events of TROUBLE.  Perhaps, after hearing of Dori
and Rik's adventures, Zim returned to the Vegetable Kingdom to sort
things out again.

One thing I enjoyed about TROUBLE was how Em had to constantly make
excuses for why Dori wasn't around.  It added an extra layer of
suspense to the story. It's rare for an Oz story to cut back to the
Outside World after someone has made it to Oz or the Borderlands, and
I found it to be an interesting technique (although not one I'd want
to see in EVERY book where someone from the Outside World visits Oz).

Nathan

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:50:05 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Trouble under Oz

On 10/19/06, Boq Aru <boq_aru at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Fairy tales collected or written before the late 1800s that I have read
> tended to follow this. Even the truly weird French ones from the 1700s.
> Gnomes, kobolds, puccas, ogres, goblins and trolls were male. Salamanders,
> dragons, and wyverns were male. Mermaids but no mermen. On the other hand
> the shape changers like selkies were male and female, though, mostly female.
> All the air spirits I recall were female probably including Shakespeare's
> Ariel.
> Baum's cloud and mist fairies are female. I think the merfolk in Sea Fairies
> are mermaids except for Cap'n Bill temporarily.

There is, however, a merman in Thompson's GIANT HORSE.

> The Nomes seem all male. His
> dragons vary in gender, but they seem to be a compound of oriental and
> occidental, so I s'pose they can vary male and female.

In SANTA CLAUS, the Wood-Nymphs are apparently all female. I believe
all the Ryls and Knooks we see are male, although I can't recall any
specific statement that there AREN'T females among them. The Fairies,
on the other hand, are definitely both male and female. They're ruled
by a Queen, yet Wisk, the one of their number who ends up as one of
Santa's helpers, is male.

> So.. Assuming continuity between Baum and Smith, perhaps the female Nomes
> are creatures of magma, which would explain why they are so fierce and
> dangerous. That would be why they stay below except for the occasional foray
> and why everyone avoids them. As magma splashes(?) onto a rock ledge it
> might cool down to be a male gnome. Thus the magma might be considered
> female as the origin of the gnome.Just a thought.

Interesting thought. Of course, Baum's Nomes aren't actually MADE of
rock, as far as we can tell.  I doubt a creature of stone would be so
susceptible to attacks by a dragon or a slicing machine. Ruggedo
mentions feeling something in his bones in TIK-TOK, which is
presumably a figure of speech, but still seems to give the indication
that he has bones. Thompson tells us that "like all the dwellers
under the earth, [Kaliko's] heart is gray and flinty as the rock that
forms his cavern, the blood in his veins cold and sluggish as the
leaden waters of the underground rivers that wind sullenly through his
dark domain." So I think Nomes are more flesh-and-blood immortals
with rock-like qualities, rather than living rocks.

Nathan

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:28:21 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: [Regalia] TROUBLE and aging in the Borderlands

I like the return of Prince Inga in TROUBLE. His serious attitude
contrasts nicely with Rik's playful, childish nature. One passage I
found particularly amusing was on p. 180, where the characters are
performing funny dives: "Dori looked up to see Inga perform a
beautiful dive, except he wiggled his toes, something that wasn't the
least bit funny, except maybe to other princes."

An interesting thing, however, is that Inga doesn't appear to be much
(if at all) older in TROUBLE than in RINKITINK. This raises a
question that's been discussed on these forums several times in the
past, but I think is worth mentioning again, and that's whether people
in the countries surrounding Oz age and die normally. I get the
impression that Baum thought they did, but he rarely makes much of a
point of it.  In TIN WOODMAN, it's specifically described as Oz itself
that was enchanted so that the people wouldn't age and die, not any of
the surrounding countries. Mo is another place where the people are
basically immortal, and apparently have been for longer than the
Ozites. Animals there presumably can die, though. ZIXI and JOHN
DOUGH not only take place in areas where death and aging seem to occur
normally, but end with passages describing their child heroes growing
to adulthood. When Bud, Fluff, and Chick attend Ozma's party in ROAD,
they're still children, so it would seem that the most logical reading
of these epilogues would be that they're projected futures for the
characters. Or perhaps we could just ignore them altogether, the way
Baum himself did with his statements in WIZARD that the title
character was never seen in Oz again after he left in his balloon
(with one particular passage going so far as to suggest he didn't
survive the journey). Either way, though, the implication seems to be
that, with a few exceptions (like Mo) death and aging existed in the
Borderlands.

This still leaves open the question as to whether people in the
Borderlands age at what we would consider to be a normal rate, or at a
slower one. The latter would allow a young Inga to appear in TROUBLE
without implying that he cannot die. In ZIXI, however, Zixi's age of
683 is much older than anyone else in her kingdom. In an area where a
child hardly ages in a century, living to 683 presumably wouldn't be
that much of a feat, unless people in the Borderlands just spend an
extended amount of their lives in childhood. Of course, lifespans on
Pingaree could be much longer than those on Ix, but since the two
places are separated only by distance and ocean, rather than deadly
deserts, I think this would be kind of odd.

Throwing Thompson into the mix, her PIRATES introduces King Ato, who
lives on an island eight leagues from Pingaree, and has apparently
lived for 1000 years (compared to which Zixi's 683 is nothing).
Comments in both this and CAPTAIN SALT imply that, although perhaps
not totally immortal, both Ato and the Captain are very long-lived and
difficult to destroy. In WISHING HORSE, Dorothy refers to Evardo, who
was fifteen in OZMA, as "a boy king." King Rinkitink is mentioned in
both PIRATES and Neill's LUCKY BUCKY, but no indication is given as to
how old he is. There seems to be a difference in how Baum and
Thompson viewed the Borderlands, although I don't know of any specific
contradictions.

Another factor in the Thompson books is that, on the Silver Island,
eighty-seven is considered old. As this is a subterranean country,
however, this information doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the
above-ground neighbors of Oz.

Nathan

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:51:48 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] chamberlains & cartage

"Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com> wrote:
> In WISHING HORSE, Kaliko seems to have gotten rid of both Guph and Klik,
> and has a new chamberlain named Shoofenwaller. Although WISHING HORSE is
> in the public domain, I believe Smith was told not to use post-Baum
> characters, so I guess reintroducing Klik makes sense. Or it could have
> simply been a matter of Smith having recently re-read RINKITINK, and
> forgetting that Kaliko had different chamberlains in other books. >

I suppose there's no reason why Kaliko couldn't have more than one steward.
They might have different shifts or different specialties in their
responsibilities. I forget who it was in the past that pointed out that Guph
and Klik and Shoofenwaller give rather different sorts of advice, with
Shoofenwaller being perhaps the least violent and the most devious. So
Kaliko according to his mood or his judgment of the situation might want to
seek advice of one more than the others at a given time.

Or, for that matter, a Nome might have more than one name. (Ruggedo/Roquat
did -- a special case, to be sure, but it indicates a certain flexibility
about names among the Nomes generally.)

Ruth Berman

Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:14:47 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] chamberlains & cartage

On 11/13/06, Ruth Berman <berma005 at umn.edu> wrote:
> "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In WISHING HORSE, Kaliko seems to have gotten rid of both Guph and Klik,
> > and has a new chamberlain named Shoofenwaller. Although WISHING HORSE is
> > in the public domain, I believe Smith was told not to use post-Baum
> > characters, so I guess reintroducing Klik makes sense. Or it could have
> > simply been a matter of Smith having recently re-read RINKITINK, and
> > forgetting that Kaliko had different chamberlains in other books. >
>
> I suppose there's no reason why Kaliko couldn't have more than one steward.
> They might have different shifts or different specialties in their
> responsibilities. I forget who it was in the past that pointed out that Guph
> and Klik and Shoofenwaller give rather different sorts of advice, with
> Shoofenwaller being perhaps the least violent and the most devious.

I don't recall Klik giving much advice in RINKITINK, and he is
actually only referred to as a chamberlain once, at the end of Chapter
18. I haven't read the book in a while, but I don't recall him having
that much of a personality either. I suppose he could possibly be the
same as Shoofenwaller, but probably not the same as Guph, who's more
violent and argumentative.

Nathan

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:21:35 -0500
From: "Joseph Bongiorno" <thesithempire at msn.com>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: Trouble

Nathan wrote:

<<One thing I enjoyed about TROUBLE was how Em had to constantly make
excuses for why Dori wasn't around. It added an extra layer of
suspense to the story. It's rare for an Oz story to cut back to the
Outside World after someone has made it to Oz or the Borderlands, and
I found it to be an interesting technique (although not one I'd want
to see in EVERY book where someone from the Outside World visits Oz).>>

That was probably my favorite aspect of the book. Not only was it cool
to see the sisters working together, but the added layer of suspense was
great and added a lot to the overall enjoyment of the story!

<<As I'm sure most of you know, the Mangaboos are also revisited in
Melody Grandy's SEVEN BLUE MOUNTAINS trilogy, and Zim eventually
succeeds in getting them to feel emotion.  So, for continuity nerds
like myself, there's somewhat of a contradiction here. Joe Bongiorno
deals with this by placing TROUBLE back in 1975 on his timeline, but I
don't know how well that works. The civilized world of TROUBLE is one
where cellular phones are common. I don't know if cell phones existed
back in 1975, but they certainly weren't that common. I'm sure Smith
was thinking of her stories as taking place pretty close to the
present day.  Perhaps a better way to reconcile the two books would be
to say that unemotional Mangaboos somehow managed to regain control of
the country in the time between Zim's last visit in DISENCHANTED
PRINCESS and the events of TROUBLE.  Perhaps, after hearing of Dori
and Rik's adventures, Zim returned to the Vegetable Kingdom to sort
things out again.>>

Hmm, that's not a bad idea. Especially as you mention the cell-phone
aspect which I'd forgotten, and which definitely doesn't fit into the
world of 1975 at all. The story is intended for at least the nineties
(I noticed that the girls had video tapes and not DVDs) so you're retcon
is a much better one. Thanks for the suggestion!

Joe

Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:29:42 EST
From: AGannaway7 at aol.com
Subject: [Regalia] TROUBLE UNDER OZ comments

TROUBLE UNDER OZ avoids the "overwhelming structural flaw" (to quote a
January 2 post of my own) of its predecessor, THE  EMERALD WAND OF OZ, by jumping
quickly into the action rather than lavishing its first 100 pages on unicorn
grooming and pre-teen angst. This is a Good Thing. Better yet, its Nome
Kingdom setting promises a large role for Rik, who was the most interesting
original character in EMERALD WAND.

The book starts off with other auspicious elements. Em is left behind in
Kansas to cover up Dori's  absence, which, as Nathan DeHoff has pointed out, is a
fun and suspense-creating element--and, I would say, the catalyst for many
of the more enjoyable moments in the book. And Sherwood Smith brings in as a
major character Inga, one of the relatively few male protagonists in Baum's Oz
books, who hasn't been seen since RINKITINK IN OZ (the "ringing tink!" on
page 155 may be a sly allusion).

The ingenuous Inga indeed works well as a subtle sort of foil for the
sarcastic Rik, with Dori serving as mediator. One could argue the existence of a
parallel between that dynamic and the one in Kansas, where Em is the link
between her estranged parents.

Smith is clearly taking cues from RINKITINK, in which Baum describes the
Nonestic's "purple waters." In TROUBLE, Smith hedges her bets a bit: the water
"looked purple" (27) and then is  "violet-blue" (43); toward the end, it is
simply "bright blue" (220).

It is nice to see Smith doing the work of including Baumian details, but
other echoes of RINKITINK prompted me to take a step back and examine this
second book of a projected trilogy in the light of what had come before--namely,
EMERALD WAND. But hold that thought for just a moment. Later in TROUBLE, Dori
and Inga undergo some of the same trials that Inga had already overcome in
Baum's book, albeit without the aid of Inga's magic pearls. All of it is
covered quite cursorily, in just a few pages. Further, there is a retread of some
of Dorothy's subterranean journey in DOROTHY AND THE WIZARD IN OZ--the Land of
the Mangaboos, the Valley of Voe--that adds virtually nothing to what we
learned of those locales nearly a hundred years ago. Melody Grandy covered some
of the DOTWIZ  ground in the first book of her own trilogy, but in a much more
interesting way. Here, it feels pretty much like a pointless rehashing, and,
what is worse, like filler. Dori and her friends had already reached the
Nome Kingdom, only to be magically diverted away by Kaliko "so he could gain
time in which to think" (111)--and, perhaps, so that Smith could fill 50 or so
pages with perfunctory visits to nary an original locale, all culled from a
book that I consider one of the worst in the series.

This brings me back to EMERALD WAND, which, as was discussed when that book
was the BCF, rehashed many of the elements of WIZARD, down to a Wicked Witch
being melted by a girl from Kansas who came to Oz via tornado. And I actually
just realized that EMERALD WAND's gecko guards remind me strongly of the
green-faced soldiers from the MGM film, which I doubt is a complete coincidence.

So, in my estimation, thus far Sherwood Smith has reinvented THE WIZARD OF
OZ in her first book and a combination of DOTWIZ and RINKITINK in her second
book. In the third book, will she reinvent the Wheelers?

But I don't wish to be snide. I simply mean that, now that I've read the
second book, I'm finding the trilogy to be more derivative than makes me
completely comfortable. "They are, after all, SEQUELS" is the predictable 
counterargument, but I think a good sequel goes a long way toward adding something to
what already exists, and Smith's revisitings strike me as the most pallid of
retreads. The brief reappearance of the freshwater merfolk (seen at greater
length in EMERALD WAND) as a creaky device for inserting a lesson about the
peaceful sharing of natural resources, and the addition of the Tasca Birds to
Voe don't really augment the mythos, in my opinion. (The Tasca Birds  themselves
seem like little more than uncomical comic relief, and their most important
function is to facilitate the loss of Inga's pearls so that they can find
them again. Inga's comments about diplomacy are considerably funnier  [171-172].)

That said, there are elements original to Smith's vision that make TROUBLE
worth the trouble (and the same goes for EMERALD WAND, as I said in that
discussion months ago). Smith maintains consistency between the first book and the
second with such details as Toto's tooth marks on the sisters' snow globe
(1--see also EMERALD WAND, p. 3) and the physical description of the menacing
clouds that seem to have something to do with Dorothy's still-unexplained
disappearance. When Em sees that, on the sign Tik-Tok holds in a snow globe
vision, "the letters seemed to dance, then reform into English" (3), there is an
echo of Em's refusal/inability to understand speaking animals and of Dori's
recognition that they aren't speaking English in Oz at the beginning of EMERALD
WAND.

As I commented when discussing EMERALD WAND,  Smith is good at inventing
names and words. The name of the Hizzers is evocative, as is the vague sense of
menace during the Hizzer attack (79-80), though it isn't revealed as such
until later (110). The Nome diet of sozzle stew  (108) and pickled wickle grub
(162) sounds right. Speaking of food, Smith's Oz seems to be vegetarian; there
isn't a single mention of meat in either EMERALD WAND or TROUBLE, in keeping
with the lack of meat (the Cowardly Lion's hunting aside) in WIZARD.

I appreciated Smith's explanation for the absence of Nome women and children
in previous books (46, 106), even though I still don't buy Ruggedo's having
a son.

Smith also fiddles a bit with some of the established details. The Waters of
Oblivion are now "the Waters of Forgetfulness" (21). Jellia Jamb, who has
always been a "maid" and a "housekeeper," is now "Ozma's steward" (23). The
Giant with the Hammer, who was "more than a hundred feet" tall in OZMA OF OZ,
now stands a full two hundred feet (49), which probably makes more sense
proportion-wise.

But the most  significant deviation involves Inga's magic pearls. In
RINKITINK, Baum consistently portrayed Inga as having to hold the white pearl to his
ear to hear its advice. In TROUBLE, Inga can somehow hear the pearl by
holding it inside his pocket (71). This is noteworthy because, in RINKITINK, Inga
had to go to the trouble of ducking away to be able to listen to the pearl,
while in TROUBLE he can very conveniently listen to the pearl in the midst of
people who don't know about his magic. While we're on the subject of the
pearls, it's puzzling that Queen Garee asks Dori to "take along the three magic
pearls for protection, as Princess Dorothy once did" (35). When exactly did
that happen? Dorothy was never in possession of the pearls during her brief
appearance at the end of RINKITINK, and the pearls never resurfaced in the
canonical series. The only other book I can think of is VISITORS FROM OZ (Martin
Gardner's dreadful novel, not Baum's newspaper series), in which Dorothy uses
the magic pearls on her trip to America. Surely Smith didn't have the Gardner
book in mind?

There is also  an interesting internal discrepancy regarding the character of
neat-freak Em. We're told that "Dori always liked to shake [the magic snow
globe] first, as if the little bits inside actually helped the magic, but Em
liked to keep it clear" (40). But later, Em "shook it up" (134). Loosening up,
perhaps?

William Stout's illustrations are as professional as ever, but this time
there are a few  more of them--thirteen, as opposed to a measly ten in EMERALD
WAND--and there are even a few that aren't stilted portraits, although the
image on page 62 may be the least inspired among the pictures from both books
combined.

A couple of random observations. Given the theory some have proposed that
the dama fruit in the Valley of Voe takes its name from an anagram of "Adam,"
who tasted the forbidden fruit in Eden, could Voe's talking bush possibly be
an allusion to Exodus 3:2-4:17 (85)? In light of the likely route of the magic
carpet from Pingaree to the Emerald City, it seems reasonable that the
patchwork castle Dori sees could be the one in the kingdom of Patch from GNOME
KING (229). I liked that the Lookout followed the Long-Eared Hearer's "Hear
hear!" with "See see!" (163).

Atticus Gannaway

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:12:01 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Re: TROUBLE UNDER OZ comments

Atticus Gannaway wrote:
> So, in my estimation, thus far Sherwood Smith has reinvented THE WIZARD OF
> OZ in her first book and a combination of DOTWIZ and RINKITINK in her second
> book. In the third book, will she reinvent the Wheelers?
>
> But I don't wish to be snide. I simply mean that, now that I've read the
> second book, I'm finding the trilogy to be more derivative than makes me
> completely comfortable. "They are, after all, SEQUELS" is the predictable 
> counterargument, but I think a good sequel goes a long way toward adding something to
> what already exists, and Smith's revisitings strike me as the most pallid of
> retreads.

Latter-day sequel writers might feel more pressure to revisit elements
of the original book(s) in order to establish their bona fides. "See, I
know about the Mangaboos!"

In contrast, original authors might prefer to do new things in their
sequels, so as to show they've got more than one idea--or perhaps
they're simply less intimidated about trying something new since they
created the world in the first place. "I can make everyone immortal if I
choose, thank you very much."

> I liked that the Lookout followed the Long-Eared Hearer's "Hear
> hear!" with "See see!" (163).

Interesting. We haven't seen the Lookout since RINKITINK, which of
course was drafted even before OZMA. His function was replaced by a
telescope in TIK-TOK (published before RINKITINK, I acknowledge) and
SILVER PRINCESS.

I still have yet to see a copy of TROUBLE despite a few visits to
bookstores. Hope springs eternal, though.

J. L. Bell         JnoLBell at earthlink.net

  Musings about some of my favorite
   fantasy literature for young readers.

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:17:25 -0500
From: "Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Re: TROUBLE UNDER OZ comments

On 11/26/06, AGannaway7 at aol.com <AGannaway7 at aol.com> wrote:
> Smith is clearly taking cues from RINKITINK, in which Baum describes the
> Nonestic's "purple waters." In TROUBLE, Smith hedges her bets a bit: the water
> "looked purple" (27) and then is "violet-blue" (43); toward the end, it is
> simply "bright blue" (220).

I believe Thompson refers to the ocean as blue in GNOME KING, although
it apparently looks green near Jinnicky's castle.  I've always kind of
assumed that Neill's references to the ocean as pink in LUCKY BUCKY
were based on a misremembering of RINKITINK's purple. (If Neill had
re-read RINKITINK shortly before writing BUCKY, that could also
explain the cameo appearance by King Rinkitink himself, as well as
Kaliko's openly antagonistic personality. But I'm supposed to be
talking about TROUBLE, not BUCKY, so I'll leave that topic alone
unless someone else wants to discuss it further.)

> It is nice to see Smith doing the work of including Baumian details, but
> other echoes of RINKITINK prompted me to take a step back and examine this
> second book  of a projected trilogy in the light of what had come before--namely,
> EMERALD WAND. But hold that thought for just a moment. Later in TROUBLE, Dori
> and Inga undergo some of the same trials that Inga had already overcome in
> Baum's book, albeit without the aid of Inga's magic pearls. All of it is
> covered quite cursorily, in just a few pages. Further, there is a retread of some
> of Dorothy's subterranean journey in DOROTHY AND THE WIZARD IN OZ--the Land of
> the Mangaboos, the Valley of Voe--that adds virtually nothing to what we
> learned of those locales nearly a hundred years ago.

The Giant with the Hammer also makes a return appearance. In a way, I
like it when authors revisit territory that had already been covered
in previous books. Considering how many Oz books there are where
characters cover pretty much the same ground but encounter totally
different people and layouts (okay, I don't think there are THAT many
books that do that, but there are some), Smith's level of consistency
and attention to detail is admirable. Still, I agree that Dori and
Rik's visit to the Mangaboos added very little to the story.

> The brief reappearance of the freshwater merfolk (seen at greater
> length in EMERALD WAND) as a creaky device for inserting a lesson about the
> peaceful sharing of natural resources, and the addition of the Tasca Birds to
> Voe don't really augment the mythos, in my opinion.

I don't think it makes that much sense for there to be mermaids in the
Vegetable Kingdom or visible animals in Voe, anyway.

> Smith also fiddles a bit with some of the established details. The Waters of
> Oblivion are now "the Waters of Forgetfulness" (21).

Yes, but the earlier authors were prone to change the names of things
pretty often themselves, so I can't really fault Smith for this.

> Jellia Jamb, who has always been a "maid" and a "housekeeper," is now "Ozma's steward" (23).

I actually didn't notice that while reading TROUBLE. It's kind of
interesting in light of the DOTWIZ retreads, since I believe DOTWIZ is
the only book in which Ozma's palace steward actually appears, and
he's clearly a different character than Jellia.

> In light of the likely route of the magic
> carpet from Pingaree to the Emerald City, it seems reasonable that the
> patchwork castle Dori sees could be the one in the kingdom of Patch from GNOME
> KING (229).

Yes, I thought the same thing, and I was wondering whether anyone else did.

On 11/27/06, J. L. Bell <jnolbell at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Interesting. We haven't seen the Lookout since RINKITINK, which of
> course was drafted even before OZMA. His function was replaced by a
> telescope in TIK-TOK (published before RINKITINK, I acknowledge) and
> SILVER PRINCESS.

I believe you might actually be thinking of WISHING HORSE. The Nomes
don't appear in SILVER PRINCESS.

> I still have yet to see a copy of TROUBLE despite a few visits to
> bookstores.

I bought EMERALD WAND at Books of Wonder, but I seem to recall seeing
it in a few bookstores closer to home after purchasing it. I thought
that the local Borders might carry TROUBLE, but it didn't. I ended up
ordering the book on Amazon.

Nathan

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:07:09 -0600
From: "Ruth Berman" <berma005 at umn.edu>
Subject: [Regalia] water & names

"Nathan DeHoff" <fablesto at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe Thompson refers to the ocean as blue in GNOME KING, although it
> apparently looks green near Jinnicky's castle. I've always kind of
> assumed that Neill's references to the ocean as pink in LUCKY BUCKY were
> based on a misremembering of RINKITINK's purple. <

These changes aren't necessarily contradictions, though. Any body of water
will vary in color depending on the time of day, presence or absence of
clouds and wind, and angle of sight. A more permanent color will be around
if the sand or rock at the bottom is a dark color, or if the water is badly
polluted with run-off from shore, but otherwise the apparent color will vary
a lot.

> the earlier authors were prone to change the names of things pretty often
> themselves <

The variety of names for the Wogglebug's college may be the most striking
example -- not to mention, in the Nonestic context, Neill's Nonentic!

Ruth Berman

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:29:06 -0700 (MST)
From: "Ivan Van Laningham" <ivanlan at pauahtun.org>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] water & names

Hi All--
Ruth Berman wrote:
> > These changes aren't necessarily contradictions, though. Any body of
> water will vary in color depending on the time of day, presence or
> absence of clouds and wind, and angle of sight. A more permanent color
> will be around if the sand or rock at the bottom is a dark color, or if
> the water is badly polluted with run-off from shore, but otherwise the
> apparent color will vary a lot.
>

Something that's brought vividly home when flying over the shoreline of
the Great Salt Lake. I wouldn't have believed the number of colors
present if someone had told me about them.  But I never had any trouble
with various Oz book authors' color descriptions of water, only with the
few that tried to claim everything was purple in Gillikin land, for
example.

While I tend to agree that the visit to the Mangaboos in TROUBLE was
unnecessary, I did kind of like the conflict over the lake. I've always
found the Mangaboos to be some of the creepiest characters in Oz, and this
visit certainly fed my prejudice. ;-)

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: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:12:54 -0700 (MST)
From: "Ivan Van Laningham" <ivanlan at pauahtun.org>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] Glinda's aerial chariot

Hi All--
I don't think we're through with TROUBLE yet, so I'd rather not start on
SANTA yet.

Chris, have you read TROUBLE? Any thoughts? While I agree with Ruth that
it's not a very Ozzy book (neither was the Emerald Wand, its predecessor),
I did like it overall. Rik comes across, to me at least, as shallow and
sneaky, not likeable. Why do others think he is likeable?

Metta,
Ivan

> If you mean LIFE AND ADVENTURES OF SANTA CLAUS, I'm all for a discussion
> of it.
>
--
Ivan Van Laningham
God N Locomotive Works

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

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:23:06 EST
From: AGannaway7 at aol.com
Subject: [Regalia] The TROUBLE with Rik

On 12/7/06, Ivan Van Laningham wrote:

<<Chris, have you read TROUBLE? Any thoughts? While I agree with Ruth that
it's not a very Ozzy book (neither was the Emerald Wand, its predecessor),
I did like it overall. Rik comes across, to me at least, as shallow and
sneaky, not likeable. Why do others think he is likeable?>>

Did anyone really say that Rik is "likeable"? I remember that, back during 
EMERALD WAND discussion, you said you "liked Rik all right," but I took that 
more as your finding the character worth reading about than as a desire to chum
around with him. During the current discussion, I called him "the most 
interesting original character in EMERALD WAND." Certainly he's "shallow and 
sneaky," but that's what makes him intriguing. Rik's sour reactions to the other 
characters are among the best moments in both EMERALD WAND and TROUBLE. He's
certainly more fun to read about than Inga, which Smith implies through
Dori's reactions to Inga on pages 45 and 137 of TROUBLE.

I can't say I find Rik's father "likeable," either, but I certainly enjoy 
him as a character who causes complications. Because of that fondness, I 
(over)used him a lot in my earliest Oz scribblings.

Atticus Gannaway

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:48:25 -0600
From: "Chris Gembara" <teine_sionnic at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [Regalia] The TROUBLE with Rik

>He's [Rik is] certainly more fun to read about than Inga, which Smith
>implies through
>Dori's reactions to Inga on pages 45 and 137 of TROUBLE.
>
>I can't say I find Rik's father "likeable," either, but I certainly enjoy
>him as a character who causes complications. Because of that fondness, I
>(over)used him a lot in my earliest Oz scribblings.
>
>Atticus Gannaway

Inga, the one that Baum wrote about, seems like a bit of a Gary Stu to me--a
character that is just too perfect or too wholesome. But then again, with
all of the corrupt or silly characters in RINKITINK, there needed to be a
wholesome, goody-two-shoes character. I assume the same for Smith's Inga.

I couple easily see Ruggedo stepping in for Santa Claus. An angry, impatient
Santa Claus, but one nonetheless. Even Baum thought Ruggedo would make a
good Santa. He has all those ornaments in his treasure room; they could be
turned into toys for children. Maybe some flying reindeer made out of tin by
Tinker & Smith, perhaps?

Chris Gembara

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:15:00 -0500
From: "J. L. Bell" <jnolbell at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Regalia] Inga and Rik

Chris Gembara wrote:
<<Inga, the one that Baum wrote about, seems like a bit of a Gary Stu to
me--a character that is just too perfect or too wholesome.>>

Even Baum felt the need to apologize for Inga's wholesomeness in RINKITINK:
+++++++++
You must not think that Inga was a molly-coddle or a
prig, because he was so solemn and studious. Being a
King's son and heir to a throne, he could not play with
the other boys of Pingaree, and he lived so much in the
society of the King and Queen, and was so surrounded by
the pomp and dignity of a court, that he missed all the
jolly times that boys usually have. I have no doubt
that had he been able to live as other boys do, he
would have been much like other boys; as it was, he was
subdued by his surroundings, and more grave and
thoughtful than one of his years should be.
+++++++++

Inga is, I believe, unique among Baum's young fantasy heroes in being a
prince groomed to become king. There are some boys who become king
unexpectedly (Tip, Bud), and some king's sons who will never become king
(the princes of Mo, Pon). But we hardly meet Evardo XV, the only other
 royal heir I can think of now.

Like others, I found Rik to be the most intriguing character in EMERALD
WAND, though I wouldn't want to spend much time with him.

J. L. Bell         JnoLBell at earthlink.net

  Musings about some of my favorite
  fantasy literature for young readers.

Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 09:47:25 -0700
From: Ivan Van Laningham <ivanlan at pauahtun.org>
Subject: Re: [Regalia] PURPLE PRINCE essay/TROUBLE UNDER OZ/JL Bell's Essay

Hi All--

Re TROUBLE UNDER OZ:

Atticus wrote:

> Did anyone really say that Rik is "likeable"? I remember that, back during 
> EMERALD WAND discussion, you said you "liked Rik all right," but I took that 
> more as your finding the character worth reading about than as a desire to chum
> around with him.

Yeah, I misspoke. But rereading what I said earlier, and thinking more
about the two books, I think I would say that I thought Rik interesting
and, yes, worth reading about, in WAND, but that in the first book he
was under-used. In TROUBLE, he played more of a part but I liked him
less and found him less interesting:  He comes across, to me at least,
as more of a cliched character than an original creation.

I did get more of a sense of the girls' characters in this second book,
however.

If there are any other final thoughts on TROUBLE, we have today and
tomorrow to finish up: Monday we begin SANTA.

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

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